The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFile 2 of 3 Pub Hear Five Redevelopment Plan Merger-FEIR 96- Inc CITY OF HUNTINGTONEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK February 7, 1997 s City Clerk returned the County Clerk's phone call regarding ordinance received from Economic Development by certified mail. City Clerk requested County Clerk to forward to the Auditor/Controller and County Assessor as the County Clerk stated the ordinance did not belong in her office. City Clerk informed Economic Development Director by voice mail of this action and requested he make a note to his file also. �u (Telephone:714.536-5227) I � u i�PGrj �S G�vn2 r S drZa h � - Y ° it CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �C1�M To Connie Brockway, City Clerk _ a From David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development Date February 11, 1997 SUBJECT Procedual Requirements of Ordinance No. 3343 Pursuant to your note of 4 February 1997, accompanied by a copy of Ordinance Number 3343 regarding the amendment of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan, we can provide the following information. • The Agency has received the certified copy of the Ordinance required to be provided by the City Clerk on 17 December 1996 (Ord. Section 7). On behalf of the City Clerk, the Agency's consultant, RSG, Inc., delivered a copy of the legal description of the project area to the County Recorder's { Office on 17 December 1996 (Ord. Section 8). • As a reminder, Agency staff has corresponded with the Director of Community Development regarding the requirement for that Department to advise all applicants for a building permit on sites within the project area of the existence of the project area. This requirement will continue for two (2) years following the effective date of the ordinance (by memo dated 18 December 1996) (Ord. Section 9). • On behalf of the City Clerk, the Agency's consultant, RSG Inc., prepared notices dated 17 December 1996 to the State Board of Equalization, County of Orange, and all other affected taxing entities of the adoption of the Ordinance (Ord. Section 10). hope this helps to reassure that the procedural steps required by Ordinance No. 3343 have been completed. If you have questions, please call. DCB:SVK:Ib , ORDINANCE NO. 3343 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE MERGER OF AND AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE HUNTINGTON CENTER, MAIN-PIER, OAKVIEW, TALBERT-BEACH AND YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS INCORPORATED INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2576 on September 20, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project; and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2577 on September 20, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and The.City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578 on September 20, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project, and thereafter on September 6, 1983 by Ordinance No. 2634 amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Project; and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2582 on November 1, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project, and thereafter on July 5, 1989 by Ordinance No. 3002 amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Project; and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2743 on November 26, 1984 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project; and The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") desire to amend and merge the Yorktown-Lake, Talbert-Beach, Main-Pier, Oakview and Huntington Center Redevelopment Projects (the "Constituent Projects") and create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Project"), which will be of substantial benefit and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare, will contribute to the revitalization of the blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of the areas and through increased and improved housing opportunities in or near the areas; and The Agency has formulated and prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project(the "Redevelopment Plan") which 1 SF1s-PCD.0rdinance:Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 provides for the following redevelopment plan amendments and merger(the "Merger Amendments"): Merges the redevelopment plans for the Constituent Projects into a single redevelopment plan ("Plan") to be designated as the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and Project Area; increases the dollar limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Project and eliminates all preexisting annual limits; increases the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time; extends the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness on behalf of the Project; on a selective basis, extends the time frame within which the Agency may employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas and rescinds Resolution 48; extends the time periods within which the Agency may undertake redevelopment activities and receive tax increment; and expands the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the Agency may undertake within the Project Area; and In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et sea•, ("CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and environmental procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto, the Agency prepared and circulated for public review and comment a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Draft EIR") for the proposed Project Area; and After a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR and the incorporation of comments and recommendations received and Agency responses thereto into a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR"), the Agency by Resolution certified that the Final EIR was prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA and State and local guidelines and procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and The Planning Commission made its Report and Recommendation on the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and The Agency submitted the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council, together with the Report to the City Council which includes: the reasons for selecting the proposed Project, including a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project at the time of adoption of the Constituent Project Plans; a discussion of Agency accomplishments to improve or alleviate the conditions of blight in the Constituent Project Areas; a description of current physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area causing blight, including confirmation that the Project remains urbanized; a description of projects proposed to alleviate the remaining conditions of blight; an explanation of why the elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the use of financing alternatives other than a tax increment financing; the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area and an assessment of the economic feasibility of the proposed Plan, and the need for a provision for the division of taxes pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law; a description of how the proposed 2 SF/s:PCD:Ordinance•Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 projects will improve or alleviate conditions of physical and economic blight; a method and Plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities as a result of the proposed Amended Plan; an analysis of the Preliminary Plan; the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission; a summary record of the proceedings; the Final EIR; the report of the County Fiscal Officer and the Agency's analysis thereof, a summary of consultations with taxing agencies; and a Neighborhood Impact Report; and The City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on November 18, 1996 to consider the approval and adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area; and Notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavits of publication are on file with the City Clerk; and Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed to residential and business tenants and to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area by first class mail; and Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which levies taxes upon property in the Project Area; and The Agency has adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve and adopt the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and The Agency and the City Council certified that the information contained in the Final EIR had been reviewed and considered, made all necessary findings and determinations, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Reporting and Monitoring Program for Implementation of Mitigation Measures, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; and The City Council has considered the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Agency's Report to the City Council, other recommendations of the Agency, the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission, the economic feasibility of the proposed Redevelopment Plan , and the Final EIR; has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for and against any and all aspects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, including environmental impacts; and has responded in writing to each written objection of each affected property owner or taxing entity. 3 SF/s-PCD:Ord in ance:Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area, and each Constituent Project are to achieve the following goals and objectives with respect to the Project Area: a. Eliminate and prevent the spread of conditions of blight including: underutilized properties and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, deficient infrastructure and facilities, obsolete structures, and other economic deficiencies in order to create a more favorable environment for commercial, office, industrial, residential, and i recreational development. b. Expand the commercial base of the Project Area. C. Improve public facilities and public infrastructure. d. Improve inadequate drainage infrastructure. e. Improve and/or provide electric, gas, telephone, and wastewater infrastructure to both developed and undeveloped properties within the Project Area. f. Promote local job opportunities. g. Encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, businesses, business persons, public agencies, and community organizations in the redevelopment/revitalization of the Project Area. h. Implement design and use standards to assure high aesthetic and environmental quality, and provide unity and integrity to developments within the Project Area. i. Address parcels of property that are: of irregular form and shape, are inadequately sized for proper usefulness and development, and/or are held in multiple ownership. j. Remove impediments to land disposition and development through the assembly of property into reasonably sized and shaped parcels served by improved infrastructure and public facilities. k. Recycle and/or develop underutilized parcels to accommodate higher and better economic uses while enhancing the City's financial resources. 4 SF/s:PCD.Ordinance:Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 I. Promote the rehabilitation of existing housing stock. M. Increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. SECTION 2. The Merger Amendments to the Constituent Projects, as incorporated in that certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project,"the Project Area Maps and Legal Descriptions contained therein, and such other documents as are incorporated therein by reference, are hereby approved and adopted and are hereby incorporated in this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof, and the Merger Amendments and the Redevelopment Plan are hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the official redevelopment plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on substantial evidence in the record including, but not limited to, the Agency's Report to Council, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan held on November 18, 1996 that: a. The Project Area, which includes the Constituent Projects, continues to be blighted. The redevelopment of the Project Area is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et sea.). The Huntington Center Area includes office and retail uses, including the 960,000 square foot Huntington Beach Mall. The Mall comprises 58 acres, or 36.3% of the total acreage of the Huntington Center Area. A 24% drop of assessed values in this area between 1990 and 1996 has undercut the Agency's ability to fund needed improvements. This funding shortfall, coupled with an inability to incur debt after November 1996, inhibit the Agency's ability to remove blighting conditions of the increasingly obsolete and deteriorating Mall, traffic congestion on Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue and Beach Boulevard, and awkward lot configurations on Edinger. Taxable sales decreased nearly 32.3% between 1992 and 1995. Declining Mall sales also impact nearby retail uses along the Edinger Avenue Corridor. The Mall is characterized by a deteriorating facade and parking lot. There is a 50% vacancy of the in-line stores. The new owner of the Broadway anchor-store space has announced its closing, and the prospects of finding a new tenant that could utilize the space is discouraging. Tenants are only signing short-term leases and most in-line stores are leased on a month-to-month basis. 5 SF1s:PCD:0rdinance:Mergredv 1116/96-#2 RLS 96-781 The property owner is constrained from making major modifications to the Mall structure to accommodate new tenants due to the Mall's construction. The Agency desires to assist a major renovation of the Mall that will reposition the Mall and reestablish its economic viability. The repositioning of the Mall cannot be undertaken in the absence of the proposed Amendment/Merger because the cost would exceed the revenues available to the Agency under the Constituent Plan. Despite the 1989 amendment of the original Constituent Plan for the Oakview Area which provided greater capability to the.Agency to enact redevelopment programs, the following conditions have not been eliminated since its adoption in 1983: rampant crime, widespread deterioration of residences due to poverty, over-crowding, neglect and vandalism, and inadequate public infrastructure. The Oakview Area continues to have the highest crime rate in the City. The Area is still blighted by the existence of buildings and structures in varying states of deterioration and dilapidation, including the need for rehabilitation and repairs to damaged sidings, weathered roofs, deteriorating walkways and driveways, and old fencing; the existence of substandard design of lots; the existence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities, including the repair and replacement of local roads, improvements to alley surfaces, the provision of wheelchair access ramps for the disabled, and the improvement to storm drains and other facilities. Other public improvement deficiencies include congested traffic on Beach Boulevard and at the intersection of Warner Avenue/Beach Boulevard. The area is plagued with abnormally high business vacancies. Assessed values of property in the Area have consistently declined over the last five years, while values in the City and County have remained stable. Despite the Agency's best efforts, many of blighting conditions persist in the 336-acre Main-Pier Area, including: deteriorating, aging, and seismically unsafe commercial buildings and housing units; narrow lots under mixed ownership that complicate the ability of the private sector to acquire and consolidate properties; and antiquated street, water, storm drainage and sewer systems. The Area is still blighted by the existence of buildings and structures in varying states of deterioration and dilapidation, including the need for rehabilitation and repairs to rotted wood sidings and porches, missing windows and doors, aging roofs and wood decay and peeling paint; the lack of landscaping, paved driveways and an adequate buffer from an oil storage tank on an adjoining lot; deterioration due to deferred maintenance and the need for repainting and repairs to weathered eaves. Older retail and mixed use buildings are of defective design and physical construction; mixed retail and residential uses are of substandard design and dilapidated; and sites exist with toxic and hazardous waste contamination. Leasing rates for older retail space in the Area are 60-75% 6 SF/s:PCD.Ordinance-Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 below newer adjacent retail space causing property values to decline. According to the County Assessor, 39.1% declined in assessed value between 1992-93 and 1995-96. The 70-year old storm drainage system in the Main-Pier Area continues to need improvements. In addition, other public infrastructure is also deficient, including water, street and sewer systems. b. The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the California Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained by a program of redevelopment activities proposed by the Agency that will systematically address the conditions of blight within the Project Area; offer financial assistance for rehabilitation and conservation of structures in need of slight or moderate rehabilitation, coupled with selective property acquisition, demolition and relocation as necessary to remove the conditions of buildings suffering from deterioration and dilapidation and defective design and character of physical construction; improve traffic circulation deficiencies by reconstruction and construction of streets, and intersection capacity improvements; acquisition of lots of irregular form, shape and size for assembly into parcels suitable for development; selectively acquire key properties, with demolition and relocation as needed, to solve the problem of mixed character of building and shifting uses; alleviate blighting influences in the Project Area to create an investment environment in which property owners and private developers have the incentive and means to redevelop their properties; alleviate current constraints to rehabilitation and development in the Project Area; alleviate obstacles that currently exist to new development in commercial and industrial sectors through the Agency's public improvements program; and, stimulate the job producing economy in the Project Area by creating more employment opportunities for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor forces. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. The Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance project implementation activities with financial assistance from the City, State, Federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency bonds, donations, loans from private financial institutions, the lease or sale of Agency-owned property, participation in development or any other available sources, both public or private. The determination of financial feasibility is based on a projection of assumed annual resources and expenditures spanning the remaining time during which tax increment may be allocated 7 SF/s:PCD:Ordinance:Mergredv 1116/96-#2 RLS 96-781 to the Agency from the Project. The analysis provides a method for determining the economic feasibility or sufficiency of resources to complete the proposed Implementation Program on an annual as well as an aggregate basis, and demonstrates the effects of inflation on the annual program costs to the Agency. The cash flow portrayal of economic feasibility for the Implementation Program attempts to show the use of future resources under the existing tax increment limitation and the use of future resources once the tax increment limitation is revised from a specific amount to a definite period of time. d. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City, including, but not limited to, the Housing Element, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the fact that the land use and land use controls of the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan are consistent. e. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City, and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. Redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employment opportunities. f. The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan , and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. The Agency may acquire real property, any interest in property, and any improvements on property within the Project Area by condemnation with the following exceptions: i. Within the Yorktown-Lake Area and the Talbert-Beach Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire properly by condemnation. ii. Within the Main-Pier Area (Original and Added), the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire, by condemnation, property on which any persons legally reside. This limitation shall supersede any and all previous limitations on the Agency's power of eminent domain within the Main-Pier Areas including, but not limited to, Agency Resolution No. 48. 8 SF/s,PCD:Ord inance-Merg redv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 iii. Within the Oakview Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire, by condemnation, property which is excluded from the Oakview Public Acquisition Map incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan as Exhibit"D." iv. Agency Resolution No. 48, adopted on September 7, 1982, including any amendments thereto, is hereby repealed by this Ordinance. g. The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from the Project Area. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the j adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law. i i The Agency has a comprehensive program for the relocation of persons, families, businesses or tenants displaced by Agency project activities. When such displacement occurs, the Agency will provide persons, families, business owners and tenants displaced by Agency activities with monetary and advisory relocation assistance consistent with the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260 et seq.), the State Guidelines adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, Relocation Assistance Rules adopted by the Agency and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. h. There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low- or moderate-income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law. No person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit until suitable relocation housing is available for occupancy, and that such housing must meet the standards established in State law and regulations. In addition, the Agency's program includes provisions for the replacement of low and moderate income housing removed from the market as a result of Agency activities. i. All noncontiguous areas of the Project Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of 9 SF/s:PCD:Ordinance:Mergredv 1216/96-#2 RLS 96-781 obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial justification for their inclusion. The Project Area is comprised of five noncontiguous Constituent Project Areas and is not an initial adoption of a project, but an amendment and merger of five previously adopted redevelopment plans to complete the redevelopment of the areas already begun. Blight in each Constituent Project was determined during the prior adoption of each separate redevelopment plan. This Redevelopment Plan is a compilation and continuation of implementation of the five prior plans. j. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. The Project is a compilation and continuation of the implementation and completion of five previously adopted redevelopment plans. k. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Significant blight remains within the Project Area and the blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and an increase in the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency. The continued existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, and the inability of individual owners and developers to economically remove these blighting influences requires substantial assistance from the Agency. The private sector investment in the Project Area will require significant public sector subsidy. Acting alone, the private sector has not been willing or able to stem or reverse the conditions of blight. In order to correct these physical and economic conditions, the Agency needs additional financial resources, the ability to issue more bonded indebtedness, expand the lists of public projects and to assemble property for redevelopment. Under the limitations of the Constituent Project Plans, the Agency will not have the ability to collect sufficient tax increment, issue bonds, undertake new projects, or acquire property through the use of eminent domain necessary to complete the eradication of blight withir ;(he Project Area. Thus, it is necessary for the Agency to pursue the Amendment/ Merger to enhance its ability to meet 10 SF/s:PCD:Ordinance•Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 Project costs throughout the Project Area by merging the Constituent Projects. i I. The Project Area is a predominantly urbanized area as defined in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the fact that all property in the Project Area has been or is developed for urban uses. a M. The time limitation and the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the Redevelopment Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. An Implementation Program was developed in response to the conditions existing in the Constituent Project Areas, and is designed to alleviate these conditions and stimulate new investment. The Implementation Program seeks to complete redevelopment activities for each Constituent Project through a broad program which addresses neighborhood revitalization, commercial rehabilitation and new development, as well as business attraction. n. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three (3) years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced, and pending the development of the facilities there will be available to displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement. SECTION 4. Subject to applicable law, taxes attributable to each Constituent Project Area merged pursuant to the Ordinance which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law, pursuant express action by the Agency, may be: a. Allocated by the Agency to the entire merged Project Area for the purpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, preexisting or future indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the merged Redevelopment Project; b. Allocated by the Agency expressly to any one or more Constituent Projects. 11 SF/s:PCD:Ordinance*Mergredv 1116/96-#2 RLS 96-781 Merger of the Constituent Projects itself is not deemed to be a cross-pledge of tax increment among the Constituent Projects without specific future express action by the Agency. SECTION 5. All written and oral objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with and presented to the City Council and all written responses thereto, have been considered by the City Council at the time and in the manner required by law, and such written and oral objections are hereby overruled. SECTION 6. In order to implement and facilitate the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the City of Huntington Beach under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan . SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan . SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Orange County a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the continued redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 9. The Department of Building and Safety of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed for a period of two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Project Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. SECTION 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 8 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the Auditor and Tax Assessor of Huntington Beach County, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project area, and to the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 11. If any part of this Ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan , and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. 12 SF/s:PCD.Ordinance:Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 SECTION 12. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30 s after its ) days adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at i a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of December , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk -City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI ED D P VE Ci ra or of nonW DeveOp-nient Assistant ity Administrator 13 SF/s:PCD:Ordinance.Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 Ord. No. 3343 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) i I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd of December, 1996, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th December, 1996, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Green, Garofalo NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Julien I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on 19 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockway City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 12/17/96 e Recoraea in the county of oran ge, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlII No Fee 19960634645 2:29pm 12/17/96 005 12016646 12 33 S08 10 7.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 i WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 - 2000 Main Street' Huntington Beach, California 92648 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND WITHIN THE AMENDED/MERGED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA f AND �O STATEMENT THAT REDEVELOPMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED �fJ DATE: December 17, 1996 Via Hand Filing r��! TO: RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by Ordinance No. 3343 adopted the Amended/Merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Pursuant to Section 33373 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency submits for recordation: 1. This "Statement that Redevelopment Proce edings have been Instituted for the Project Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Lave' (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et sea.). 2. The "Description of Land Within the Amended/Merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project" set forth in the document attached hereto Attachment "A", consisting of nine (9) pages, and incorporated herein by this reference. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 h=tbch\f Ghngs i t Attachment "A" HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea I {.; _.irmerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at the northwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 107,page 18,Parcels Maps, Records of Orange County; thence North 47' 28' 13'West 20.57 feet along the northwesterly prolongation of the northerly line of said Parcel 7 to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 00° 39' 18'East 421.27 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West,as shown on said parcel map to a point, said point being the center of Section 14,lb'wnship 5 South, Range 11 West as shown on a map recorded in Book 169,pages 45 and 46,Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County. Thence South 89° 32'08'West 301.00 feet; thence South 00° 39' 35'East 545.82 feet to a tangent curve,said curve being concave northwesterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence southerly and westerly along said curve through a central angel of 44"59'42'an arc distance of 392.66 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 44° 20'07"East 94.24 feet along said tangent line to a tangent curve, said -trve being concave southeasterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet; ice southerly and westerly through a central angle of 45°00'00',an arc distance of .,01.70 feet to a point,said point being the southeast corner of the west half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West Parcel Map 81-571; thence North 89° 32' 15'East 395A7 feet to a point, said point being the southeast corner of said Parcel Map 81-571; thence South 00° 39' 35'East 150.00 feet; thence North 89° 31'55'East 109.00 feet; thence South 00'-39'35"East LM.67 feet; thence North 89* 32'04'East 156.00 feet to a point, said point being the South quarter comer of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West as shown on a map recorded in Book 22, page 18,Parcel Maps,Records of Orange County-, thence South 00° 44' 25" East 660.00 feet; thence North 89' 24'5T East 45.00 feet to a point,said point being the northwest corner of Tract 5894,as shown on a map recorded in Book 23, pages 18 and 19,Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange-County; thence North 89* 24' 50'East 1004.93 feet along the north line of said Tract W4 and the easterly prolongation of said north line to a point,said point being on the centerline of Sher Lane; . t3•^nce North 00' 44' 25'West M.00 feet; ,e North 89' 24'5T East 376.00 feet; ithence South 00' 44' 25' East 100.00 feet; HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea I (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION(con't) thence North 89°24'W East 528.96 feet; thence North 00'44'25'West 180.00 feet to the centerline intersection of Parkside Lane and' Aldrich Avenue; thence north 89' 16'15'East 685.03 feet to a point on the'section line of Huntington Beach Boulevard per Tract 417,as shown on a map recorded in Book 16,page 47,Miscellaneous Maps Records of Orange County, thence North 00*16'46'East 1275.36 feet; thence North 49° 16'37'West 900.00 feet; thence North 00°27'57'West 125.00 feet; thence North 46°55'24'West 572.85 feet; thence North 46° 19'32'West 5OL21 feet; thence North 50°25'56'West 329.65 feet; thence North 54° 14'34'West 1196.05 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Excepting herefrom that portion described as follows: Beginning at the center of Section 14,Township 5 South,Range 11 West,as shown on a map recorded in Book 169,pages 45 and 46,Parcel Maps,Records of Orange County; thence South 00'39'35'East 1220.82 feet along the west line of the southeast quarter of Section 14,Zbwnship 5 South,Range 11 West,as shown on a parcel map,recorded in Book 81, pages 12 through 14,Parcel Maps,Records of Orange County to a point,said point being on the north right-of-way line of Center Drive; thence North 89° 32'03'East 650.41 feet along the south line of Parcel 3 of said Parcel Maps to a point on a tangent curve,said curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 34.00 feet,a radial bearing through said points bears North 37°53'39'West; thence northerly and easterly along said curve,through a central angle of 52°45'42 ,an arc distance of 31.31 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence North 00*39'21'West 22.68 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the southeast and having a radius of 405.00 feet; thence northerly and easterly along said curve through a central angle of 27'23'14',an arc distance of 193.59 feet to a point of reverse curvature,a radial bearing through said point bears North 63' 16'07'West;said curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 345.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 34°21'527,an are distance of 206.92 feet to a point on a tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 82° `r.2'01'East;said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 345.00 feet; R thence northerly and westerly through a central angle 10°27'01 ,an arc distance of 62.93 feet to a point on a tangent line; F 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT , Subarea"1 ( (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (con't) thence North 18°05'W West 241.00 feet to a point on a tangent curve;said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 270.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 72°34'W.an arc distance of 342.00 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 89° 20'W West 160.28 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being convave to the northeast and having a radius of 175.00; thence westerly and northerly along said curve through a central angel of 90'00'00",an arc distance of 274.89 feet to,a point on a tangent line; thence North 00°39'35"West 64.64 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 34.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 49'09'22%an arc distance of 29.17 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 40` 11'03'East,said curve being concave to the south and having a radius of 60.00 feet; thence westerly along said curve through a central angle of 00*24'4V,an are distance of 4.03 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 47° 38' 14"East,said curve being concave southwest and having a radius 35.00 feet; Thence northerly and westerly through a central angle of 65°01'29 an arc distance of 39.72 feet to a point on a noii-tangent line,a radial bearing through said point bears North 17' 23' 15"West; - thence North 00'39' W West 30.12 feet; thence South 89°32'00'West 15.00 to the Point of Beginning. 3 r • HUNTINGTO 'BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ' Subarea Z - (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) "-- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVIEW AREA PROJECT That portion of Section 26,Township 5 South,Range 11 West in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica and the Rancho Bolsas,City of Huntington Beach,County of Orange,State of California,as shown on a map recorded in Book 51,page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder described as follows.- Beginning at the east one-quarter corner of said Section 26, thence South 89' 24' 16'West 463.11 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the east line of Keelson Lane,a street being 60 feet in_width,30 feet either side centerline,said point being the True Point of Beginning, thence along said southerly prolongation South 0°45'06'East 40 feet to the south line of Slater Avenue,a street 80 feet in width,40 feet either side of centerline; thence South 89*24'16'West 1187 feet along said south line to the west line of Tract No. 4091; thence along said west line North 0*44'31'West 700 feet to the north line of said Tract 4091; thence along said north line North 89°24'39'East 300 feet to the southerly extension of the :f west line of Oak Lane,a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; \. thence North 0°44'46'West 2041 feet along said southerly extension,the west line of Oak Lane and its northerly extension to a line parallel with and 60 feet north measured at right angles from the centerline of Warner Avenue; thence along said parallel line North 89°25'46'East 1386 feet to the centerline of Beach Blvd.,said street being 132 feet in width,66 feet either side of centerline; thence along said centerline South 0°45' le East 996 feet- thence South 89`25'00'West 283 feet; thence South 0°45' 14'East 288 feet; thence South 89° 25'00'West 20 feet; thence South 0*45' 14'East 96 feet to the easterly extension of the north line of Tract No. 8916; thence along said north line South 89' 25'00'West 576 feet to the east line of Ash Street,a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of the centerline; thence along said east line South 0°44'46'East 100 feet to a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 50 feet; thence along said curve southerly and southeasterly thru a centeral angle of 36`52' W an arc distance of 32.20 feet to a point on a reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 50 feet, a radial from said point bears North 52°23'02'East; 4 t HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT r Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVI M AREA PROJECT(cont.) thence along said reverse curve southeasterly,southerly,and southwesterly thru a central angle of 78°54'W an arc distance of 68.86 feetto a compound curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 35 feet,a radial to said point bears South 48°42'2r East, thence along said compound curve southwesterly and westerly thru a central angle of 48*11'23%an arc distance of 29.44 feetto a point on the south line of Mandrell Drive being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence along said south line South 89'29'00"West ILL feet to the east line of tract No.4301; thence along said mentioned east line South 0*44'46'East 270 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southwesterly havinga radius of 70 feet,said point being on the north line of Barton Drive and the east line of Queens Lane; thence along said curve and east line southeasterly and southerly thru a central angle of 77'44'59' an arc distance of 95 feet; thence South 0° 44' 52" East 22 feet to a curve'concave northeasterly having a radius of 70 feet; thence continuing along the east line of Queens Lane and said mentioned curve southerly and southeasterly thru a central angle of 27°38'00'an are distance of 34 feetto a reverse curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 130 feet,a radial to said point bears North 61*37'08"East; thence along saidreverse curve southeasterlyand southerly thru a centralangle of27°38'00"an are distance of 63 feet to north line of Tract 4153; thence along said north line North 89°24'35"East 125 feet to the east line of Tract 4153; thence along said east line South 0°44'W East 500 feet; thence North 89° 24' 16'East 197 feet to the east line of Keelson Lane; thence along said east line and its southerly prelongation 160 feet to the True Point of Beginniiig. 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT , Subarea 3 (fo7merly Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION TALBERT BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Those portions of Sections 35 and 26,Township 5 South,Range 11 West,in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica and Rancho Las Bolsasinthe City of Huntington Beach,County or Orange,State of Califor- nia,as shown on a map recorded in Book 51,page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section 26; thence South 89°54'23'West 1320.10 feet along the south line of said section,said south line also being the centerline of Talbert Avenue,to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 0°01'16 East 50 feetto a line parallel with and 50 feetnorth measured at right angles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue; thence along said mentioned parallel line North 89'54'23'East 800 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with 10.00 feet east measured at rightangles from the eastline of Lot No.3,Block C of Tract No.172 as shown on a map recorded in Book 12,page 21,of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County, thence along said mentioned parallel line South 0°5'37'East300 feetto a pointon a curve concave easterly having a radius of 273.00 feet; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 15°33 49"anarc distance of74.00 feet to a point on tangentreverse curve concave westerlyhaving aradius of327.00 feet,a radial to said point bears North 74' 20'34'East; thence southerly along said reverse curve through a central angle of 15°33'49"an arc distance of 88.82 feet to a line parallel with and 32 feet east measured at right angles from the west line of Lot No.82,Block C,of said mentioned Tract No.172; thence southerly along last said mentioned parallel line South 0°05'37"East 249 feetto the inter- section with the easterly prolongation of the north boundary line of Tract No.8197 as shown on a map recorded in Book 452,page 44 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said mentioned prolongation and northerly line South 89°55'44'West 822 feet to the west boundary line of said Tract No.8197; thence along said west boundary line South 00 01'16'West 690 feetto the south right-of-way line of Taylor Drive,a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence along said south right-of-way line South 89°56'05'West660 feetto the intersection with the southerly prolongation of the east line of Parcels Nos.7-10 as shown on a map filed in Book 79,page 15 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; !1 thence along said prolongation and east line North 0°01'15'East 1014 feetto a line parallel with and 335 feet south measured at right ankles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue; thence along last said mentioned parallel line North 89°56'37'East 660 feet to-the west line of x 'Fact No. 172; thence along said west line North 0° 01' 16'East 335 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 6 Ii F ' A HUNTINGTON REACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ` Subarea 4 (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA That portion-of Section 2,Township 6 South,Range 11 West,in the Rancho La Bolsas,in the City of Huntington Beach,County or Orange,State of California,as shown on a' map recorded in Book 51,page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps,in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; thence west along said centerline of Yorktown 60 feet to the west line of Main Street; thence along said west line North 50 feet to the westerly extension of the north line of Yorktown Avenue,said point being the True Point of Beginning, thence along said mentioned north line East 420 feet to a curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 850 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly along said curve thru a central angle of 38' 14'40'an are distance of 567 feet to a reverse curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 750 feet;a radial to said point bears North 380 14'4U"East; 'hence along said reverse curve southeasterly and easterly thru a central angle of 35' 46'09' a arc distance of 455 feet to the intersection with the east line of a 40 foot wide strip of land shown on the map of said Tract No. 12 recorded in Book 9,page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Orange County Recorder as S.P.RR.right-of-way; thence South 1054 feet along said east line to the easterly extension of the southerly line of Utica Street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence West 1383 feet along said easterly extension,southerly line and its westerly extension of Utica Street to the most westerly line of Main Street as shown on said mentioned map of Tract No.12; thence North 1396 feet along said west line to the True Point of Beginning. y. tie ' m HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 ' (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA That portion of Huntington Beach,County of Orange,State of California as shown on a map recorded in Book 3,page 36 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the center line intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street shown as Ocean Avenue and First Street respectively on said mentioned map; thence along the center line of Pacific Coast Highway South 48*21'42'East 37.50 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the southeast line of Lake Street; thence along said mentioned extension South 41'38'18'West 50 feet to the True Point of Beginning,said point being distant Southeast 48' 21'4r East 1655 feet along the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Sixth Street; thence continuing South 41"38'18'West 525 feet more or less along said extension to the High'Bde Line of the Pacific Ocean; thence northwesterly 910 feet more or less along said High Tide Line to a line•parallel with and 35 feet southeasterly measured at right angles from the southwesterly extension of the line of Main Street as shown on said Map of Huntington Beach; thence along said mentioned parallel line 41'38'18'West 1470 feet to a line parallel with and 60 feet southwesterly,measured at right angles from the southwesterly end of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, thence North 48°21'42'West 145 feet along said parallel line to a line parallel with and 35 feet northwesterly measured at right angles,from the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Main Street thence North 41°38' 18'East 1470 feet to the High 71de Line of the Pacific Ocean thence northwesterly 600 feet more or less along said High Tide Line to the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Sixth Street; thence along said extension and northwest line of Sixth Street North 41°38'18'East 1035 feet more or less to the intersection with the northeast line of Walnut Avenue,being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of center line,said point being distant North 41°38'18'East along said northwest line 510 feet from the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway, thence along said northeast line of Walnut Avenue South 48° 21'48'East 1330 feet to an angle point in said line,said point also being on the southeast line of Second Street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of center line; thence continuing along said northeast line South 100 09'04'East 414 feet to the southeast line of Lake Street; thence along said southeast line South 41`38'J.T West 254 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 1. a HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 1 A parcel of land situated partially in Sections 10,11,12,13,14,Township 6 South,Range 11 West, San Bernardino base and meridian,County of Orange,State of California.Said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of section corners,Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, thence North 89°37'06'East 20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 0' 40'00'East 1,320.00 feet to the point; thence South 89' 43'00'West 1,955.76 feet to a point; thence North 0' 43' 15'West 1,350.04 feet to a point; thence South 89' 43'00'West 670.00 feet to a point; thence North 0°00' 11'West 2,640.00 to a point; thence North 89° 58' 15'West 262.10 feet to a point; thence South 0° 00'00'East 294.10 feet to a point; thence North 89° 57' 13'West 375.15 feet to a point; thence South 41° 38'18'West 419.76 feet to a point; thence South 48° 21'42'East 190.00 feet to a point; thence South 41'38'W West 1880.00 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21'42'West 15.00 feet to a point; thence South 41`38' 18'West 125.00 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21'42'West 750.00 feet to a point; thence North 45° 12'51'West 400.66 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21'42'West 4255.00 feet to a point; thence South 41° 38'50'West 326.00 feet to a point; thence South 46° 30'00'East 5,628.00 feet to a point; thence North 41' 38' le East 990.00 feet to a point; thence South 48' 21'42'East 1,330.00 feet to a point; thence South 10' 09'04'East 414.00 feet to a point; thence North 41°38' 18'West 690.00 feet to a point; thence South 52' 54' 19'East 4,618.03 feet to a point; thence North 0`40'00'West 1,947.92 feet to a point; thence North 89' 36' 56'East 469.56 feet to a point; thence North 0°40'00'West 2,029.66 feet to a point; thence South 89° 37'06'West 469.56 feet to a point; thence South 0°40'00'East 50.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 9 I ORDINANCE NO. 3343 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATE: December 17, 1996 TO: DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted Ordinance No. 3343 that adopted the Amended and Merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33374, enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 3343. For a period of two years after the effective date of the above-mentioned Ordinance, all applicants for building permits in the merged Project Area, as depicted on the enclosed Project Area Maps, shall be advised by the Department of Building and Safety that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk Enclosures: Ordinance No. 3343 Project Area Maps huntbchVWmgs 1 Z a 4 rreoo. ' UAL n ~ rta .artosr� 3 o.c�+cv�'.••:i A24 wile Uuca �0.S�OKJ�Mfl4MOt acwa em 7e vex Ybbb� 3 2'iJv< I x``looco.w+wr C Abl.6 wcunwon rwatOe uw.k HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Project Area Boundaries 1 McFADDEN AVE. �Q NOT TO SCALE 40 NOT A PART HUNTINGTON VILLAGE WAY CFNTEit AVENUE p Q O J h � p v HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL - a ~ Z o � W x m x N Q in EDINGER AVE. Z W J W Q� to nQ A W]i AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) d WARNER AVE. RR DRIVE W SYCAMORE AVE. Z BELSITO DR. OA"EW CYPRESS AVE. �- PARK CYPRE55 AVE W W N w ~ ~ Z W u; Q] W N < Q = Z O .9 m S u OAIMEW MANDRMDR. XMST"C M SCHOOL G^�7 w s N BARTON DR. 0� w Zz LU Z Ln z F Z WAC.CHM W Z Q V�1Li � Q LSLATER < HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) r W J J V V Z O v a U m TALBERT AVE. w Z J N J v w V Q � ESSOCDR.IZI "" � Y t >S Q ;I.:J � 1 r_utx_vw 1 m NAPPY DR 1%./CRa.e / N TERRY NOT M SCAU PARK t t TAYLOR DR d HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 3, (formerly Talbert-Reach Redevelopment Project Area) • 1 i YORKTOWN AVE N NOT TOSGIE CIVIC CENTER WfCHITA AVE. Z VENICE AVE. LU w Q Z g Q UTICA AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 4 (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) 5 } a a at; ` ,� O `, t{ a � a a a� mmmmmmmmmmmmmm � � 0 `� �J �C�m[Dm��JmmmmmC� � ` mmmmmmmmmmmanaam D mmmmmmmmmmaammm aflmm00 mmmmmmmmmmmmmm PqtxrK cast F,pr«Ar ICE WAKWAT IKRIOtHUA01 � M AOO/1TD ft►i1Au/R Or 1 VI7 ! /AOAC CKrAN ADO/11D�pliGNt)tlt t0,/►/Z tACrK OCEM HUNTING T ON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 y (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) - ,+ r a ORDINANCE NO. 3343 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Via Certified Mail DATE: December 17, 1996 TO: STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ASSESSOR AND AUDITOR-CONTROLLER OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, AND OTHER AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted Ordinance No. 3343 that adopted the amended and merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33357, enclosed are the following documents relating to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by the City Council. 1. Ordinance No. 3343. 2. A copy of the Affidavit and Statement regarding the adopted Ordinance, including a legal description and map of the Project Area boundaries. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk Enclosures: Ordinance No_ 3343 Affidavit and Statement Project Area Map Legal Description h=thchllLhT,p i t M1 ORDINANCE NO. 3343 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATE: December 17, 1996 TO: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted Ordinance No. 3343 that adopted the Amended and Merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33372, enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 3343 as adopted by the City Council. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk Enclosures: Ordinance No. 3343 huntbchlfGLngs R ORDINANCE NO. 3343 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DATE: December 17, 1996 TO: DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted Ordinance No. 3343 that adopted the Amended and Merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33374, enclosed is a copy of Ordinance No. 3343. For a period of two years after the effective date of the above-mentioned Ordinance, all applicants for building permits in the merged Project Area, as depicted on the enclosed Project Area Maps, shall be advised by the Department of Building and Safety that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk Enclosures: Ordinance No. 3343 Project Area Maps n=ckn\ffihrkp r M 1El rq 1 O SCNE MAMft aAnt t�xo -rta y? eu+ .ouay.,w+.,►i 104.0 /.111►I[. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Project Area Boundaries WFADDEN AVE2 I S� O , N F'Plyr NOT TO SCALE �q NOT A PART HUNTINGTON VILLAGE WAY I CENTER AVENUE i 0 d Q HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL a O W > V m V2 Q W 11 I m EDINGER AVE. w Z W s a ALDRICH AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) WARNER AVE. FIR DRIVE LU SYCAMORE AVE. z g 0 BELSfTO DR. OA"EW Li Li CYPRESS AVE. w PARK CYPRESS AVE. W N w w cc W W — O w Z a P ♦J I co L t m OA 14EW MANDRELL DR. 17ta7Nrn[3E SCHOOL w z 3 N 8 NDT 10 SCALE BARTON DR. OQ w o g z z Ll w�at� w W . Q _a., LfLJ Y U SLATER AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) s f J 1 V ce O I oc m LLj lI03 TALBERT AVE. LU o V _ MEW g O 1 IN � m ,1a .. -, Q Z P_,E)tviEw- O I I HAPPY DR. j PAM(MM ' 1./CIQE N TERRY rxxToscuF PARK, _ TAYLOR DR.; HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 3 (formerly.Talbert-Beach Redevelopment,Project Area) 1 YORKTOWN AVE , N I NOT TO SCALE CIVIC CENTER WCHITA AVE. V) Z VENCE AVE. N LU N w w Z Y Li I a g Q UTCA AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 4 (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) ti k a uuuuuuuuuu mmmmmmmmmmmm�QJ � . VVD `� mmmmmmmmmmmmmm � `�" mmmmmmmmm - - O mmmmm � D . EMIDEOUDIaEMERD aammIE L�s ; maammm1ammm10mmmm IKrK COUI HG1NlAY PACK COAST HIC4 A n HLNIrlGION{I.ACH IX><'�K�fJ.01 uPTLµltR!,19l7 ,. ►AOnCOCLW ADO►ny 1p'7LNla ►ACrKOCIM I +, HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) STATE OF CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION JOHANKLEHS First District,Hayward TAX AREA SERVICES SECTION DEAN ANDAL 450 N Street,MIC:59 Second District,Stockton P.O.BOX 42879 ERNESTJ DRONENBURG JR Sacramento,CA 94279-0059 Thud District,San Diego BRADSHERMAN Telephone: (916)322-7185 Fourth District,Los Angeles FAX: 916 323-8765 December 30, 1996 KATHLEEN CONNELL Controller,Sacramento Connie Brockway City Clerk v EsORENSEN,JR. y y E'�Cuhve Director City of Huntington Beach aye P.O. Box 190, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a Dear Ms. Brockway: This is to acknowledge receipt of Ordinance No. 3343, adopting the redevelopment plan for the Amended and Merged Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Since this amendment will not modify the existing project area boundaries and will not change the existing base-year assessment roll, no action by the Board of Equalization is necessary. If you have any questions regarding this matter,please contact me at(916) 322-7185. Sincerely, ,,, J. David J. Martin, Supervisor Tax Area Services DJM:pdr cc: Orange County Assessor Orange County Auditor rdvadopt 11/93 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVIEW AREA PROJECT(coot.) thence along said reverse curve southeasterly,southerly,and southwesterly thru a central angle of 78"54'35"an arc distance of 68.86 feet to a compound curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 35 feet,a radial to said point bears South 48° 42' 23",East, thence along said compound curve southwesterly and westerly thru a central angle of 48'11'23',an arc distance of 29.44 feet to a point on the south line of Mandrell Drive being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence along said south line South 89° 29' 00"West 11.8 feet to the east line of tract No.4301; thence along said mentioned east line South 0°44'46"East 270 feet to a point on'a non-tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 70 feet,said point being on the north line of Barton Drive and the east line of Queens Lane; thence along said curve and east line southeasterly and southerly thru a central angle of 77'44'59" an arc distance of 95 feet; thence South 0° 44' 52" East 22 feet to a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 70 feet; thence continuing along the east line of Queens Lane and said mentioned curve southerly and southeasterly thru a central angle'of 27°38'00"an arc distance of 34 feet to a reverse curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 130 feet, a radial to said point bears North 610 37',08" East; thence along said reverse curve southeasterly and southerly thru a central angle of 27°38'00"an arc 'distance of 63 feet to north line of Tract 4153; thence along said north line North 89" 24' 35'East 125 feet to the east line of Tract 4153; thence along said east line South 0° 44'W East 500 feet; thence North 89° 24' 16"East 197 feet to the east line of Keelson Lane; thence along said east line and its southerly prelongation 160 feet to the True Point of Beginning. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT.PROJECT . .Subarea 3 (formerly Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Those portions of Sections 35 and 26,Township 5 South,Range 11 West,in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica and Rancho Las Bolsas in the City of Huntington Beach,Countyor.Orange,State of Califor- nia, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51,page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section 26; thence'South 89'54'23"West 1320.10 feet along the south line of said section,said south line also being the centerline of Talbert Avenue, to the True Point of Beginning;', thence North 0'01'16'East 50 feet to a line parallel with and 50 feet north measured at right angles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue; thence along said mentioned parallel line North 89°54'23"East 800 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with 10.00 feet east measured at right angles from the east line of Lot No.3,Block C of Tract No.172 as shown on a map recorded in Book 12,•page 21,of Miscellaneous Maps'in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said mentioned parallel line South 0°5'37'East 30U feet to a point on a curve concave easterly having a radius of 273.00 feet; .. thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 15°33'49'an arc distance of 74.00 feet to a point on a tangent reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 327.00 feet,a radial to said point bears North 74' 20'34"East; thence southerly along said reverse curve through a central angle of W"33'49'an arc�distance of 88.82 feet to a line parallel with and 32 feet east measured at right angles from the west line of Lot No. 82,Block C,of said mentioned Tract No. 172; thence southerly'along last said mentioned parallel line South 0°05'37'East 249 feet to the inter- section with the easterly prolongation of the north boundary line of Tract No.8197.as shown on a map recorded in Book 452,page 44 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said mentioned prolongation and northerly line South 89°55'44"West 822 feet to the west boundary line of said Tract No.8197; thence along said west boundary line South 0°01'16'West 690 feet to the south right-of-way line of Taylor Drive, a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence along said south right-of-way line South 89*56'05"West 660 feetto the intersection with the southerly prolongation of the east line of Parcels Nos.7-10 as shown on a map filed in Book 79,page 15 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said prolongation and east line North 0'01'15'East 1014 feet to a line parallel with and 335 feet south measured at right angles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue; thence along last said mentioned parallel line North 89' 56'37'East 660 feet to the west line of Tract No. 172; thence along said west line North 0° 01' 16'East 335 feet to the True Point of Beginning. HUNTINGTON'BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 4 r (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION, YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA That portion of Section 2,Township 6 South,Range 11 West, in the;Rancho La Bolsas,in the City of Huntington Beach, County or Orange,State of California,as shown on a map recorded ' in Book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps,in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; thence west along said centerline of Yorktown 60 feet to the west line of Main Street; thence along said west line North 50 feet to the westerly extension of the north line of Yorktown Avenue, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence along said mentioned north line East 420 feet to a curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 850 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly along said curve thru a central angle of 38° 14'40"an arc distance of 567 feet to a reverse curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 750 feet; a radial to said point bears North 38° 14'40"East; thence along said reverse curve southeasterly and easterly thru a central angle of 35' 46' 09" an arc distance of 455 feet to the intersection with the east line of a 40 foot wide strip of land shown on the map of said Tract No. 12 recorded in Book'9,`page'13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Orange County Recorder as S.P.R.R.right-of-way; thence South i054'feet along said east line to the easterly extension of the southerly line of Utica Street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence West 1383 feet along said easterly extension,southerly line and its westerly extension of Utica Street to the most westerly line of Main Street as shown on said mentioned map of Tract No. 12; ' thence North 1396 feet along said west line to the True Point of Beginning. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA That portion of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, page 36 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the center line intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street shown as Ocean Avenue and First Street respectively on said mentioned map; thence along the center line of Pacific Coast Highway South 48' 21' 42' East 37.50 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the southeast line of Lake Street; thence along said mentioned extension South 41° 38' 18'West 50 feet to the True Point of Beginning, said point being distant Southeast 48° 21'42' East 1655 feet along the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Sixth Street; thence continuing South 41° 38' 18'West 525 feet more or less along said extension to the High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean; thence northwesterly 910 feet more or less along said High Tide Line to a line parallel with and 35 feet southeasterly measured at right angles from the southwesterly extension of the line of Main Street as s�c:wn on said '1Iap of Huntington Beach; thence along said mentioned parallel line 41° 38' 18' West 1470 feet to a line parallel with and 60 feet southwesterly, measured at right angles from the southwesterly end of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, thence North 480 21' 42' West 145 feet along said parallel line to a line parallel with and 35 feet northwesterly measured at right angles, from the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Main Street thence North 41" 38' 18'East 1470 feet to the High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean thence northwesterly 600 feet more or less along said High Tide Line to the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Sixth Street; thence along said extension and northwest line of Sixth Street North 410 38' 18' East 1035 feet more or less to the intersection with the northeast line of Walnut Avenue, being 60 feet in width, 30 feet either side of center line, said point being distant North 41° 38' 18' East along said northwest line 510 feet from the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway, thence along said northeast line of Walnut Avenue South 48° 21' 42' East 1330 feet to an angle point in said line, said point also being on the southeast line of Second Street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of center line; thence continuing along said northeast line South 10° 09' 04' East 414 feet to the southeast line of Lake Street; thence along said southeast line South 410 38' 18' West 254 feet to the Tr,e Point of Beginning. r HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ' Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 1 A parcel of land situated partially in Sections 10, 11,12,13,14,Township 6 South,Range 11 West, San Bernardino base and meridian,County of Orange,State of California.Said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of section corners, Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, thence North 89° 37' 06"East 20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 0° 40'00"East 1,320.00 feet to the point; thence South 89° 43'00"West 1,955.76 feet to a point; thence North 0° 43' 15"West 1,350.04 feet to a point; thence South 89° 43'00"West 670.00 feet to a point; thence North 0° 00' 11"West 2,640.00 to a point; thence North 89° 58' 15"West 262.10 feet to a point; thence South 0° 00'00"East 294.10 feet to a point; thence North 89° 57' 13"West 375.15 feet to a point; thence South 41° 38' 18"West 419.76 feet to a point; thence South 48° 21'42"East 190.00 feet to a point; thence South 41' 38' 18"West 1880.00 feet to a point; thence North 48' 21' 42"West 15.00 feet to a point; thence South W 38' 18"West 125.00 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21'42"West 750.00 feet to a point; thence North 45° 12'51"West 400.66 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21' 42"West 4255.00 feet to a point; thence South 41° 38'W West 326.00 feet to a point; thence South 46° 30'00"East 5,628.00 feet to a point; thence North 41' 38' 18"East 990.00 feet to a point; thence South 48' 21'42"East 1,330.00 feet to a point; thence South 10' 09'04"East 414.00 feet to a point; thence North 41° 38' 18"West 690.00 feet to a point; thence South 52' 54' 19"East 4,618.03 feet to a point; thence North 0° 40' 00"West 1,947.92 feet to a point; thence North 89' 36'56"East 469.56 feet to a point; thence North 0° 40'00"West 2,029.66 feet to a point; thence South 89° 37'06"West 469.56 feet to a point; thence South 0° 40'00"East 50.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. ORDINANCE NO. 3343 APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Via Certified Mail DATE: December 17, 1996 TO: STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, ASSESSOR AND AUDITOR-CONTROLLER OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE, AND OTHER AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopted Ordinance No. 3343 that adopted the amended and merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 33357, enclosed are the following documents relating to the Redevelopment Plan as adopted by the City Council. 1. Ordinance No. 3343. 2. A copy of the Affidavit and Statement regarding the adopted Ordinance, including a legal description and map of the Project Area boundaries. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk Enclosures: Ordinance No. 3343 Affidavit and Statement Project Area Map Legal Description hwthch'ffAuWs Z c � a 3 g a n § �,o1C-1 1 tlt1 LWOD j ow glfpra�ww .arn. •�4 b. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Project Area Boundaries MJADDEN AVE. O w'�FQL_ NOT TO SCALE OJ/ NOT A PART HUNTINGTON VILLAGE WAY CENTER AVENUE O Q O N V Q HUNTINGTON BEACH MALL d O W > V = m v> Q m L � L EDINGER AVE- w Z cc � a ALDRK 1 AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) WARNER AVE. FIR DRfVE W SYCAMORE AVE. Z S _o BELS(TO DR OAVIEW CYPRESS AVE. PAR CYPRESS AVE. W W W W W N � W v_ 0 a z m x m OAIMEW MANDPELL DR. XMZT�C oat SCHOOL W N 8 P4:YT10SCAE J BARTON Q O W o g z 3 AC,CP4 COL LX QQ Q Y SLATER AVE. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oak-view Redevelopment Project area) w J UJ V V Z °C O V LJ Q cc co m TALBERT AVE. Z N _ m g O F I� O = Y Z I � HAPPY DR. tt i � i I�ic9QE t I` N TERRY NM YO Sr-ALE PARK I I TAYLOR DR. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 3 (formerly Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area) YORKTOWN AVE. 0 NOT TO SCALE CHIC CENTER WK3-IfTA AVE. Z W Of VEN CE AVE. v � ~ t!1 N X w w lot: Z Y a g d 3 a UTICA AVE. ham. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 4 (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) F a u a F a 4a >✓O C A mmmmmmmmmmmmaaoa � . 0 `� mmmmmmmmmmmmmm O �� O mmmmmmmmmaammmm O mmmmmmmmmmmmmm m mmmmaamma0mmmaamm Pq P�pq PH pq PH P��H pq P��q E 41 -:4 T . t44ii1ii . E p #4a111tF? E.E ftttil; . rrtrK cpAti fr 'µAr IACIfK CADA41/KJM'A YI k"*-"A1"Ach Q 1 SWIM ytnuwe t rn++c ocwa "DO^m u'nwa io,r rat ,ACYK oCtNr HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) HUN'TINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at the northwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 107, page 18, Parcels Maps, Records of Orange County; thence North 47° 28' 13' West 20.57 feet along the northwesterly prolongation of the northerly line of said Parcel 7 to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 00° 39' 18' East 421.27 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, as shown on said parcel map to a point, said point being the center of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West as shown on a map recorded in Book 169, pages 45 and 46, Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County. Thence South 89° 32' 08' West 301.00 feet; thence South 00° 39' 35' East 545.82 feet to a tangent curve, said curve being concave northwesterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence southerly and westerly along said curve through a central angel of 44' 59' 42' an arc distance of 392.66 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 44° 20' 07' East 94.24 feet along said tangent line to a tangent curve, said curve being concave southeasterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence southerly and westerly through a central angle of 45° 00' 00" , an arc distance of 392.70 feet to a point, said point being the southeast corner of the west half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West Parcel Map 81-571; thence North 890 32' 15' East 395.47 feet to a point, said point being the southeast corner of said Parcel Map 81-571; thence South 00° 39' 35' East 150.00 feet; thence North 89° 31' 55' East 109.00 feet; thence South 00° 39' 35' East 1320.67 feet; thence North 89° 32' 04' East 156.00 feet to a point, said point being the South quarter corner of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West as shown on a map recorded in Book 22, page 18, Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County; thence South 00° 44' 25' East 660.00 feet; thence North 89' 24' 50' East 45.00 feet to a point, said point being the northwest corner of Tract 5894, as shown on a map recorded in Book 23, pages 18 and 19, MisceIlaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, thence North 890 24' 50' East 1004.93 feet along the north line of said Tract 5894 and the easterly prolongation of said north line to a point, said point being on the centerline of Sher Lane; thence North 00° 44' 25' West 130.00 feet; thence North 89° 24' S0' East 376.00 feet; thence South 00° 44' 25' East 100.00 feet; r HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (con't) thence North 89° 24' 50'East 528.96 feet; thence North 00° 44' 25'West 180.00 feet to the centerline intersection of Parkside Lane and Aldrich Avenue; thence north 89° 16' 15' East 685.03 feet to a point on the section line of Huntington Beach Boulevard per Tract 417, as shown on a map recorded in Book 16,page 47, Miscellaneous Maps Records of Orange County, thence North 00' 16' 46'East 1275.36 feet; thence North 49° 16' 37'West 900.00 feet; thence North 00' 27' 57'West 125.00 feet; thence North 46° 55' 24'West 572.85 feet; thence North 46° 19' 32'West 501.21 feet; thence North 50' 25' 56'West 329.65 feet; thence North 54° 14' 34'West 1196.05 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Excepting herefrom that portion described as follows: Beginning at the center of Section 14,Township 5 South , Range 11 West,as shown on a map recorded in Book 169, pages 45 and 46,Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County; thence South 00° 39' 35' East 1220.82 feet along the west line of the southeast quarter of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West,as shown on a parcel map,recorded in Book 81, pages 12 through 14,Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County to a point, said point being on the north right-of-way line of Center Drive; thence North 89° 32' 03' East 650.41 feet along the south line of Parcel 3 of said Parcel Maps to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 34.00 feet, a radial bearing through said points bears North 37° 53'39'West; thence northerly and easterly along said curve,through a central angle of 52° 45' 42 ,an arc distance of 31.31 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence North 00° 39' 21'West 22.68 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the southeast and having a radius of 405.00 feet; thence northerly and easterly along said curve through a central angle of 27° 23' 14',an arc distance of 193.59 feet to a point of reverse curvature, a radial bearing through said point bears North 63° 16'07'West; said curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 345.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 34° 21' 52 , an arc distance of 206.92 feet to a point on a tangent curve, a radial bearing through said point bears North 82° 22'61'East; said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 345.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly through a central angle 10° 27' 01',an arc distance of 62.93 feet to a point on a tangent line; HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (con't) thence North 18° 05' 00' West 241.00 feet to a point on a tangent curve; said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 270.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 72° 34' 35', an arc distance of 342.00 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 89' 20' 25'West 160.28 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being convave to the northeast and having a radius of 175.00; thence westerly and northerly along said curve through a central angel of 90° 00' 00', an arc distance of 274.89 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence North 00° 39' 35' West 64.64 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 34.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 49' 09'22 , an arc distance of 29.17 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve, a radial bearing through said point bears North 40° 11' 03' East, said curve being concave to the south and having a radius of 60.00 feet; thence westerly along said curve through a central angle of 00° 24' 45', an arc distance of 4.03 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 47° 38' 14' East, said curve being concave southwest and having a radius 35.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly through a central angle of 65' 01' 29',an arc distance of 39.72 feet to a point on a non-tangent line, a radial bearing through said point bears North 17° 23' 15'West; thence North 00° 39' 35' West 30.12 feet; thence South 89° 32' 00' West 15.00 to the Point of Beginning. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVIEW AREA PROJECT That portion of Section 26,Township 5 South, Range 11 West in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica and the Rancho Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange,State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder described as follows: Beginning at the east one-quarter corner of said Section 26, thence South 89' 24' 16' West 463.11 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the east line of Keelson Lane, a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side centerline, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence along said southerly prolongation South 0° 45' 06'East 40 feet to the south line of Slater Avenue, a street 80 feet in width, 40 feet either side of centerline; thence South 89° 24' 16' West 1187 feet along said south line to the west line of Tract No. 4091; thence along said west line North 0° 44' 31' West 700 feet to the north line of said Tract 4091; thence along said north line North 89° 24' 39'East 300 feet to the southerly extension of the west line of Oak Lane,a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence North 0° 44' 46'West 2041 feet along said southerly extension,the west line of Oak Lane and its northerly extension to a line parallel with and 60 feet north measured at right angles from the centerline of Warner Avenue; thence along said parallel line North 89° 25' 46' East 1386 feet to the centerline of Beach Blvd., said street being 132 feet in width, 66 feet either side of centerline; thence along said centerline South 0° 45' 14' East 996 feet; thence South 89° 25' 00'West 283 feet; thence South 0° 45' 14' East 288 feet; thence South 89° 25' 00"West 20 feet; thence South 0° 45' 14' East 96 feet to the easterly extension of the north line of Tract No. 8916; thence along said north line South 89° 25' 00'West 576 feet to the east line of Ash Street, a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of the centerline; thence along said east line South 0° 44' 46' East 100 feet to a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 50 feet; thence along said curve southerly and southeasterly thru a centeral angle of 36' 52' 12'an arc distance of 32.20 feet to a point on a reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 50 feet, a radial from said point bears North 52° 23' 02' East; i Recoraea in the county of orange, California Gary L. Granville, Clerk/Recorder r ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII No Fe IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII e e05 12016646 12 319960634645 2,29pm 12/17/96 f; S08 10 7.00 27.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND WITHIN THE AMENDED/MERGED iUN T INGTON BEACH RED EvEL0PM1EN T PRV.iCCT AREA ,d AND STATEMENT THAT REDEVELOPMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INSTITUTED �r DATE: December 17, 1996 Via Hand Filing TO: RECORDER OF THE COUNTY OF ORANGE On December 16, 1996, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach by Ordinance No. 3343 adopted the Amended/Merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Pursuant to Section 33373 of the California Health and Safety Code, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency submits for recordation: 1. This "Statement that Redevelopment Proce edings have been Instituted for the Project Pursuant to the California Community Redevelopment Law" (Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et sea.). 2. The "Description of Land Within the Amended/Merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project" set forth in the document attached hereto Attachment "A", consisting of nine (9) pages, and incorporated herein by this reference. Sincerely, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk i 11 2000 Main Street � c! �� t �� Huntington Beach, CA 92648 '3f�`v7'FI3�3t3 4019ttllNtlH �e All: NL4213 A1.IJ r33hl333� huntbch\ffihngs Attachment "A" HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION Beginning at the northwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 107, page 18, Parcels Maps, Records of Orange County; thence North 47° 28' 13' West 20.57 feet along the northwesterly prolongation of the northerly line of said Parcel 7 to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 00° 39' 18' East 421.27 feet along the west line of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West, as shown on said parcel map to a point, said point being the center of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West as shown on a map recorded in Book 169, pages 45 and 46, Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County. Thence South 89° 32' 08' West 301.00 feet; thence South 00° 39' 35' East 545.82 feet to a tangent curve, said curve being concave northwesterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence southerly and westerly along said curve through a central angel of 44° 59' 42' an arc distance of 392.66 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 44° 20' 07' East 94.24 feet along said tangent line to a tangent curve, said curve being concave southeasterly and having a radius of 500.00 feet; thence southerly and westerly through a central angle of 45° 00' 00' , an arc distance of 392.70 feet to a point, said point being the southeast corner of the west half of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West Parcel Map 81-571; thence North 89° 32' 15' East 395.47 feet to a point, said point being the southeast corner of said Parcel Map 81-571; thence South 00° 39' 35' East 150.00 feet; thence North 89° 31' 55' East 109.00 feet; thence South 00° 39' 35" East 1320.67 feet; thence North 89° 32' 04' East 156.00 feet to a point, said point being the South quarter corner of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 11 West as shown on a map recorded in Book 22, page 18, Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County; thence South 00° 44' 25' East 660.00 feet; thence North 89° 24' 50' East 45.00 feet to a point, said point being the northwest corner of Tract 5894, as shown on a map recorded in Book 23, pages 18 and 19, Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County; thence North 89° 24' 50' East 1004.93 feet along the north line of said Tract 5894 and the easterly prolongation of said north line to a point, said point being on the centerline of Sher Lane; thence North 00° 44' 25' West 1W.00 feet; thence North 89° 24' S0' East 376.00 feet; thence South 00° 44' 25' East 100.00 feet; 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (con't) thence North 89° 24' 50'East 528.96 feet; thence North 00° 44' 25'West 180.00 feet to the centerline intersection of Parkside Lane and Aldrich Avenue; thence north 89° 16' 15' East 685.03 feet to a point on the section line of Huntington Beach Boulevard per Tract 417, as shown on a map recorded in Book 16,page 47,Miscellaneous Maps Records of Orange County, thence North 00° 16' 46'East 1275.36 feet; thence North 490 16'37'West 900.00 feet; thence North 00° 27' 57'West 125.00 feet; thence North 46° 55' 24'West 572.85 feet; thence North 460 19' 32'West 501.21 feet; thence North 50° 25' 56'West 329.65 feet; thence North 54° 14' 34'West 1196.05 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Excepting herefrom that portion described as follows: Beginning at the center of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West,as shown on a map recorded in Book 169,pages 45 and 46,Parcel Maps, Records of Orange County; thence South 00° 39'35'East 1220.82 feet along the west line of the southeast quarter of Section 14,Township 5 South, Range 11 West,as shown on a parcel map,recorded in Book 81, pages 12 through 14,Parcel Maps,Records of Orange County to a point,said point being on the north right-of-way line of Center Drive; thence North 890 32'03'East 650.41 feet along the south line of Parcel 3 of said Parcel Maps to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 34.00 feet,a radial bearing through said points bears North 37° 53' 39'West; thence northerly and easterly along said curve,through a central angle of 52° 45' 42 ,an arc distance of 31.31 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence North 00° 39'21'West 22.68 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the southeast and having a radius of 405.00 feet; thence northerly and easterly along said curve through a central angle of 27° 23' 14',an are distance of 193.59 feet to a point of reverse curvature,a radial bearing through said point bears North 63° 16'07'West;said curve being concave to the northwest and having a radius of 345.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 34° 21' 52 ,an arc distance of 206.92 feet to a point on a tangent curve, a radial bearing through said point bears North 82° 22'01'East; said curve being concave to the southwest and having a raiius of 345.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly through a central angle 10° 27'01',an are distance of 62.93 feet to a point on a tangent line; 2 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 1 (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (con't) thence North 18° 05' 00'West 241.00 feet to a point on a tangent curve; said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 270.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 72° 34' 35',an arc distance of 342.00 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 89° 20' 25' West 160.28 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being convave to the northeast and having a radius of 175.00; thence westerly and northerly along said curve through a central angel of 90° 00'00', an arc distance of 274.89 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence North 00° 39' 35'West 64.64 feet along said tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 34.00 feet; thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 49° 09' 22', an arc distance of 29.17 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 40° 11'03' East, said curve being concave to the south and having a radius of 60.00 feet; thence westerly along said curve through a central angle of 00° 24' 45', an arc distance of 4.03 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 47° 38' 14'East, said curve being concave southwest and having a radius 35.00 feet; ii thence northerly and westerly through a central angle of 65° 01' 29',an arc distance of 39.72 feet to a point on a non-tangent line, a radial bearing through said point bears North 17° 23' 15'West; thence North 00° 39' 35'West 30.12 feet; thence South 89' 32'00' West 15.00 to the Point of Beginning. 3 f a HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVIEW AREA PROJECT That portion of Section 26,Township 5 South, Range 11 West in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica and the Rancho Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder described as follows: Beginning at the east one-quarter corner of said Section 26, thence South 89° 24' 16"West 463.11 feet to a point on the southerly prolongation of the east line of Keelson Lane, a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side centerline, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence along said southerly prolongation South 0° 45' 06" East 40 feet to the south line of Slater Avenue,a street 80 feet in width,40 feet either side of centerline; thence South 89' 24' 16' West 1187 feet along said south line to the west line of Tract No. 4091; thence along said west line North 0° 44' 31'West 700 feet to the north line of said Tract 4091; thence along said north line North 89' 24' 39'East 300 feet to the southerly extension of the west line of Oak Lane, a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence North 0° 44'46'West 2041 feet along said southerly extension,the west line of Oak Lane and its northerly extension to a line parallel with and 60 feet north measured at right angles from the centerline of Warner Avenue; thence along said parallel line North 89° 25' 46' East 1386 feet to the centerline of Beach Blvd.,said street being 132 feet in width, 66 feet either side of centerline; thence along said centerline South 0' 45' 14' East 996 feet; thence South 89° 25' 00"West 283 feet; thence South 0° 45' 14" East 288 feet; thence South 89° 25' 00' West 20 feet; thence South 0° 45' 14" East 96 feet to the easterly extension of the north line of Tract No. 8916; thence along said north line South 89° 25'00"West 576 feet to the east line of Ash Street, a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of the centerline; thence along said east line South 0' 44' 46' East 100 feet to a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 50 feet; thence along said curve southerly and southeasterly thru a centeral angle of 36° 52' 12'an arc distance of 32.20 feet to a point on a reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 50 feet, a radial from said point bears North 52° 23'02" East; N 4 j HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVIEW AREA PROJECT(coat.) thence along said reverse curve southeasterly,southerly,and southwesterly thru a central angle of 78°54'35'an arc distance of 68.86 feet to a compound curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 35 feet,a radial to said point bears South 48° 42' 23'East, thence along said compound curve southwesterly and westerly thru a central angle of 48°11'23',an arc distance of 29.44 feet to a point on the south line of Mandrel!Drive being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence along said south line South 89° 29' 00'West 11.8 feet to the east line of tract No. 4301; thence along said mentioned east line South 0° 44' 46'East 270 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 70 feet,said point being on the north line of Barton Drive and the east line of Queens Lane; thence along said curve and east line southeasterly and southerly thru a central angle of 77°44'59' an arc distance of 95 feet; thence South 0° 44' 52' East 22 feet to a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 70 feet; thence continuing along the east line of Queens Lane and said mentioned curve southerly and southeasterly thru a central angle of 27°38'00'an arc distance of 34 feet to a reverse curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 130 feet,a radial to said point bears North 61° 37'08' East; thence along said reverse curve southeasterly and southerly thru a central angle of 27°38'00'an arc distance of 63 feet to north line of Tract 4153; thence along said north line North 89° 24' 35'East 125 feet to the east line of Tract 4153; thence along said east line South 0° 44' 58"East 500 feet; thence North 890 24' 16'East 197 feet to the east line of Keelson Lane; thence along said east line and its southerly prelongation 164 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 5 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 3 (formerly Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Those portions of Sections 35 and 26,Township 5 South, Range 11 West,in the Rancho La Bolsa Chica and Rancho Las Bolsas in the City of Huntington Beach,County or Orange,State of Califor- nia, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Section 26; thence South 89°54'23"West 1320.10 feet along the south line of said section,said south line also being the centerline of Talbert Avenue, to the True Point of Beginning; thence North 0°01'16"East 50 feet to a line parallel with and 50 feet north measured at right angles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue; thence along said mentioned parallel line North 89°54'23"East 800 feet to the intersection with a line parallel with 10.00 feet east measured at right angles from the east line of Lot No.3,Block C of Tract No.172 as shown on a map recorded in Book 12,page 21,of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said mentioned parallel line South 0°5'37'East 300 feet to a point on a curve concave easterly having a radius of 273.00 feet; thence southerly along said curve through a central angle of 15°33'49'an arc distance of 74.00 feet to a point on a tangent reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 327.00 feet,a radial to said point bears North 74° 20' 34'East; thence southerly along said reverse curve through a central angle of 15°33'49'an arc distance of 88.82 feet to a line parallel with and 32 feet east measured at right angles from the west line of Lot No. 82, Block C, of said mentioned Tract No. 172; thence southerly along last said mentioned parallel line South 0°05'37'East 249 feet to the inter- section with the easterly prolongation of the north boundary line of Tract No.8197 as shown on a map recorded in Book 452,page 44 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said mentioned prolongation and northerly line South 89°55'44"West 822 feet to the west boundary line of said Tract No. 8197; thence along said west boundary line South 0'01'16"West 690 feet to the south right-of-way line of Taylor Drive, a street being 60 feet in width, 30 feet either side of centerline; thence along said south right-of-way line South 89°56'05"West 660 feet to the intersection with the southerly prolongation of the east line of Parcels Nos.7-10 as shown on a map filed in Book 79,page 15 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County; thence along said prolongation and east line North 0°01' 15'East 1014 feet to a line parallel with and 335 feet south measured at right angles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue; thence along last said mentioned parallel line North 89' 56'37'East 660 feet to the west line of Tract No. 172; thence along said west line North 0° 01' 16'East 335 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 6 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 4 (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA That portion of Section 2,Township 6 South, Range 11 West, in the Rancho La Bolsas,in the City of Huntington Beach, County or Orange, State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 14 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the centerline intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Main Street; thence west along said centerline of Yorktown 60 feet to the west line of Main Street; thence along said west line North 50 feet to the westerly extension of the north line of Yorktown Avenue, said point being the True Point of Beginning; thence along said mentioned north line East 420 feet to a curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 850 feet; thence easterly and southeasterly along said curve thru a central angle of 38° 14'40' an arc distance of 567 feet to a reverse curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 750 feet; a radial to said point bears North 38° 14' 40' East; thence along said reverse curve southeasterly and easterly thru a central angle of 35° 46' 09' an arc distance of 455 feet to the intersection with the east line of a 40 foot wide strip of land shown on the map of said Tract No. 12 recorded in Book 9, page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Orange County Recorder as S.P.R.R. right-of-way; thence South 1054 feet along said east line to the easterly extension of the southerly line of Utica Street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; thence West 1383 feet along said easterly extension, southerly line and its westerly extension of Utica Street to the most westerly line of Main Street as shown on said mentioned map of Tract No. 12; thence North 1396 feet along said west line to the True Point of Beginning. 7 i HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA That portion of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California as shown on a map recorded in Book 3, page 36 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County described as follows: Beginning at the center line intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Lake Street shown as Ocean Avenue and First Street respectively on said mentioned map; thence along the center line of Pacific Coast Highway South 48° 21' 42' East 37.50 feet to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the southeast line of Lake Street; thence along said mentioned extension South 41° 38' 18'West 50 feet to the True Point of Beginning, said point being distant Southeast 48° 21' 42' East 1655 feet along the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Sixth Street; thence continuing South 41' 38' 18'West 525 feet more or less along said extension to the High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean; thence northwesterly 910 feet more or less along said High Tide Line to a line parallel with and 35 feet southeasterly measured at right angles from the southwesterly extension of the line of Main Street as shown on said Map of Huntington Beach; thence along said mentioned parallel line 41° 38' 18'West 1470 feet to a line parallel with and 60 feet southwesterly, measured at right angles from the southwesterly end of the Huntington Beach Municipal Pier; thence North 480 21' 42'West 145 feet along said parallel line to a line parallel with and 35 feet northwesterly measured at right angles, from the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Main Street thence North 410 38' 18'East 1470 feet to the High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean thence northwesterly 600 feet more or less along said High Tide Line to the southwesterly extension of the northwest line of Sixth Street; thence along said extension and northwest line of Sixth Street North 41' 38' 18'East 1035 feet more or less to the intersection with the northeast line of Walnut Avenue, being 60 feet in width, 30 feet either side of center line, said point being distant North 41° 38' 18'East along said northwest line 510 feet from the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway, thence along said northeast line of Walnut Avenue South 48° 21' 42'East 1330 feet to an angle point in said line, said point also being on the southeast line of Second Street being 60 feet in width, 30 feet either side of center line; thence continuing along said northeast line South 10° 09' 04' East 414 feet to the southeast line of Lake Street; thence along said southeast line South 41° 38' 18'West 254 feet to the True Point of Begin,-.;ng. 8 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 1 A parcel of land situated partially in Sections 10, 11,12, 13, 14,Township 6 South,Range 11 West, San Bernardino base and meridian,County of Orange,State of California.Said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of section corners, Sections 11, 12, 13 and 14, thence North 89° 37' 06' East 20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 0' 40' 00' East 1,320.00 feet to the point; thence South 89' 43'00" West 1,955.76 feet to a point; thence North 0' 43' 15' West 1,350.04 feet to a point; thence South 89' 43'00'West 670.00 feet to a point; thence North 0' 00' 11'West 2,640.00 to a point; thence North 89° 58' 15'West 262.10 feet to a point; thence South 0° 00'00" East 294.10 feet to a point; thence North 89° 57' 13'West 375.15 feet to a point; thence South 41' 38' 18'West 419.76 feet to a point; thence South 48° 21'42' East 190.00 feet to a point; thence South W 38' 18' West 1880.00 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21' 42' West 15.00 feet to a point; thence South W 38' 18"West 125.00 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21' 42'West 750.00 feet to a point; thence North 45° 12' 51'West 400.66 feet to a point; thence North 48° 21' 42" West 4255.00 feet to a point; thence South 41° 38' 50'West 326.00 feet to a point; thence South 46° 30' 00' East 5,628.00 feet to a point; thence North 41' 38' le East 990.00 feet to a point; thence South 480 21' 42'East 1,330.00 feet to a point; thence South 10° 09'04' East 414.00 feet to a point; thence North W 38' le West 690.00 feet to a point; thence South 520 54' 19' East 4,618.03 feet to a point; thence North 0° 40' 00'West 1,947.92 feet to a point; thence North 890 36' 56'East 469.56 feet to a point; thence North 00 40'00'West 2,029.66 feet to a point; thence So>>*.h 890 37' 06'West 469.56 feet to a point; thence South 0° 40' 00" East 50.00 feet to the True Point of Beginning. 9 Council/Agency Meeting Held: q/o,os Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's tignature Council Meeting ate: D ce ber 2, 1996 Department ID Number: ED 96-70 -5- 1- j r-�� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City AdministratoraW PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development op q SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF RESPONSE TO WRITTEN COMMENTS, INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING ORDINANCE FOR THE -13 HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT T4_,S)� ,,lo j Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The City Council will consider adoption of written responses to written objections filed at the November 18, 1996 joint public hearing and introduce and conduct the first reading of an ordinance adopting the proposed Amendment and Merger of the five existing redevelopment projects ("Amendment/Merger"). Funding Source: Redevelopment Tax Increment Recommended Action: Motion to: F 1) Adopt the attached Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach responding to and making written findings in response to written objections to the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan and Amendment and Merger of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. 2) Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving and adopting the merger and amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Huntington Center, Main-Pier, Oakview, Talbert-Beach, and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Projects, as incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Alternative Action(sl: Do not approve the Resolution. Do not introduce the Ordinance. 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 2, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-70 Analysis: With the approval of the Preliminary Plan in April 1996, the Redevelopment Agency initiated the process to amend and merge the Agency's five existing redevelopment projects (Huntington Center, Oakview, Talbert-Beach, Yorktown-Lake, and Main-Pier). If approved by the City Council, the Amendment/Merger will accomplish the following: 1. Merge the redevelopment plans for the Constituent Projects into a single redevelopment plan ("Plan") to be designated as the merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Project") and Project Area, 2. Amalgamate the dollar limits on the cumulative amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Project and eliminate all preexisting annual limits, 3. Increase the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time, 4. Extend the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness on behalf of the Project, 5. On a selective basis, extend the time frame within which the Agency may employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas and rescind Resolution 48, 6. Extend the time periods within which the Agency may undertake redevelopment activities and receive tax increment, and 7. Expand the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the Agency may undertake within the Project Area. Tonight, the City Council is scheduled to consider two items towards the adoption of the Amendment/Merger. First, the Council will consider a resolution adopting written responses to the four written objections submitted to the Council at the November 18 joint public hearing. The second item under consideration will be the introduction and first reading of an ordinance approving and adopting the Amendment/Merger. Written Responses to Written Objections: Pursuant to Redevelopment Law, if the City Council receives written objections on the Amendment/Merger from property owners or affected taxing agencies, the City Council is to adopt written responses at least one week after the public hearing. At the joint public hearing on November 18, 1996, the City Council received four written objections from property owners relating to the Amendment/Merger. No written objections were filed by any affected taxing agencies. Exhibit "A" to the accompanying resolution are written responses to the four written objections; copies of the written objections are incorporated into the written responses as Appendix "A". The written responses were formulated by staff, special Agency counsel, and RCA9670.DOC -2- 11/22/96 3:54 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: December 2, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-70 the redevelopment consultant. In general, the written responses contain or reference factual information contained in the record that refutes objections raised by the property owners. Introduction to Ordinance: If the City Council adopts the resolution approving written responses, the City Council may proceed with the first reading of the Ordinance amending and merging the redevelopment plans following the closure of the joint public hearing. The Ordinance contains the necessary findings required by Redevelopment Law, and references factual information on the necessity for the Amend ment/Merger contained in the Report to the City Council, and other items in the record. The second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for the City Council's December 16 meeting. Environmental Status: The City Council certified a program environmental impact report on the Amendment/Merger in October 1996. Attachmentlsl: City Clerk's Page Number 1. Resolution - 2. Ordinance RCA9670.DOC -3- 11/22/96 3:54 PM ORDINANCE NO. 3343 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE MERGER OF AND AMENDMENTS TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR THE HUNTINGTON CENTER, MAIN-PIER, OAKVIEW, TALBERT-BEACH AND YORKTOWN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AS INCORPORATED INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City Council") adopted Ordinance No. 2576 on September 20, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project; and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2577 on September 20, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578 on September 20, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project, and thereafter on September 6, 1983 by Ordinance No. 2634 amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Project; and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2582 on November 1, 1982 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project, and thereafter on July 5, 1989 by Ordinance No. 3002 amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Project-, and The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2743 on November 26, 1984 approving and adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project; and The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency") desire to amend and merge the Yorktown-Lake, Talbert-Beach, Main-Pier, Oakview and Huntington Center-Redevelopment Projects (the "Constituent Projects") and create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Project"), which will be of substantial benefit and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare, will contribute to the revitalization of the blighted areas through the increased economic vitality of the areas and through increased and improved housing opportunities in or near the areas; and The Agency has formulated and prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Redevelopment Plan") which 1 SF's PCD Ordinance Mergredv 1 1'&96-#2 RLS 96-781 provides for the following redevelopment plan amendments and merger (the "Merger Amendments")- Merges the redevelopment plans for the Constituent Projects into a single redevelopment plan ("Plan") to be designated as the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and Project Area, increases the dollar limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Project and eliminates all preexisting annual limits; increases the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time-, extends the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness on behalf of the Project; on a selective basis, extends the time frame within which the Agency may employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas and rescinds Resolution 48; extends the time periods within which the Agency may undertake redevelopment activities and receive tax increment; and expands the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the Agency may undertake within the Project Area; and In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., ("CEQA"), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and environmental procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto, the Agency prepared and circulated for public review and comment a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the "Draft EIR") for the proposed Project Area; and After a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft EIR and the incorporation of comments and recommendations received and Agency responses thereto into a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR"), the Agency by Resolution certified that the Final EIR was prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA and State and local guidelines and procedures adopted pursuant thereto; and The Planning Commission made its Report and Recommendation on the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and The Agency submitted the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council, together with the Report to the City Council which includes: the reasons for selecting the proposed Project, including a description of the physical and economic conditions existing in the Project at the time of adoption of the Constituent Project Plans; a discussion of Agency accomplishments to improve or alleviate the conditions of blight in the Constituent Project Areas; a description of current physical and economic conditions existing in the Project Area causing blight, including confirmation that the Project remains urbanized; a description of projects proposed to alleviate the remaining conditions of blight; an explanation of why the elimination of blight and redevelopment of the Project Area cannot reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone or by the use of financing alternatives other than a tax increment financing; the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area and an assessment of the economic feasibility of the proposed Plan, and the need for a provision for the division of taxes pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law; a description of how the proposed 2 SFIs PCD Ordinance Mergredv 1 1'6,,96-rr2 RLS 96-781 projects will improve or alleviate conditions of physical and economic blight; a method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities as a result of the proposed Amended Plan; an analysis of the Preliminary Plan; the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission; a summary record of the proceedings; the Final EIR; the report of the County Fiscal Officer and the Agency's analysis thereof; a summary of consultations with taxing agencies; and a Neighborhood Impact Report; and The City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on November 18, 1996 to consider the approval and adoption of the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area; and Notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach once a week for four successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notice and affidavits of publication are on file with the City Clerk; and Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed to residential and business tenants and to the last known assessee of each parcel of land in the Project Area by first class mail-, and Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which levies taxes upon property in the Project Area; and The Agency has adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve and adopt the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and The Agency and the City Council certified that the information contained in the Final EIR had been reviewed and considered, made all necessary findings and determinations, adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Reporting and Monitoring Program for Implementation of Mitigation Measures, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA; and The City Council has considered the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Agency's Report to the City Council, other recommendations of the Agency, the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission, the economic feasibility of the proposed Redevelopment Plan , and the Final EIR; has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard and has received and considered all evidence and testimony presented for and against any and all aspects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan, including environmental impacts; and has responded in writing to each written objection of each affected property owner or taxing entity. 3 SF/s PCD Ordinance Mergredv 11/6i96-42 RLS 96-781 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The purposes and intent of the City Council with respect to the Project Area, and each Constituent Project are to achieve the following goals and objectives with respect to the Project Area: a. Eliminate and prevent the spread of conditions of blight including: underutilized properties and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, deficient infrastructure and facilities, obsolete structures, and other economic deficiencies in order to create a more favorable environment for commercial, office, industrial, residential, and recreational development. b. Expand the commercial base of the Project Area. C. Improve public facilities and public infrastructure. d. Improve inadequate drainage infrastructure. e. Improve and/or provide electric, gas, telephone, and wastewater infrastructure to both developed and undeveloped properties within the Project Area. f. Promote local job opportunities. g. Encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, businesses, business persons, public agencies, and community organizations in the redevelop ment/revitalization of the Project Area. h. Implement design and use standards to assure high aesthetic and environmental quality, and provide unity and integrity to developments within the Project Area. i. Address parcels of property that are: of irregular form and shape, are inadequately sized for proper usefulness and development, and/or are held in multiple ownership. j. Remove impediments to land disposition and development through the assembly of property into reasonably sized and shaped parcels served by improved infrastructure and public facilities. k. Recycle and/or develop underutilized parcels to accommodate higher and better economic uses while enhancing the City's financial resources. 4 SF/s PCD Ordinance Mergredv 1 116196-#2 RLS 96-781 I. Promote the rehabilitation of existing housing stock. M. Increase, improve, and preserve the community's supply of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. SECTION 2. The Merger Amendments to the Constituent Projects, as incorporated in that certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project," the Project Area Maps and Legal Descriptions contained therein, and such other documents as are incorporated therein by reference, are hereby approved and adopted and are hereby incorporated in this Ordinance by reference and made a part hereof, and the Merger Amendments and the Redevelopment Plan are hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the official redevelopment plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on substantial evidence in the record including, but not limited to, the Agency's Report to Council, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan held on November 18, 1996 that: a. The Project Area, which includes the Constituent Projects, continues to be blighted. The redevelopment of the Project Area is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.). The Huntington Center Area includes office and retail uses, including the 960,000 square foot Huntington Beach Mall. The Mall comprises 58 acres, or 36.3% of the total acreage of the Huntington Center Area. A 24% drop of assessed values in this area between 1990 and 1996 has undercut the Agency's ability to fund needed improvements. This funding shortfall, coupled with an inability to incur debt after November 1996, inhibit the Agency's ability to remove blighting conditions of the increasingly obsolete and deteriorating Mall, traffic congestion on Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue and Beach Boulevard, and awkward lot configurations on Edinger. Taxable sales decreased nearly 32.3% between 1992 and 1995. Declining Mall sales also impact nearby retail uses along the Edinger Avenue Corridor. The Mall is characterized by a deteriorating facade and parking lot. There is a 50% vacancy of the in-line stores. The new owner of the Broadway anchor store space has announced its closing, and the prospects of finding a new tenant that could utilize the space is discouraging. Tenants are only signing short-term leases and most in-line stores are leased on a month-to-month basis. 5 SF.'s PCD Ordinance Vergredv 11,696 - *2 RLS 96-781 The property owner is constrained from making major modifications to the Mall structure to accommodate new tenants due to the Mall's construction. The Agency desires to assist a major renovation of the Mall that will reposition the Mall and reestablish its economic viability. The repositioning of the Mall cannot be undertaken in the absence of the proposed Amendment/Merger because the cost would exceed the revenues available to the Agency under the Constituent Plan. Despite the 1989 amendment of the original Constituent Plan for the Oakview Area which provided greater capability to the Agency to enact redevelopment programs, the following conditions have not been eliminated since its adoption in 1983: rampant crime, widespread deterioration of residences due to poverty, over-crowding, neglect and vandalism, and inadequate public infrastructure. The Oakview Area continues to have the highest crime rate in the City. The Area is still blighted by the existence of buildings and structures in varying states of deterioration and dilapidation, including the need for rehabilitation and repairs to damaged sidings, weathered roofs, deteriorating walkways and driveways, and old fencing,- the existence of substandard design of lots; the existence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities, including the repair and replacement of local roads, improvements to alley surfaces, the provision of wheelchair access ramps for the disabled, and the improvement to storm drains and other facilities. Other public improvement deficiencies include congested traffic on Beach Boulevard and at the intersection of Warner Avenue/Beach Boulevard. The area is plagued with abnormally high business vacancies. Assessed values of property in the Area have consistently declined over the last five years, while values in the City and County have remained stable. Despite the Agency's best efforts, many of blighting conditions persist in the 336-acre Main-Pier Area, including: deteriorating, aging, and seismically unsafe commercial buildings and housing units; narrow lots under mixed ownership that complicate the ability of the private sector to acquire and consolidate properties; and antiquated street, water, storm drainage and sewer systems. The Area is still blighted by the existence of buildings and structures in varying states of deterioration and dilapidation, including the need for rehabilitation and repairs to rotted wood sidings and porches, missing windows and doors, aging roofs and wood decay and peeling paint; the lack of landscaping, paved driveways and an adequate buffer from an oil storage tank on an adjoining lot; deterioration due to deferred maintenance and the need for repainting and repairs to weathered eaves. Older retail and mixed use buildings are of defective design and physical construction; mixed retail and residential uses are of substandard design and dilapidated; and sites exist with toxic and hazardous waste contamination. Leasing rates for older retail space in the Area are 60-75% 6 SF/s PCD Ordinance Mergredv 1 1,6,96-#2 RLS 96-781 below newer adjacent retail space causing property values to decline. According to the County Assessor, 39.1% declined in assessed value between 1992-93 and 1995-96. The 70-year old storm drainage system in the Main-Pier Area continues to need improvements. In addition, other public infrastructure is also deficient, including water, street and sewer systems. b. The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the California Community Redevelopment Law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained by a program of redevelopment activities proposed by the Agency that will systematically address the conditions of blight within the Project Area; offer financial assistance for rehabilitation and conservation of structures in need of slight or moderate rehabilitation, coupled with selective property acquisition, demolition and relocation as necessary to remove the conditions of buildings suffering from deterioration and dilapidation and defective design and character of physical construction; improve traffic circulation deficiencies by reconstruction and construction of streets, and intersection capacity improvements; acquisition of lots of irregular form, shape and size for assembly into parcels suitable for development; selectively acquire key properties, with demolition and relocation as needed, to solve the problem of mixed character of building and shifting uses, alleviate blighting influences in the Project Area to create an investment environment in which property owners and private developers have the incentive and means to redevelop their properties; alleviate current constraints to rehabilitation and development in the Project Area; alleviate obstacles that currently exist to new development in commercial and industrial sectors through the Agency's public improvements program; and, stimulate the job producing economy in the Project Area by creating more employment opportunities for skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labor forces. C. The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. The Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance project implementation activities with financial assistance from the City, State, Federal government, tax increment funds, interest income, Agency bonds, donations, loans from private financial institutions, the lease or sale of Agency-owned property, participation in development or any other available sources, both public or private. The determination of financial feasibility is based on a projection of assumed annual resources and expenditures spanning the remaining time during which tax increment may be allocated 7 SFrs PCD Ordnance Mergredv 11 6,96 -#2 RLS 96-781 to the Agency from the Project. The analysis provides a method for determining the economic feasibility or sufficiency of resources to complete the proposed Implementation Program on an annual as well as an aggregate basis, and demonstrates the effects of inflation on the annual program costs to the Agency. The cash flow portrayal of economic feasibility for the Implementation Program attempts to show the use of future resources under the existing tax increment limitation and the use of future resources once the tax increment limitation is revised from a specific amount to a definite period of time. d. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City, including, but not limited to, the Housing Element, which substantially complies with the requirements of Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. This finding is based on the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission, and the fact that the land use and land use controls of the Redevelopment Plan and the General Plan are consistent. e. The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City, and will effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment Law. Redevelopment will benefit the Project Area by correcting conditions of blight and by coordinating public and private actions to stimulate development and improve the economic and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employment opportunities. f. The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution, of the Redevelopment Plan , and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provided by law. The Agency may acquire real property, any interest in property, and any improvements on property within the Project Area by condemnation with the following exceptions: i. Within the Yorktown-Lake Area and the Talbert-Beach Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire property by condemnation. ii. Within the Main-Pier Area (Original and Added), the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire, by condemnation, property on which any persons legally reside. This limitation shall supersede any and all previous limitations on the Agency's power of eminent domain within the Main-Pier Areas including, but not limited to, Agency Resolution No. 48. 8 SF/s PCD Ordinance h1ergredv 11 r6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 iii. Within the Oakview Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire, by condemnation, property which is excluded from the Oakview Public Acquisition Map incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan as Exhibit "D." iv. Agency Resolution No. 48, adopted on September 7, 1982, including any amendments thereto, is hereby repealed by this Ordinance. g. The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from the Project Area. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law. The Agency has a comprehensive program for the relocation of persons, families, businesses or tenants displaced by Agency project activities. When such displacement occurs, the Agency will provide persons, families, business owners and tenants displaced by Agency activities with monetary and advisory relocation assistance consistent with the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260 et seq.), the State Guidelines adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, Relocation Assistance Rules adopted by the Agency and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. h. There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low- or moderate-income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law. No person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit until suitable relocation housing is available for occupancy, and that such housing must meet the standards established in State law and regulations. In addition, the Agency's program includes provisions for the replacement of low and moderate income housing removed from the market as a result of Agency activities. i. All noncontiguous areas of the Project Area are either blighted or necessary for effective redevelopment and are not included for the purpose of 9 SF/s PCD.Ordinance Mergredv 12/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 obtaining the allocation of taxes from the area pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial justification for their inclusion. The Project Area is comprised of five noncontiguous Constituent Project Areas and is not an initial adoption of a project, but an amendment and merger of five previously adopted redevelopment plans to complete the redevelopment of the areas already begun. Blight in each Constituent Project was determined during the prior adoption of each separate redevelopment plan. This Redevelopment Plan is a compilation and continuation of implementation of the five prior plans. J. Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of which they are a part, and any such area is not included solely for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclusion. The Project is a compilation and continuation of the implementation and completion of five previously adopted redevelopment plans. k. The elimination of blight and the redevelopment of the Project Area could not reasonably be expected to be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Agency. Significant blight remains within the Project Area and the blight cannot be eliminated without the establishment of additional debt and an increase in the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency. The continued existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, and the inability of individual owners and developers to economically remove these blighting influences requires substantial assistance from the Agency. The private sector investment in the Project Area will require significant public sector subsidy. Acting alone, the private sector has not been willing or able to stem or reverse the conditions of blight. In order to correct these physical and economic conditions, the Agency needs additional financial resources, the ability to issue more bonded indebtedness, expand the lists of public projects and to assemble property for redevelopment. Under the limitations of the Constituent Project Plans, the Agency will not have the ability to collect sufficient tax increment, issue bonds, undertake new projects, or acquire property through the use of eminent domain necessary to complete the eradication of blight within the Project Area. Thus, it is necessary for the Agency to pursue the Amendment/ Merger to enhance its ability to meet 10 SFIs PCD Ordinance Mergredv 11i6/96-V2 RLS 96-781 Project costs throughout the Project Area by merging the Constituent Projects. I. The Project Area is a predominantly urbanized area as defined in the Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based upon the fact that all property in the Project Area has been or is developed for urban uses. M. The time limitation and the limitation on the number of dollars to be allocated to the Agency that are contained in the Redevelopment Plan are reasonably related to the proposed projects to be implemented in the Project Area and to the ability of the Agency to eliminate blight within the Project Area. An Implementation Program was developed in response to the conditions existing in the Constituent Project Areas, and is designed to alleviate these conditions and stimulate new investment. The Implementation Program seeks to complete redevelopment activities for each Constituent Project through a broad program which addresses neighborhood revitalization, commercial rehabilitation and new development, as well as business attraction. n. The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three (3) years from the time occupants of the Project Area are displaced, and pending the development of the facilities there will be available to displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the community at the time of their displacement. SECTION 4. Subject to applicable law, taxes attributable to each Constituent Project Area merged pursuant to the Ordinance which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law, pursuant express action by the Agency, may be: a. Allocated by the Agency to the entire merged Project Area for the purpose of paying the principal of, and interest on, preexisting or future indebtedness incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, the merged Redevelopment Project; b. Allocated by the Agency expressly to any one or more Constituent Projects. 11 SF/s PCD Ordinance Mergredv 11.6i96 -92 RLS 96-781 Merger of the Constituent Projects itself is not deemed to be a cross-pledge of tax increment among the Constituent Projects without specific future express action by the Agency. SECTION 5. All written and oral objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with and presented to the City Council and all written responses thereto, have been considered by the City Council at the time and in the manner required by law, and such written and oral objections are hereby overruled. SECTION 6. In order to implement and facilitate the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, this City Council hereby declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the City of Huntington Beach under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan . SECTION 7. The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this Ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan . SECTION 8. The City Clerk is hereby directed to record with the County Recorder of Orange County a description of the land within the Project Area and a statement that proceedings for the continued redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 9. The Department of Building and Safety of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby directed for a period of two (2) years after the effective date of this Ordinance to advise all applicants for building permits within the Project Area that the site for which a building permit is sought for the construction of buildings or for other improvements is within a redevelopment project area. SECTION 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 8 of this Ordinance, a copy of this Ordinance, and a map or plat indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the Auditor and Tax Assessor of Huntington Beach County, to the governing body of each of the taxing agencies which levies taxes upon any property in the Project area, and to the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 11 . If any part of this Ordinance or the Redevelopment Plan which it approves is held to be invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance or of the Redevelopment Plan , and this Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance or approved the remainder of the Redevelopment Plan if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. 12 SF/s PCD Ordinance Mergredv 11/6/96-#2 RLS 96-781 SECTION 12. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of December , 1996. 44� Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk -City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INI ED D P VE Cit ` ' ra or �� r of noWDevel8rnAent Assistant ity Administrator 13 SF/s-PCD.Ordinance Mergredv 1116196-#2 '�, RLS 96-781 Ord. No. 3343 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd of December, 1996, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th December, 1996, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Green, Garofalo NOES: Sullivan The foregoing instrument is a correcf ABSENT: None copy -of the original on file in thil office. .Attest 19—L ABSTAIN: Julien City Clerk and Ex-officio Cieiit of t; City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of B VDeputy Huntington Beach and ex-off icio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on '19 q4 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk Connie Brockwav Citv Clerk of the City Council of the City Deputy City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California G/ordinanc/ordbkpg 12/17/96 RESOLUTION NO. 278 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING ITS REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE REPORT AND THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California("City Council") did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No. 2576 on September 20, 1982, and did thereby adopt and approve the Redevelopment Plan for the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project; and The City Council did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No. 2577 on September 20, 1982, and did thereby adopt and approve the Redevelopment Plan for the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and The City Council did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No. 2578 on September 20, 1982, and did thereby adopt and approve the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project, and amended said Redevelopment Plan by Ordinance No. 2634 on September 6, 1983; and The City Council did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No. 2582 on November 1, 1982, and did thereby adopt and approve the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project, and amended said Redevelopment Plan by Ordinance No. 3002 on July 5, 1989; and The City Council did duly pass and adopt Ordinance No. 2743 on November 26, 1984, and did thereby adopt and approve the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project; and The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") desire to consider the amendment and merger of the Redevelopment Plans for the Yorktown-Lake, Talbert-Beach, Main-Pier, Oakview, and Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Projects ("Amendment/Merger"), establishing the merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project("Project"); and A Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project as amended by the Amendment/Merger ("Proposed Redevelopment Plan")has been prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California Community Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et seq. ("Law"); and 1 SF/s:PCD:Resolution:HBRP 1011 RLS 96-757 10/11/96-#1 -r Pursuant to Sections 33352 of the Law, every redevelopment plan submitted by a redevelopment agency to the legislative body shall be accompanied by a report on the proposed redevelopment plan which contains all of the information set forth in Section 33352. The Agency has caused the Report to the City Council for the Project to be prepared in accordance with Section 33352 of the Law. NOW, THEREFORE,the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves and adopts the Report to the City Council for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, in the form attached herewith as Exhibit"A" Staff is hereby authorized and directed to transmit the Proposed Redevelopment Plan, in the form attached herewith as Exhibit`B", and the Report to the City Council for review and consideration at the joint public hearing on the Amendment/Merger. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof on the 21stday of October , 1996. Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Secretary Agency Couns 1 /o/, o G REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: old c / J Chief Administrative Officer Director of Economic Development 2 SF/s:PCD:Resolution:HBRP 1011 RLS 96-757 10/11/96-#1 Res. No. 278 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 21st day of October, 1996 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: None L� / Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. G/resoluti/resUpg2 -X717c-5 ok ,SL Redeve�op dZi bea I- ye L � m e- aS&G/ . 2 q//?S S 740 o if e- S !h'Fi n CSS ef �i 7%e- 1,-7e 14 /0 9 -St!!aly'!z_tf �j�lS.l�D - - 4l rSSC j.�_ Or%S.qb - -- --- - ------------- -- -------- .L � r � y OIl[ 7` /�e p _ -- ll /? 1 jJleee A C �`41�1 �hcLv e414 e _.. - J - 77 L�OfL 41 UC fit, l Q L P �� __ /ZR niFZFt g2� y� �Y NOV-18-86 18: 24 FROM=L.E . / COMM.DEV. ID= 310 570 6215 PAGE 1/1 fl/m/4 I,, .jam eAa ecjl November 18,1996 RECEIVED CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/ C11 Y Or NUNTIk;TCN r��r.y.�.a�i Members/Redevelopment Agency Members F. C � O 2 2000 Main Street NOV 128 Pi t9G -' Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Dear Council/Agency Members: n z As a downtown property owner, I am writing to express my support for the proposed ' Amendment and Merger of the City's five existing redevelopment project areas_ However, strongly urge the Agency/Council to review the issue of eminent domain for the proposed project area before voting on adoption of the Resolution. The two biggest incentives for having a Redevelopment Agency are. 1. to be able to utilize tax increment financing; and 2. to be able to acquire property at the fair market value from a noncooperative owners through the use of eminent domain. My understanding from reading the staff report is that the Agency will only be able to utilize its eminent domain authority for non-residential properties. ile I am sure this will make the adoption process much more palatable to the general public and negate having to set up a Project Area Committee(PAC), it really minimizes the utility of having a Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of eliminating blight. If the Agency, sUA or the development community were to prepare a "top ten list" of the best candidate properties in need of redevelopment, I am confident 416 Pacific Coast Highway (Papa Joe's Pizza) and 504 Pacific Coast Highway(El Don Liquor) would be at the top of all lists. Both of these properties are mixed-use consisting of commercial and residential and therefore, under the proposed merged project area could not be acquired by the Agency by means of condemnation, Currently the Agency owns eighty three percent of Block 105, with 416 Pacific Coast Highway (50'x 110'= 5,500 SF) sitting right in the front middle of the Agency's 72,000 SF, significantly reducing the Agency's resale value and its ability to negotiate a economically feasible development plan with a third party developer. Similar concerns exist for the property located at 416 Pacific Coast Highway. A lot of capital has been invested into the downtown by the Agency and private property owners alike, on the premise that the Agency was going to complete its goals of redeveloping the downtown. PIease keep the vision toward the future and at a minimum complete the redevelopment of the Phase II(Blocks 104 & 105) and Third Block West projects. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (714) 960- 7286. Sincerely, �� Keith B. Bohr 415 Townsquare Lane 4219 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1t-18-96 08• 04PM P 0 1 JL1�I LJI 11-16-do ; 0:4UrM ; KUTAIN & ILJLKLK•-) U;i141bb1;4 2/ 4 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A PARTNCPSHIP INCLUDING PROh Gy!&IUNAL CORPORATIONS •/AMCV R MDORC' MARCIA A rORSYTII S3El ANTON BOULEVARD, S1,IITC 194JO JAYNE 1ATIOR KACCP T..DANICL MAMML1rTIr, PAUL FaCDCRIC MARK WILLIAM M.MARTIC.ORLNA 0nV M COSOROVC DAVINA. HARDEN WILLIAM R.DICL JAMGG L MOMHIR Qq_:TA MESA, CALIFORNIA 02Q26-IQ0I$ nNM vAN IIQTrM INA MAILMANO T S;MARD A CORN VTT ANMC NELSON LAN PNAR LTC PMaN A,CLL 17 JODC PN L.Mn VA III LEONAR0 A IIAMPCL WILLIAM J CAPLAN MAI 1 µ.PO5S KRAIO I: AILV CR J OIIN D IIURLOUT,JR MICNALL I NOWNnK DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P. 0. BOX I96U rT WfRT11CIMGR GOO rT R.wA•ITA9ATA H IC HALL W IMMCLL PIIILIP D.KOMN + COSTA MESA, CALIFOnN1A Pu6;,3-19I70 HPHr;�rO OWCN ANWAMr711 MILrORD W OANL,JR .IIiaL u,MUw.HM,RV ADAM N.VOLKCRT "gMORA J YOUNG TM COOORC I WALLAI`M„SIN' L11 VVKN A NICHOLt1 ,. rrnry A COLOL_ ALL..C OCTCROAR III rATRICK ARRINGTON INOMAG C, MHf+1 KING rON TELEPHONE 1714) 641-SIOO r.KEVIN BRAZIL .INI In I,BOND RICIIARD P.SIMS WILLIAM W W—UP" I ATNCH MCLZCR .II NNIrCR WHITE SPCAUNG PORE T C.DAAUN .VHIts-1 IYICAI)PALLAS FAX (7141 Ia46:IU.J: I •IVI IIAP BISON _ RT C ADM. COWARD O.SfDCSMA,JR• NANDALL M Mn HKLIVH MICHAEL K.GLATTCRV 1 VRI L. M.LOLL TNOMAS S LwLINDLM• MAMT M,I}RrrN DAVtC C IAHII.N• 7HOMA•3 J CRANE ^CORD 4 LIO G7LL1 nT N J CO COON C LIrFORD C FRIGDCN MAMA M IMAY n W HIJIAN IIV VO•ID7O1 4VID N NbCNwaw VrN J GObN .In M.M w TVCKER.SR 11DOO 1050) ELISE K TRAYMUM N�IV VLAS J.DCNNINOION M ICNACL O RUUIN M Kn1 H.RINr J[N7DN MII.rV RO W DAN L.ER IIDtD•IDOA DAN SLATCR TROD O LITFIN IRA C. MI DVKC f.WAHLOUI3T 1 JAMC:L Wa I_ •TCVCN M.MUIJP6 Nz1' JCFLR LY M M,&IIMAw• 14ILHARD V.MONTCVIDCO H "MOVER HOWELL II025•I0O21 CAROL L OEM MI.M ANTHONY J. MCCLJ6K.K JVwrH1,0 CAR R UTH LO RI SARNCR CMITII PATRICK N M.UALLA JCrr RCy R IIMUWN V AN WO LCOTT• GRNCrT W.KLATTIZ III HItMnMR R TI I CUC LCL.COLL... N II KLHY M MUWrm ELIZABETH HANNA A.PATRICII MU w KARA S CARLDON ._117 J AIKUHIRE HIM D THDrAP50N ELLEN F. H NLRVr1 CRIC L.DUNN HAML J.YI•VrPR November 18, 1996 A rwnrry nNAL CORPgRnIIVH UARVIN r DIIALLCNOCLIG.M DAVID J.GARIMAI.UI�ill OF couNyaL C x Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council ; •, T City of Huntington Beach c Chairperson pave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors C:� m o,�,A Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 'p c, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C Re: Proposed Amendment/Merger of the Existing Redevelopment Plans for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Areas Dear City Council Members and Members of the Redevelopment Agency's Board of Directors: I am writing this letter on behalf of .Eldon Bagstad and Ann Mase, property owners within Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, l respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public hearing record for the proposed Amendment/Merger of the several existing Redevelopment Project Areas in the City that is scheduled to be heard at your meeting this evening. My clients object to the provisions in the proposed Amendment/Merger that would (1) reactivate the Agency's expired power of eminent domain in Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area and (2) repeal Resolution No. 48 within that same block. The reasons for the foregoing objections are as follows: 1. There is NQ Change in C1fgumstances That Would Justify Reactivating or Extending the Agency's Power of EMinent Domain BMnd the 12-Year Legal imi . The Community Redevelopment Law places a time limit of 12 years'for the Agency to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire property within a Redevelopment Project Area. (See Health & Safety Code § 33333.2(a)(4),) There is no change in circumstances that would justify extending this time limit for the properties in Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, The Agency already has had the eminent domain "sword of Damocles" poised J) - I 112/0173544)001/3034931, all/18196 3LA 1 01 . 11-l tS-Jb J �Ut'.11 KL 13.\ & l LLKLK- JJ t 41»l;+7r J; 4 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW , wnn111 , i.UIL JDn.]VPOr CSLI[.n.. I.onocone Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors November 18, 1996 Page 2 over the heads of the property owners within this block for well over a decade. The property owners have attempted to cooperate with the Agency through all of the twists and turns that the Main-Pier Phase 11 project has taken over the years and with all of the different outside development entities (Coultrup, Griffin Realty, A&M Equities, etc.). Much time, energy, and money has been expended by the property owners in good faith. Enough is enough. 2. The Propgrty Owners Continue to Cooperate with the Agency; Eminent Domain is not Necessarv. In order for the City Council to approve a Plan Amendment/ Merger that again subjects the properties in Block 104 to the threat of eminent domain, the City Council would be required to make a finding, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that resurrecting the eminent domain power "is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan. . . ." (Health & Safety Code §§ 33367(d)(6) and 33457,1.) There is no basis for making such a finding with respect to the properties within Block 104. For at least 15 years, the property owners have cooperated with the City/Agency. The property owners have not objected to redeveloping their properties. Instead, a series of redeve- lopment proposals has failed due to the failure or inability of outside developers to perform, governmental delays (e.g., the lengthy period it has taken to obtain Coastal Commission approvals and the time it has taken the Agency to assemble the properties in Block 105), the complications of the Coastal Commission/ Agency requirement that the redevelopment of Blocks 105 and 104 proceed simultaneously, and other circumstances beyond the control of any individual Block 104 property owner. The problem most assuredly has = been the Agency's lack of eminent domain power. Indeed, for almost this entire time period and until very recently, the Agency did have eminent domain authority within Block 104 and still was unable to pull the project together. The property owners should not have to suffer the ongoing risks that their properties will be taken away from them after the years of cooperation they have demonstrated. 3. Ruling Resolution No. 48 Would br, a Breach of the Covenant Made with the Properly Owners when th§ Re.development Project was First Formed. When the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area was first being formed in the early 1980's, the use of eminent domain was highly controversial and was opposed by many property owners and residents. The City/Agency assured the property owners that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort against "holdout" owners in situations where a super-majority of property owners within an area were in favor of moving forward with redevelopment. A deal was struck. The City/Agency made its commitment to the property owners through the 112/CM54.OW1130.34931. ■11/18/96 JL.\1 u1 11-ltS-Jb : J 71t .1] : KLiAA & ILLKLK- 4/ 4 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW •' NEAL IP Pi ICL..11-L CDVPDN,,, Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors November 18, 1996 Page 3 adoption of Resolution No. 48 (memorializing the super-majority owner consent to the use of eminent domain) and the owners waived their right to challenge the Redevelopment Plan. The current proposal to unilaterally repeal Resolution No. 48 is a breach of the covenant made with the property owners many years ago. Taking such an action, particularly where there has been no change in circumstances (1 1 above) or demonstration of necessity (1 2 above), can only serve to give more ammunition to the people who say "you can't trust City Hall." Mr. Bagstad and Ms. Mase will continue to cooperate with the Agency's efforts to redevelop Block 104 in a sensible fashion that is a credit to the community. Eminent domain in Block 104 is not needed to achieve that objective. We request that any action on the Amendment/Merger be revised to recognize these concerns. Very truly yours, 4vRUTA & TUCKER, LLP erman JMO:jh cc: Eldon Bagstad Ann Mase City Administrator/Executive Director Michael T. Uberuaga Director of Economic Development David C. Biggs City Attorney Gail Hutton, Esq. 112/017354-0001/3034931. all/1" Council/Agency Meeting Held: ( % Deferred/Continued to: Q Approved?,p (Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Sig ature Council Meeting Date: October 21, 1996 Department ID Number: ED 96-62 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, Executive Director PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development OW SUBJECT: REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT /4 . � -- �_I) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The California Community Redevelopment Law requires that the Agency submit a Report to the City Council along with the proposed Redevelopment Plan prior to the Council's consideration of the proposed Amendment/Merger. Funding Source: Preparation of Amendment/Merger is funded Tax Increment Revenue Recommended Action: Adopt the attached Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach approving its Report to the City Council for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and authorizing transmittal of the Report to the City Council and the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council. Alternative Action(s): Do not adopt the Resolution. Analysis: Over the past seven months, the Agency has prepared various documents in relation to the proposed Amendment/Merger. The culmination of the Agency's efforts is the Report to the City Council that incorporates many of the previously approved documents, and constitutes the official record that provides the basis for the Amendment/Merger. Tonight, the Agency will be considering a resolution to approve the Report to the City Council and forward the Report with the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Council's consideration. REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-62 The Report to the City Council contains a summary of the reasons for the Amendment/Merger, describes the remaining blighting conditions in the existing Project Areas, details the proposed redevelopment program to alleviate such remaining conditions, and other materials pertinent to the Amendment/Merger. The Report to the City Council also includes an amended Relocation Plan that ensures that any relocation payments are to be determined in a manner consistent with State Law. Previously, the Relocation Plan contained language on payment amounts that specifically conflicted with current Law. In general, the Report to the City Council finds that the proposed Amendment/Merger is necessary to enable the Agency to complete its efforts to alleviate blighting conditions in the Project Area. The primary benefits of the Amendment/Merger are as follows: • Merger of Project Areas: Consolidation of the Existing Plans into a single Plan that provides the Agency with greater flexibility to shift redevelopment resources throughout the entire Project Area. • Consolidate and Increase Tax Increment Limit to $850 Million Cumulatively and Extend Time Period to Collect Increment to the Year 2032: The increase and extension of financial limits in the Existing Plans permit the Agency to collect additional tax increment revenue to fund new redevelopment projects, programs, and activities. • Consolidate and Increase Bond Limit to $275 Million and Extend Time Period to Incur Debt to 2014: By enabling the Agency more time to incur debt, the Amendment/Merger will allow the Agency to initiate new redevelopment programs for 10 to 12 years longer than the Existing Plan currently allows. Also, the Amendment/Merger provides for an increased bond limit needed to permit the issuance of additional bonds. • Extend the Time Period to Initiate Eminent Domain on Nonresidential Properties in the Huntington Center and Main-Pier Areas: The extension of the time periods to commence eminent domain on nonresidential properties will permit the Agency to proactively assemble and consolidate parcels for effective reuse. • Extend Duration of Redevelopment Plans to the Year 2027: The Amendment/Merger will also allow the Agency sufficient time to complete redevelopment of the Project Area by adding five years to the time frame to undertake redevelopment activities. • Expand Public Improvement and Facilities Projects Listing: Finally, the Amendment/Merger establishes an expanded list of potential public improvement and economic development projects that enable the Agency to implement a broader range of redevelopment programs. RAA9662.DOC -2- 10/11/96 2:47 PM REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: October 21, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-62 On November 18, 1996, the Agency and City Council will convene a joint public hearing to receive testimony on the Amendment/Merger. Following the joint public hearing, the City Council will consider the evidence contained in the Report to the City Council and adoption of the Amendment/Merger. Environmental Status: In connection with the Amendment/Merger, the City commissioned the preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the Amendment/Merger. The EIR was certified by the City Council on October 7, 1996. Pursuant to Section 33352 of the Law, the EIR is included in the Agency's Report to the City Council and has been previously transmitted to the City Council members. Attachment(sl: City Clerk's Page Numbera2 '9 1 Resolution of Redevelopment Agency Approving Report to City Council 2 Report to the City Council for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project 3 Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project RAA9662.DOC -3- 10/11/96 3:11 PM RESOLUTION NO -. 96 103 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RESPONDING TO AND MAKING WRITTEN FINDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENT AND MERGER OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS WHEREAS, the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ("Agency") incorporating the amendment and merger of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Projects; and A duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Plan was conducted at a joint public meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach held on November 18, 1996; and Said joint public meeting was continued to December 2, 1996, for the purpose of responding to written objections to the proposed Plan presented at or before the public hearing; and Written objections were received from affected property owners and the City Council directed the Agency staff to respond in detail to such written objections as were received, giving reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions; and The City Council has received and considered such objections and such responses as set forth in the "Findings and Responses to Written Objections" attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: l SWs PCD Resolut Findines Res. No. 96-103 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of December, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Green, Garofalo NOES: Sullivan ABSTAIN: Julien ABSENT: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resol uti/resbkpg/96-100 Res. No. 97-103 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of December, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Green, Garofalo NOES: Sullivan ABSTAIN: Julien ABSENT: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resol uti/resbkpg/96-100 EXHIBIT A WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED AT THE NOVEMBER 18, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT November, 1996 Prepared for: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536.5511 Prepared by: Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. 540 North Golden Circle, Suite 305 Santa Ana, California 92705 (714) 541.4585 WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED AT THE NOVEMBER 18, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Introduction On November 18, 1996, the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach held a joint public hearing on the proposed amended and merged Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Plan"). The purpose of the hearing was to receive both oral and written testimony for and against the proposed Plan. During the hearing, both written and oral objections were presented on the Plan. This document is the written response of the City Council to written objections regarding the Plan ("Response") Section 33363 of the California Community Redevelopment Law requires that before adopting a redevelopment plan, the legislative body (City Council) shall evaluate all evidence and testimony, both for and against the adoption of the plan, and make written findings in response to each written objection of an affected property owner or taxing entity. Further, the legislative body is to respond in writing to the written objections received before or at the noticed public hearing and that these responses shall describe the disposition of the issues raised, and address in detail the reasons for not accepting specified objections and suggestions. Written Objections Submitted A total of four written objections were filed by property owners affected by the Plan; these objections are included in their entirety in Appendix A of this Response. No written objections were filed by any affected taxing entities. The four objections were submitted by the following parties: 1. Keith B. Bohr 415 Townsquare Lane #219 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2. Joy Lynn, et al. 470 Pacific Coast Highway 42 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 3. Jeffrey M. Oderman (for Eldon Bagstad and Ann Mase) 611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92628 4. J.A. Wiley 15651 White Oak Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Response to Written Objections This Response addresses each point raised in each written objection. Objection by Keith B. Bohr, dated November 18, 1996 1. "(Because)Agency will only be able to utilize its eminent domain authority for non- residential properties...it really minimizes the utility of having a Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of eliminating blight. " Response: The use of eminent domain is one of 19 of the redevelopment actions available to the Agency under the Plan. Historically, eminent domain has not been the sole tool, nor the most critical tool, employed by the Agency to alleviate blight. The Agency has successfully undertaken infrastructure improvements, commercial redevelopment projects and housing rehabilitation programs in the Main Pier, Oakview, and Yorktown-Lake Areas without eminent domain. The Plan ensures that the Agency will continue to be empowered with the necessary tools to remove the remaining blight in the Project Area. Section B of the Report to the City Council for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project delineates the blighting conditions present in the Project Area. These conditions include: dilapidation, deterioration, obsolescence, substandard design, narrow lots under mixed ownership, inadequate public improvements, abnormally high vacancies, depreciating values, and high crime rates. Section 600 of the Plan contains a listing of the redevelopment actions proposed by the Agency to alleviate these conditions; only one of these actions involves eminent domain. These redevelopment actions include the following: 1. Acquiring, installing, developing, constructing, reconstructing, redesigning, replanning, or reusing streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks,traffic control devices, utilities, flood control facilities and other public improvements and public facilities. 2. Rehabilitating, altering, remodeling, improving, modernizing, or reconstructing buildings, structures and improvements. 3. Rehabilitating, preserving, developing or constructing affordable housing in compliance with State law. 4. Providing the opportunity for owners and tenants presently located in the Project Area to participate in redevelopment projects and programs, and extending preferences to occupants to remain or relocate within the redeveloped Project Area. huntbch`roponse 2 5. Providing relocation assistance to displaced residential and nonresidential occupants, if necessary. 6. Facilitating the development or redevelopment of land for purposes and uses consistent with this Plan. 7. Acquiring real property by purchase, lease, gift, grant, request, device or any other lawful means (including eminent domain on a limited basis, after the conduct of appropriate hearings). 8. Combining parcels and properties where and when necessary. 9. Preparing building sites and constructing necessary off-site improvements. 10. Providing for open space. 11. Managing property owned or acquired by the Agency. 12. Assisting in procuring financing for the construction of residential, commercial, and office buildings to increase the residential and commercial base of the Project Area, and the number of temporary and permanent jobs in the City. 13. The disposition of property including, without limitation, the lease or sale of land at a value determined by the Agency for reuse in accordance with this Plan. 14. Establishing controls, restrictions or covenants running with the land, so that property will continue to be used in accordance with this Plan. 15. Vacating or abandoning streets, alleys, and other thoroughfares, as necessary, and dedicating other areas for public purposes consistent with the objectives of this Plan. 16. Providing replacement housing, if any is required. 17. Applying for and utilizing grants, loans and any other assistance from federal or State governments, or other sources. 18. Taking actions the Agency determines are necessary and consistent with State, federal and local laws to make structural repairs to buildings and structures, including historical buildings, to meet building code standards related to seismic safety. 19. Taking actions the Agency determines are necessary and consistent with State, federal and local laws to remedy or remove a release of hazardous substances on, under or from property within the Project Area or to remove hazardous waste from property. huntbch`iaponee 3 Objection by JoyLynn, et al., dated November 18, 1996 1. "We are totally against the destruction of affordable housing, small businesses and jobs for the benefit of hamburger empires, coffee shops, and bars through the process of eminent domain. " Response: The Plan would limit the Agency's authority to use eminent domain on nonresidential properties only; no properties on which persons reside would be subject to eminent domain. Therefore, the use of eminent domain under the Plan will not cause the destruction of affordable housing. The Agency has incorporated a series of goals in the Plan that underscore its desire to protect and expand small business opportunities in the Project Area. As set forth in Section 500 of the Plan, these goals include the following: • Eliminate and prevent the spread of conditions of blight including: underutilized properties and deteriorating buildings, incompatible and uneconomic land uses, deficient infrastructure and facilities, obsolete structures, and other economic deficiencies in order to create a more favorable environment for commercial, office, industrial, residential, and recreational development. • Expand the commercial base of the Project Area. • Promote local job opportunities. • Encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, businesses, business persons, public agencies, and community organizations in the redevelopment/revitalization of the Project Area. Under the Plan, existing small businesses have a distinct advantage to remain in the Project Area. First, small businesses have the opportunity to participate in redevelopment of the Project Area. Section 605 of the Plan provides opportunities for property owner participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area if the owners agree to participate in conformance with the objectives and policies in the Plan. Further, the Plan requires the Agency to extend reasonable relocation and reentry preferences to businesses if such businesses otherwise meet the requirements of the Plan. 9 huntbchkespome 4 2. "Huntington Beach has demolished low income housing in the name of redevelopment. " Response: In fact, redevelopment of the Project Area has resulted in the production of 50 more affordable dwelling units than those removed. While some units of low income housing have been destroyed as a result of redevelopment activities, implementation of redevelopment in the City has caused an overall increase in very low, low, and moderate income housing supply. Since the Agency established redevelopment in 1982, a total of 213 affordable dwelling units have been removed. Over that same period, 263 affordable units have been produced to replace the 213 units removed, creating a net gain in affordable dwelling units of 50 units. The Plan and the California Community Redevelopment Law require the Agency to replace any affordable units removed or demolished as a result of a redevelopment project within four years of such removal or demolition. Further, the Plan and the Law also provide that the Agency is to employ not less than 20% of its annual tax increment revenues for the purposes of increasing, improving, and expanding the community's supply of very low, low, and moderate income housing. 3. "I believe taxes are paid to help protect us, our jobs and homes, not to be used against us to move us to another poor area while our original homes, businesses and that beach go to the benefit of the rich. " Response: See responses to Objections#1 and#2 above. 4. "Affordable housing should be rebuilt for the citizens such as students, busboys, waitresses, disabled, etc. that are working and paying in the downtown Huntington Beach area. " Response: See response to Objection#2 above. 5. "How long must we be under pressure of losing what we have worked for? Clearly you have the distinct advantage of money and years of time to formulate and implement your plans, whereas we have merely a few days to respond and react. I believe we should be given equal time to respond and obtain knowledge of what you...are trying to do to us. " Response: Approval of the Plan does not initiate any eminent domain activities. Acquisition by eminent domain involves a process prescribed by the Plan and the State Acquisition Guidelines. This process, which takes about 18 months to complete, generally involves inviting the owner to participate in the redevelopment effort, obtaining a highest and best use appraisal of the property's fair market value, and conducting a noticed public hearing on the proposed huntbchVmpome 5 condemnation. Any eminent domain acquisition requires a super-majority approval of the Agency board. Ultimately, the property owner has the right to proceed to a jury trial on condemnation. Objection by Eldon Bag�stad and Ann Mase (by Jeffrey Oderman), dated November 18, 1996 1. "There is no change in circumstances that wouldjustify extending this(the eminent domain) time limit for the properties in Block 104 of the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Area. " Response: Redevelopment Law does not require the Agency to find any "change in circumstances"to justify the extension of eminent domain. As stated in the amending and merging ordinance and based on facts contained in the Report to the City Council, the condemnation of real property is necessary to the execution of the Plan. These facts include, but are not limited to, the existence of lots of irregular size and shape under mixed ownership and widespread deterioration and dilapidation of commercial structures. 2. "In order for the City Council to approve a Plan Amendment/Merger that again subjects the properties on Block 104 to the threat of eminent domain, the City Council would be required to make a finding, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that resurrecting the eminent domain power 'is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan... ' (Health and Safety Code Section 33367(d)(6) and 33457.1.) There is no basis for making such a finding with respect to the properties within Block 104. " Response: The Law does not require separate findings on each parcel or block of the Project Area with respect to the necessity of eminent domain. As required by Law, the necessity to extend eminent domain on nonresidential property is based on the Project Area as a whole. The ordinance contains such a finding and that finding is supported by substantial evidence. 3. "Repealing Resolution No. 48 would be a breach of the covenant made with the property owners when the Redevelopment Project was first formed.... " Response: Rescinding Resolution No. 48 is necessary because it has effectively eliminated the usefulness of eminent domain. Under Resolution No. 48, two-thirds of the property owners, by number and area, must first approve of any project involving condemnation. Without the ability to more forcefully encourage property owners to redevelop their properties, the Agency is handicapped from removing blighted nonresidential structures in the Project Area. Like any other resolution, the City Council has the authority to rescind Resolution No. 48. The City Council elected to incorporate the rescinding of Resolution No. 48 into the Amendment/Merger process to afford property owners in the Main-Pier Area with an extended opportunity to voice their concerns. huntbch%response 6 Objection by J.A. Wiley, dated October 28, 1996 1. "My objection is to the City Council being able to waste the taxpayers'money by using this merger. Stop wasting money!!! The City Council should not be permitted to control any tax money without the approval of the taxpayers. " Response: In 1952, the taxpayers of the state voted to approve amending the state constitution to provide local government with the authority to collect and utilize tax increment revenue. The financial management of the Agency's activities is governed by the City Council representative elected by the voters of the City. Since 1982, the City Council representatives, sitting as the Agency, have appropriated tax increment resources to renovate dilapidated housing, construct public improvements, and expanded the community's economic base through economic development activities. The expenditure of tax increment revenues is subject to approval of an annual work program and budget, a five-year implementation plan, and specific redevelopment projects. These decisions are all made at public meetings of the Agency, and the community is always invited to provide input on the proposed redevelopment activities. hundchVc pone 7 WRITTEN RESPONSES TO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED AT THE NOVEMBER 18, 1996 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDED AND MERGED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT APPENDIX A WRITTEN OBJECTIONS humhch\response 8 NOV-ie-es ie: 24 FROM:L . B . / COMM.DEV. ID : 310 570 6215 PAGE 1/1 November 18,1996 � P Pt,--; N D a x RECEIYEG CITY Cc-ERK Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/ cli t IF HUNTING 04 H-41-H.i ALI . c Members/Redevelopment Agency Members { 2000 Main Street NOV 18 G 28 `�'Huntington Beach, CA 92649 �m c-�m Dear Council/Agency Members: o X-�;o --a - s As a downtown property owner, I am writing to express my support for the proposed Amendment and Merger of the City's five existing redevelopment project areas. However,T " strongly urge the Agency/Council to review the issue of eminent domain for the proposed project area before voting on adoption of the Resolution. The two biggest incentives for having a Redevelopment Agency are: 1. to be able to utilize tax increment financing; and 2. to be able to acquire property at the fair market value from a noncooperative owners through the use of eminent domain. My understanding from reading the staff report is that the Agency will only be able to utilize its eminent domain authority for non-residential properties. While I am sure this will make the adoption process much more palatable to the general public and negate having to set up a Project Area Committee(PAC), it really minimizes the utility of having a Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of eliminating blight. If the Agency, staff or the development community were to prepare a "top ten list" of the best candidate properties in need of redevelopment, I am confident 416 Pacific Coast Highway (Papa 7oe's Pizza) and 504 Pacific Coast Highway(El Don Liquor) would be at the top of all lists. Both of these properties are n-dxed-use consisting of commercial and residential and therefore, under the proposed merged project area could not be acquired by the Agency by means of condemnation. Currently the Agency owns eighty three percent of Block 105, with 416 Pacific Coast Highway (50'x 110'= 5,500 Ski sitting right in the front middle of the Agency's 72,000 SF, significantly reducing the Agency's resale value and its ability to negotiate a economically feasible development plan with a third party developer. Similar concerns exist for the property located at 416 Pacific Coast Highway. A Iot of capital has been invested into the downtown by the Agency and private property owners alike, on the premise that the Agency was going to complete its goals of redeveloping the downtown. Please keep the vision toward the future and at a minimum complete the redevelopment of the Phase ZI (Blocks 104 & 105) and Third Block West projects. Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, I can be reaclied at (714) 960- 7286. Sincerely, Keith B. Bohr \ 415 Towrisquare Lane 4219 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dt SL //( . �pslr✓�(o/�/s11KT !uc< 1�� S�Ck�.Cclr� 1L'i0 iLu Ol. ev ti U�cc � LL ¢zoCC o¢r_w z ile `04 s 51;V4,11b Uoi ¢QU k-/7'e- 'Ale l 12 4�fn ve� 'sx c'Gt Xs S / y ------ --- - ---- --- ------•-. - .-[�'�l�!!'J� ...—�O!'1_CS_- --(�-S!!2c'SS_�.� ..�tGt� 4`�-_�! a��---• — - ---------—_ � ,.- 17 'S�!{Gt'L'G�is —6_�f_SC7D _ ,r.�4�z�rS,sC� G-._.—� �-S�' -- - ---.—.-•----- --- ----- -- -© ---_ /tom.��_ 7�..G Dyr G�d�,.,r�- •-r•"- - - -r�2.__. �=-- - --...--- - - --... _ ..._ r -------- - � -. . .. .-. - - - - O!?ZlZ ._ r h �� -- -vim--•---• --- -- - --• y y To - - - - -Peal GJ � � �� ------- -- - -- - v .-. ` Albt � y . . 9 SENT BY: 11-18-96 ; 3:38R RUTAN & TUCKER-1 93755087;# 2/ 4 RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW A C•ARTN[R3HIP INCLUOING PROFLy=IONAL rOPPORATIONS JnMfp A MOORC• MARC.A A rOR�YT.1 [311 ANTON SOULEVAn O, SUITC I.QO JAYN[ , rwtTP DAHICL N . lrlw rwVL InC OC nIC MART WI LLIAM N YARTICOgLNA NAt DiORCVC DAV.NA NwwpCN W.LLIwN R R.cL JAM[t L YnYN.t f 1)!:TA MESA, 'CALIFORNIA fl2192H-IDQQ ^N " ' , HA N R.CMARO A CURNUTT A-INC NCL-DN LA....R LTCDNLNN^ CL -) .Jo SCDHIL^YAVA 11. LC ONARO A IULNICL WILLIAM J CAPLAN r.W,( n0!! wwA[p JONN 0 IIURLRUT,JR YICHALL I rnrNw+ DIRECT ALL MAIL TO: P O BOX 1960 .ItD[e wf R1NCIN.A r_r♦w rA..TAOATA M IC MACI W INNCLL PUILIP O 101N rrr rT 0 OWCN MlLroac W VAWL,JR .. . .I"-^A-NV COUTA MESA, CALIFOn NIA CJ.1(10L-IBOO wpAN N VDIN[RT .NNOM J YOUNC T+C000P[I wwttwf w„,.N' C^w VT.`N A N.S:NVL7 rrfnr♦A COLN wwr n C OCTC ROAR N. nAI CN Aw CIO. __A•: •.. �N V>4n TELEPHONE 11714I 641-SIOO •tCYIN 01 Z.L vONV R ICNARD P.SIM1 W�LI.wN W .rw .nINC M M[LLCR -..NN.1CR WMITC'-PCRLINC PCOCRT C RRAUN -1.4-1 tv.t.11 PAL LA^ IVAX 1'14) b4f. :JUJ7 IIAR RICON w1 C AOCL C DnARD D -YR[�NA.JP• YANDALL N .. N+L•CM MICMACL w f.LATTCIIV .VwIRL N[INeLL THONA2 i L^LINO\N- N-M.+..}r+rN DCDnA OUNN iTl\. NTCVCN M COLCMAN DAVSIJ\. 1^ny+N• TMO MAp J CRANC nwVIV Il HOCN n+r Ale Vr r.I�AN IICn V IOTC} n J CJJN C LIrCCRp C CglC DC4 YAN+M rw>..w A W Ty.rwM IV OD IG'JOI CLI:C N TRAYNYM .N.VVLw!J DCNNINOInN N IC NwCI O PULIN IN +^ N.wINf Ie NeeN ` -•r^ VAn:LATCa 1ODo O L.TrIN .YA.: w.Y.N• "',.C,f RAM -St IIVwp W OAML,CR IILIO•ILO PI JAMC:t wL." .'rVCN M NULRO-N.I J[C[ALV M I.W rYwN• w.LNANO O MO NTCVIOCO •' r"VVCM MVWCLL IIO.l IOR]I CAPOL L OCNY,.r ANTNOMT J Nef Uf,.M•N .Vplfh D LAww UTN LVM:AnR[R!MITI, PATRICK I. -••V.Altw q Y+VWN p TAN WOLCOIH iT CRN[ W NLATTC III CVC LL, CVC LLL L011lnw Irlr.N rV Wfw CLILApCTn MN A,PATRICN Nl^M+! wARA! C,.RLLO>I .• VIA J AIf tlNIwC AIN O TIIOMD]ON CLL[u L r LMVrt [nIC L DUNN rANI V r.w frw November 18, 1996 n-n..�,NA C(qP yµr,iLry VAnvIN r .NALLCNOCu:,.N OAYIO J.6ARIYwa 4..IU Cr awr+a Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed Amendment/Merger of the Existing Redevelopment Plans for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Areas Dear City Council Members and Members of the Redevelopment Agency's Board of Directors: I am writing this letter on behalf of Eldon Bagstad and Ann Mase, property owners within Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. 1 respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public hearing record for the proposed Amendment/Merger of the several existing Redevelopment Project Areas in the City that is scheduled to be heard at your meting this evening. My clients object to the provisions in the proposed AmendmentlMerger that would (1) reactivate the Agency's expired power of eminent domain in Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area and (2) repeal Resolution No. 48 within that same block. The reasons for the foregoing objections are as follows: 1. There is NQ Change in Circumstances That Would Justify Reactivating or Extending the Agency's Power of Eminent Domain Beyond the 12-Year Legal imi . The Community Redevelopment Law places a time limit of 12 years for the Agency to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire property within a Redevelopment Project Area. (See Health & Safety Code § 33333.2(a)(4).) There is no change in circumstances that would justify extending this time limit for the properties in Block 104 of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The Agency already has had the eminent domain "sword of Damocles" poised 112J017354-OW113034931. alll18196 SENT'By: 11-18-96 3:39P1i ; RUTAN & TUCKER 93755087;# 3/ 4 RUTAN & TUCKER, LAP ATTORNEYS AT LAW n an��w�s-�-�.c.vo Mo raorc.2a, - kvnroennowo Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors November 18, 1996 Page 2 over the heads of the property owners within this block for well over a decade. The property owners have attempted to cooperate with the Agency through all of the twists and turns that the Main-Pier Phase 11 project has taken over the years and with all of the different outside development entities (Coultrup, Griffin Realty, A&M Equities, etc.). Much time, energy, and money has been expended by the property owners in good faith. Enough is enough. 2. The PropCrty Owners Continue to Cooperate with the Agency: Eminent Domain is not Necessary. In order for the City Council to approve a Plan Amendment/ Merger that again subjects the properties in Block 104 to the threat of eminent domain, the City Council would be required to make a finding, supported by substantial evidence in the record, that resurrecting the eminent domain power "is necessary to the execution of the redevelopment plan. . . ." (Health &Safety Code §§ 33367(d)(6)and 33457.1.) There is no basis for making such a finding with respect to the properties within Block 104. For at least 15 years, the property owners have cooperated with the City/Agency. The property owners have not objected to redeveloping their properties. Instead, a series of redeve- lopment proposals has failed due to the failure or inability of outside developers to perform, governmental delays (e.g., the lengthy period it has taken to obtain Coastal Commission approvals and the time it has taken the Agency to assemble the properties in Block 105), the complications of the Coastal Commission/ Agency requirement that the redevelopment of Blocks 105 and 104 proceed simultaneously, and other circumstances beyond the control of any individual Block 104 property owner. The problem most assuredly has = been the Agency's lack of eminent domain power. Indeed, for almost this entire time period and until very recently, the Agency did have eminent domain authority within Block 104 and still was unable to pull the project together. The property owners should not have to suffer the ongoing risks that their properties will be taken away from them after the years of cooperation they have demonstrated. 3. ftpea-lino Resolution UQ. 48 Would be a Breach of the Covenant Made with the Proper y Owners when the RedeyelopmenjPrQiect was First Formed. When the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area was first being formed in the early 1980's, the use of eminent domain was highly controversial and was opposed by many property owners and residents. The City/Agency assured the property owners that eminent domain would be used only as a last resort against "holdout" owners in situations where a super-majority of property owners within an area were in favor of moving forward with redevelopment. A deal was struck. The City/Agency made its commitment to the property owners through the 11=37334.W011303493J. all/15196 SENT'BY: 11-18-'96 ; 3:40P51 ; RUTAN & TUCKER- 93755087;# 4/ 4 RU'T'AN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW ♦1ARTACRS111P IAIIVCIMC vgorc ,QmM CORPMAIW4, ' Mayor Dave Sullivan and Members of the City Council Chairperson Dave Sullivan and Members of the Board of Directors November 18, 1996 Page 3 adoption of Resolution No. 48 (memorializing the super-majority owner consent to the use of eminent domain) and the owners waived their right to challenge the Redevelopment Plan. The current proposal to unilaterally repeal Resolution No. 48 is a breach of the covenant made with the property owners many years ago. Taking such an action, particularly where there has been no change in circumstances (I 1 above) or demonstration of necessity (q 2 above), can only serve to give more ammunition to the people who say "you can't trust City Hall." Mr. Bagstad and Ms. Mase will continue to cooperate with the Agency's efforts to redevelop Block 104 in a sensible fashion that is a credit to the community. Eminent domain in Block 104 is not needed to achieve that objective. We request that any action on the Amendment/Merger be revised to recognize these concerns. Very truly yours, RUTAPI & TUCKER, LLP (evL"Im qb,,V�� Jifffey M. Oderman JMO.jh cc: Eldon Bagstad Ann Mase City Administrator/Executive Director Michael T. Uberuaga Director of Economic Development David C. Biggs City Attorney Gail Hutton, Esq. 112t017354OMI/3034931. all/18l95 u r October 29, 1996 / J J.A. Wilcti ��"l�a,.Y v, 15651 Nyhite Oak Lane Huntington Bcach, California 92647 Connie Rrockway. City Clerk. City Of Huntington Beach 200 Maul Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, Ca 92645 Dear Connie, This letter remsters my objection to Redevelopment `•.Amendmenti.'\flerger." \-Iy objection is to the city council being able to waste the tax payer's money by using this merger. Stop wasting money?'! This city council should not be permitted to control any tax money without the approval of the tax payers consent. I mean that a vote should be taken not these stupid public notices when it involves large sums of money. Paragraph II of the public notice is why I am against this merger. It allows too much freedom of the council assigning too much time and too much access to taxpayer's money fbr an unnecessary project. 'These types of projects are some idiots dream to control the taxpayers. J. A. Wiley o —, Z -- M n C 1 M r-C vrt^�m N Cl I-A _ v r tt� T O'7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION Economic Development Department TO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members BY David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development VIA Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator DATE December 6, 1996 SUBJECT Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Proposed Amendment/Merger Please add the attached appendix and three color maps to the Redevelopment Project binders which you received last week. These should be inserted at the very end of the section entitled "Report to Council." Insertion of these maps will ensure each Councilmember's information is complete. Please contact Stephen Kohler at 536-5457 if you have any questions. DCB:SVK:Ib xc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk Scott Field, Deputy City Attorney x t""� rn v rrn'c r+ N � z�- tA cs'? i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL From: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney Date: December 2, 1996 Subject: HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AMENDMENT AND MERGER OF THE FIVE EXISTING REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS - ITEM F-1 TO THE DECEMBER 2,1996 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA The recommended action to the proposed merger of the five existing redevelopment projects into a single redevelopment plan and project area includes approving introduction of Ordinance No. 3343. Section 3(f) of the Ordinance concerns condemnation of real property. This section specifies in what portions of the project area condemnation authority exists. This section includes the elimination of certain previous limitations on the Agency's power, including obtaining approval of the property owners within the Main-Pier area pursuant to Resolution No. 48, before condemning the property. Resolution No. 48 was amended by minute order of the City Council on July 18, 1983. It is recommended that subsection iv. of Section 3(f) be amended to include not only Resolution No. 48, but any amendment thereto. We believe this correction is already implicit in the existing language of the ordinance, but we would like to add this clarification to remove any possible ambiguity. Attached please find an amended page 9 of the Ordinance, which includes the clarifying language. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney Attachment: Ordinance No. 3343 c: Michael Uberuaga, City Administrator Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator David Biggs, Director of Economic Development I iii. Within the Oakview Area, the Agency shall not have the authority to acquire, by condemnation, property which is excluded from the Oakview Public Acquisition Map incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan as Exhibit"D." iv. Agency Resolution No. 48, adopted on September 7, 1982, including any amendments thereto, is hereby repealed by this Ordinance. g. The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the relocation of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from the Project Area. Families and persons shall not be displaced prior to the adoption of a relocation plan pursuant to the Community Redevelopment ' Law. The Agency has a comprehensive program for the relocation of persons, families, businesses or tenants displaced by Agency project activities. When such displacement occurs, the Agency will provide persons, families, business owners and tenants displaced by Agency activities with monetary and advisory relocation assistance consistent with the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260 et seq.), the State Guidelines adopted and promulgated pursuant thereto, Relocation Assistance Rules adopted by the Agency and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. h. There are, or shall be provided, in the Project Area or in other areas not generally less desirable in regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities and at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and persons who might be displaced from the Project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Dwelling units housing persons and families of low- or moderate-income shall not be removed or destroyed prior to the adoption of a replacement housing plan pursuant to provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law. No person or family will be required to move from any dwelling,unit until suitable relocation housing is available for occupancy, and that such housing must meet the standards established in State law and regulations. In addition, the Agency's program includes provisions for the replacement of low and moderate income housing removed from the market as a result of Agency activities. a SF/s:PCD:Ordinance:Mergredv v 12/2196-#2 RLS 96-781 Council/Agency Meeting Held: !T�e 9 b Deferred/Continued to: R-A'pproved ❑ onditionall ppr ved ❑ Denied 19 City Clerk's Si ature Council Meeting Date: November 18, 1996 Department ID Number: ED 96-68 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE CHAIRMAN AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMBERS 'I SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, Executive Dire /f J , PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Development QAAt* c�YW. 3 343 J `1Ze , 9 4—(o0 SUBJECT: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING, FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND AMENDING ORDINANCE FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ,,,,,* *0 ,a1 9 Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: The City Council and Agency are scheduled to convene a joint public hearing and consider other items relating to the proposed Amendment and Merger of the eve existing redevelopment projects ("Amendment/Merger"). ell p x Funding Source: Redevelopment Tax Increment w <ci C St a'-,-ram- Recommended Action: r 1) Conduct a joint public hearing on the Amendment/Merger. , 2) Motion to: Adopt the attached Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach certifying that the final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared, circulated and completed in compliance with CEQA and state guidelines, and that the Agency has reviewed and considered the information contained therein. -1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: November 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-68 3) Motion to: Adopt the attached Resolution of the City Council of Huntington Beach making certain findings and determinations concerning the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, making certain findings regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, and adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program and a statement of overriding considerations. [IF NO WRITTEN OBJECTIONS ARE RECEIVED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING] 4) Motion to: Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving and adopting the merger and amendments to the Redevelopment Plans for the Huntington Center, Main-Pier, Oakview, Talbert-Beach, and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Projects, as incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Alternative Action(s): Do not conduct the public hearing. Do not approve the Resolutions. Do not introduce the Ordinance. Anal: Beginning with the approval of a Preliminary Plan for the Project on April 1, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency is continuing to move forward with the preparation of the Amendment/Merger. Joint Public Hearing: Redevelopment Law requires that the City Council and Redevelopment Agency conduct public hearings on the proposed Amendment/Merger. Because the members of the City Council also constitute the Redevelopment Agency, the Law permits the convening of a single joint public hearing. Notice of the joint public hearing was transmitted via first-class mail to all residents, businesses, and property owners in the Project Area. A total of 3,722 notices were mailed. Also, as required by Law, the Agency notified the affected taxing agencies of the joint public hearing. The notice of joint public hearing was also published in The Independent for four successive weeks (October 24 and 31, November 7 and 14, 1996). All residents, businesses, and property owners were also invited to attend a community workshop on October 29, 1996. This was the second community workshop on the Amendment/Merger; the first was held on September 11, 1996. Approximately forty-five (45) people attended the second workshop, during which staff and the redevelopment consultants presented the Amendment/Merger and answered questions. RAA9668.DOC -3- 11/13/96 10:18 AM i REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: November 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-68 Agency Resolution Certifying Final EIR: Section 33352(k) of the California Health and Safety Code requires that the City prepare an environmental impact report that assesses the impact of the proposed Amendment/Merger. Acting as the lead agency, the City Council certified the EIR on October 7, 1996. According to the EIR (transmitted under separate cover and on file with the City Clerk), there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Amendment/Merger beyond those identified in the General Plan EIR and which cannot be mitigated to an acceptable level. The EIR analyzes the Amendment/Merger's potential impacts on the environment, discusses alternatives, and proposes mitigation measures that would offset, lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. The EIR studies a variety of areas, including land use, population and housing, earth resources, water quality, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, public health (hazards), noise, public services and utilities, aesthetics, cultural and scientific resources, and schools. Where applicable, the Mitigation Monitoring Program incorporated into the EIR establishes mitigation measures that reduce the impacts of the Amendment/Merger to less than significant levels. Council Resolution Relating to the Findings of the EIR: With the implementation of the mitigation measures contained in the EIR, there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Amendment/Merger beyond those set forth in the Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan. The attached resolution incorporates three documents to further support this finding: 1. Statement of Findings. This document, included as Attachment A to the resolution, indicates that the Amendment/Merger will not result in significant effects on land use, population and housing, earth resources, water quality, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, public health (hazards), noise, public services and utilities, aesthetics, cultural and scientific resources, and schools, other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR. However, the Statement of Findings does indicate that the Amendment/Merger may have potentially significant short-term construction air quality and cultural resources impacts that can be mitigated to acceptable levels. 2. Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program. The mitigation monitoring reporting program, included as Attachment B to the resolution, sets forth specific mitigation measures that reduce the impacts of the Amendment/Merger to less than significant levels. 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Attachment C to the resolution is a statement of overriding considerations. This document describes how the benefits of implementing the Amendment/Merger outweigh any significant unavoidable adverse impacts in the areas of short-term construction air quality and cultural resources that may result regardless of proposed policies and mitigation measures. RAA9668.DOC 4- 11/13/96 10:18 AM l x REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION MEETING DATE: November 18, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-68 Introduction to Ordinance/Preparation of Written Responses to Written Objections: If no written objections are received by the City at the joint public hearing, the City Council may proceed with the first reading of the Ordinance amending and merging the redevelopment plans following the closure of the joint public hearing. Alternatively, pursuant to Redevelopment Law, if the City Council receives written objections to the Amendment/Merger at the joint public hearing, the City Council is to adopt written i responses at least one week after the public hearing. If written objections are received by the City, staff, Agency special counsel, and the redevelopment consultants will prepare written responses for City Council consideration on December 2, 1996. Following approval of the written responses, the City Council may conduct its first reading of the Ordinance at the same meeting. Environmental Status: An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ("NOP") was circulated to responsible agencies and interested parties on April 24, 1996. The Draft EIR was reviewed for a 45-day period, from July 24, 1996 to September 4, 1996. On August 19, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on the Draft EIR, but received no comment at that time. A total of ten written comments to the Draft EIR were received by the City. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the City prepared and transmitted responses to these comments on September 26, 1996. The comments to the Draft EIR and the City's responses are incorporated into the Final EIR. Attachment Us : *,,Ciity Clerk's Page Number 1. Resolution of Redevelopment Agency 2. Resolution of City Council 3. Ordinance of City Council RAA9668.DOC -5- 11/13/96 10:18 AM r � RESOLUTION NO. 96-100 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS CONCERNING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California(the"City") as Lead Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report("Final EIR") for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by State and local guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"); and The EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 19, 1996, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to said statute and guidelines; and The City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 1996, adopted Resolution No. 96-63 certifying that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA and State and local guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and other documents in the record with respect to the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California as follows: Secton 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will not have any significant effects on the environment other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR with implementation of mitigation measures contained in the EIR and included in Attachment"A." 1 I Section 2. The'City Council hereby finds as follows regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed Huntington Beach-'Redevelopment Project detailed in the Final EIR: a. That the environmental effects of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project,"including those raised in comments on the Draft EIR, have been considered and recognized-by the City Council. b. That,based'on information set forth in Chapter 4.0 of the Final EIR, and in j the Statement of Findings for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, attached to this Resolution as Attachment"A" and incorporated herein by reference, the City Council finds and determines that the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan will not have significant environmental effects on,land use, population and housing, earth resources, water quality, air quality,transportation and circulation, biological resources, public health(hazards), noise, public services and utilities, aesthetics, cultural and scientific resources, and schools, other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR. C. The City Council also finds and determines that, based on information in the Air Quality section of Attachment"A,"the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project may have a potentially significant short- term construction air quality impact that can be mitigated to acceptable levels. d. The City Council also finds and determines that, based on information in the Cultural Resources section of Attachment"A,"the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project may have a potentially significant impact to cultural resources that can be mitigated to acceptable levels. e. As to displacement effects that may result from the demolition and new construction activities associated with implementation of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, identified in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR and Attachment"A,"the City Council finds and determines that the mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR and in Attachment"A" will reduce housing and population effects to acceptable levels. f. The City Council finds and determines that no additional environmental effects other than those identified above will have a significant effect or result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment as a result of implementation of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. 2 SFATCD.Resolution.EIR-11-4 11/5/96-42 RLS 96-806 h 1 L f 1 g. The City Council hereby adopts the findings and measures and statements contained in Exhibits A and B, and hereby incorporates Exhibits A and B by this resolution. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all significant effects identified in the Final EIR have-been reduced to an acceptable level of significance in that: a. All environmental effects that can feasibly,be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened, as determined through the findings set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Resolution; and b. Based upon the Final EIR, Attachment"A" and other documents and information in the record, specific economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. C. The City Council hereby adopts Attachment"B" as its Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program for implementation of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. d. The City Council hereby adopts Attachment"C"..as a Statement of Overriding Consideration for implementation of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held this 18th day of November , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: _ APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ; City Attorney REV EWED AND APPROVED: INITIA� O City Administrator Dire r, con is Development 3 SF/s:PCD:Resolution:EIR-11-4 11/5/96-#2 RLS 96-506 r r ' Res. No. 96-100 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I,'CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th of November, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Harman, Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green NOES: None ABSENT: None Garofalo City Clerk'and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resoluti/resbkpg/96-100 Attachment A STATEMENT OF FINDINGS HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT, PROJECT Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states that: "No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those significant effects; accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding." The possible findings for each significant adverse impact are the following: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR (§15091(a]1) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes either have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency (§15091[a]2). Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (§15091[a]3). Although the EIR for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger(known hereafter as the Amendment/Merger) identified effects of the project and mitigation measures to reduce these effects, the project did not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts. However, the following text identifies the effects of the project as it relates to each topical section in the EIR and specifies how the mitigation measures will lessen the effects. LAND USE The intent of the Amendment/Merger is to provide a vehicle for the City's Redevelopment Agency to assist the City in eliminating incompatible land uses and/or blight, and to promote economic development. The Redevelopment Plan for the Amendment/Merger designates permitted land uses within the Merged Project Area consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore, there are no significant land use impacts associated with the proposed Amendment/Merger. 1 G:S F-96-M i s c:Attach-A 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 Mitigation Measures None required. POPULATION AND HOUSING The Amendment/Merger does not propose any changes in land use or zoning designation, or policies that would result in any increases in population within the Merged Project Area of the City. The project primarily allows for increased funding opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial,rehabilitation, and assisted housing projects,'which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and type (i.e.,'land use) will be consistent with that projected in the City's General Plan. The Amendment/Merger also facilitates implementation of housing programs in the Merged Project Area, through financing mechanisms, and promotes the City's housing goals. It is estimated that the Redevelopment Agency's activities will facilitate 610 dwelling units, which is 0.6 percent of the General Plan build'out. The City must also replace affordable housing units affected by redevelopment activities; therefore, the proposed Amendment/Merger may result in the displacement of low and moderate income families and/or loss of affordable housing units within the Merged Project Area. Redevelopment activities include housing setaside, whereby a portion of the Redevelopment Agency's tax increment revenue is required by the State to be set aside into a special fund of the Agency to meet affordable housing needs within the City. The Agency adopted a relocation plan in conjunction with the preparation of the five existing Redevelopment Plans, and is also required to adhere to the State,Relocation Law. The Agency is required to replace affordable housing destroyed or removed as a consequence of a redevelopment project. One of the primary objectives of the Amendment/Merger is the enhancement of existing employment opportunities and economic development within the City. Job creation within the Merged Project will be within the employment projections outlined in the EIR for the General Plan. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure will lessen the potentially significant effect to housing and population to a level below significance. The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate income displaced by a redevelopment project., The Agency,shall adopt and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such 2 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A 11/5196-#1 RLS 96-806 housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and must be decent, safe' sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. EARTH RESOURCES Huntington Center and Main-Pier are located within potential liquefaction zones. Liquefaction is a construction hazard and may lead to severe settlement, lateral dislocation, uplift (heaving) of buried structures and possible overturning of buildings. Although a portion of the Merged Project Area may'experience potential liquefaction effects, the City's standard codes and General Pian policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level below significance. Yorktown-Lake is susceptible to ground rupture impacts due to its location within the Fault Hazard Zone. The remainder of the Merged Project Area is not within the Fault Hazard Zone, but all of the Merged Project Area is susceptible.to potential ground shaking effects associated with an earthquake. The City's standard codes and General Plan policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level below significance. Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier contain oil fields that are typically,locations of subsidence. Subsidence can cause settlement of engineered structures built above oil fields, potentially leading to distress to foundations and other structural elements. The City's standard codes and General Plan policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level below significance. Due to the location of.Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier within a Methane Overlay District, the likelihood of methane exposure during construction is prominent. Therefore, future development and redevelopment within these two areas may create exposure to methane gas. Mitigation Measures City and State codes, development review processes, and General Plan policies will mitigate these potential impacts to a level below significance. WATER RESOURCES Redevelopment within the Merged Project Area may increase the amount of urban runoff and water pollution, including siltation/sedimentation. 3 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A 11/5/96-k1 RLS 96-806 - Mitigation Measures Existing regulations requiring water quality management plans and NPDES permitting prior to construction reduce potential effects to less than significant. AIR QUALITY The Amendment/Merger will not result in any new development.that has not been analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment Plans or as part of the City's General Plan. However, future redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will result in short- term construction and vehicle exhaust emission impacts. Site clearing, grading, equipment travel on unpaved surfaces, and demolition of existing improvements may result in an increase of fugitive dust during construction within the Merged Project Area. In addition, an increase of contaminated soil, dust and other pollutants may result during grading operations within the Merged Project Area. Mitigation Measures Construction Exhaust Emissions ' Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures provided within the AQMP,-to the extent feasible. The measures to be implemented are as follows: Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications; Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered'equipment; Use reformulated, low-emissions diesel fuel; Substitute electric and gasoline,powered equipment for diesel powered equipment, ,where feasible; y Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than five minutes); and Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). 4 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A 11/5/96-N1 RLS 96-806 The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. Fugitive Dust The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. These measures may include the following:' Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas; Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering; Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time; Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods; Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices; Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in coordination with local public agencies; Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; Wash off srucks leaving site; Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. Volatile Organic Emissions The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application. 5 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should..be avoided whenever possible. Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as precoated materials, shall be specified. Contaminated Soils and Dusts In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination,a site assessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred, the soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both'local and State agencies, which would "signoff',on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during, excavation activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated, as appropriate. Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos will be removed and disposed of in accordance with sound engineering practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these measures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level that is less than significant. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION., The Amendment/Merger maintains the same land use designations and intensities as the General Plan, and the Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the same as those in the General Plan. Therefore, no circulation impacts are forecast that were not considered in the General Plan Update EIR. Mitigation Measures None required. All development will be subject to General Plan Policies in the General Plan EIR regarding transportation and circulation. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No significant impacts to biological resources are identified with the Amendment/Merger. Minor wetland impacts of development of the waterfront site at PCH and Beach Boulevard could occur', and a minor increase in human intrusion could occur, but these are not considered significant. 6 G:S F-96-M i sc:Attach-A 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 Mitigation Measures None required. PUBLIC HEALTH(HAZARDS) Future development and redevelopment related to the Amendment/Merger may incrementally increase exposure to hazardous materials during construction of operation. Mitigation Measures Existing City and State codes and General Plan policies will mitigate potential impacts to a level below significance. NOISE The AMendment/Merger may result in increased construction related noise in the Merged Project Area. Mitigation Measures Existing City codes and General Plan policies will mitigate potential impacts to a level below significance. PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES` The Amend ment/Merger may result in increased demand on existing public services and utilities. Mitigation Measures Existing General Plan policies limit growth if infrastructure is not available to serve the increased demand. AESTHETICS Future'redevelopment projects resulting from the Amendment/Merger may alter existing views. 7 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 Mitigation Measures City development review processes, design guidelines, and General Plan policies will reduce impacts to a level below significance. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES Future projects resulting from the Amendment/Merger may disrupt or impact historical resources. In addition, future projects within the Merged Project Area may encounter previously unknown archaeological and paleontological resources. 'Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure.will lessen the potentially significant effect to cultural resources to a level below significance: Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or require demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete assessment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation: A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments, special architectural features, etc. B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each building. C) A determination of construction date from existing records, such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Orange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community 8 G:SF-96-M isc:Attach-A 11/5/96-N1 RIS 96-806 Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3) ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment „4 monitoring shall be on site during grading operations. A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collection of historic documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another suitable local archive. SCHOOLS Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. This will not result in physical impacts on the environment. In addition, development fees, State financing, and requirements for continued levels of tax funding for affected school districts lessen potential impacts to a level below significance. Mitigation Measures The Final EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies regarding potential impacts on schools as analyzed in the applicable General Plan. 9 G:SF-96-Mise:A[tach-A 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-906 Attachment B MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PREPARED FOR: City of Huntington Beach Department of Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager (714) 536-5582 or Linda Niles, Community Planning Department (714) 536-5271 PREPARED BY.• LSA Associates, Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Contact: Robert W. Balen, Principal (714) 553-0666 LSA Project#RSG630 October 18, 1996 , MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the Amendment/Merger will be carried out as described in the EIR. Table 1.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, and identifies the party(ies) responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure. 1 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 11/5/96-N1 RLS 96-806 Table 1.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure 4.2 Population and 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any Economic Development Economic Development Prior to the issuance of Housing persons or families of low and moderate Director(or designee) Director(or designee) any project requiring income displaced by a redevelopment removal or displacement of project. The Agency--shall adopt and housing. implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410_through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety_Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by-a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 11/5196-N1 RLS 96-806 4.5 Air Quality Construction Exhaust Emissions Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of 4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy Director(or designee) Development Director any grading or building equipment and vehicle travel is limited. (or designee) permits associated with the However, exhaust emissions from Merged Project Area. construction equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures to be implemented are as follows: Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; -Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications; Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment; Use reformulated, low-_ emissions diesel fuel; Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered equipment, where feasible; Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods(i.e., more than five minutes); and Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambierit pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. 3 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 Fugitive Dust 4.5-13 The applicant shall implement Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of standard mitigation measures in Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and (or designee) associated with the 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and Merged Project Area. ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. These measures may include the following: Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas; Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering; Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large`areas to erosion over extended periods of time; Schedule activities to minimize-the amounts_of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods; Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices; Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in - coordination with local public agencies; Sweep streets on a daily .basis if silt is carried over to adjacent . public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; Suspend-grading_ operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; 4 G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 Wash off trucks leaving site; Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. Volatile Organic Emissions 4.5-C The application of paints and Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of coatings and asphalt paving material will Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits raise significant quantities of VOC (or designee) associated with the emissions during their application. Merged Project Area. Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be uti- lized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided when- ever possible. Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as precoated materials; shall be specified. 5 G:SF-96-M i sc:Attach-B 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 I Contaminated Soils and Dusts 4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of subsurface contamination, a site Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits assessment will be conducted before any (or designee) associated with the construction takes place at that locale. At Merged Project Area. locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred, the-soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under-the direction of both local and State agencies,-which would "sign off'on the remediation effort-upon completion. If unforseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during -excavation activities,these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated, as appropriate. 4.5-E Any structures to be demolished Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of will have an asbestos survey performed by Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits personnel trained and certified in asbestos (or designee) associated with the abatement. Any existing asbestos will be Merged Project Area. removed and disposed of in accordance with sound engineering practice and federal regulations._ Implementation of these measures will reduce'potentially significant contamination issues to a level that is less than significant. 6 - _ G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 4.12 Cultural 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of Resources construction that would displace or require Director(or designee) Development Director any entire structure demolition of potentially significant (or designee) demolition, grading or resources, a complete assessment shall building permit. be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation: A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments, special architectural features, etc. B) Black and'white photographs showing one or more facades of each building. C) A determination of construction date_ from existing records, such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. - D) _ A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. 7 _ G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 1115196-111 RLS 96-806 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, Community,Development Community _ During demolition and archaeological resources or Director(or designee) Development Director :grading associated with paleontological resources be uncovered (or designee) the Merged Project Area. during grading or excavation, a County of Orange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3) ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. 4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil Community Development Community During demolition and recognition, fossil recovery,and heavy Director(or designee) Development Director grading associated with equipment monitoring shall be on site (or designee) _ the Merged Project Area. during grading operations. 4.12-D A copy of the present report shall Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of be placed in the collection of historic Director(or designee) Development Director any demolition, grading, or documents on file at the Huntington Beach (or designee) building permits associated Central Library or another suitable local with the Merged Project archive. Area. 8 ._ G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 ATTACHMENT C SUMMARY OF/AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 96-2 In order to make a decision as to whether to approve a project that will have an adverse environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its unavoidable, significant adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered acceptable (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a project are defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur without the proposed project. The benefits from adopting the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger are based primarily on the higher quality community environment that will exist as the Merged Project Area develops and infrastructure improvements are made according to the Amendment/Merger. This EIR has identified that the Amend ment/Merger may result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts for two environmental issue areas, regardless of implementation of the proposed policies and/or mitigation measures. These environmental issue areas are: air quality and cultural resources. The Agency and the City Council have balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the unavoidable risks identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and make the following Statement of Overriding Considerations. 1. The proposed Merged Project will contribute to the creation of a modern, efficient, and balanced urban environment for people of the Redevelopment Project Area and surrounding areas and ' uses, by providing infrastructure improvements, street and storm drainage systems monitoring and improvements and economic development activities funded through the Merged Project. 2. The proposed Amendment/Merger will eliminate and prevent the spread of blight and deterioration, and will conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Merged Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. 3. The proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage the involvement and participation of residents, business persons, and community organization within the Project Area in a coordinated revitalization design to meet the diverse needs of the area. 4. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will improve social and economic conditions in the entire Merged Project Area by: facilitating the creation of additional commercial retail development offering easily accessible neighborhood oriented goods and services; upgrading deteriorating industrial 1 QSF-96-M isc:Attach-C 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 _ and commercial areas by revitalizing existing businesses and generating additional new development opportunities in a more attractive environment; and creating additional recreational and library facilities. 5. New development, rehabilitation of existing structures, landscaping, drainage improvements, and roadway and intersection improvements .will improve the overall aesthetics of,the Merged Project Area in accordance with plans, policies and mechanisms reflected in the City's recently adopted revised General Plan, such as: (a) The adoption of land use standards; (b) The promotion of architectural and urban design standards including: standards for height; building setback; continuity of street,facade, building materials; security lighting; and appurtenances; (c) The promotion of landscape criteria and planting program to ensure additional green space; (d) The promotion of sign and billboard standards; (e) Coordination.of the provision of high quality public improvements; and -(f) .. Integration of public safety concerns into planning efforts. 6. 'Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will address conditions of blight and effective redevelopment in the Merged Project Area. 7. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage private sector investment in the development and redevelopment of the Merged Project Area, assist in the revitalization of viable commercial areas, and the development of a viable business environment that positively relates to adjacent land uses. 8. Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will provide for the stabilization of currently declining commercial areas by: providing the thrust for revitalizing the Merged Project Area by occupying vacant buildings and developing on vacant sites; reactivating underutilized structures; and providing additional employment opportunities for small businesses. 9. The proposed Amendment/Merger will facilitate the successful elimination of blight in the Merged ,Project Area. The proposed, Amendment/Merger will upgrade vacant sites at various key,intersections in the Merged Project Area and improve the area's,physical and economic environment by providing consumers a variety of much needed additional commercial and civic services. 2 G SF-96-Misc:Attach-C 11 5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 10. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage and motivate owners and business tenants within the Merged Project Area to revitalize and redevelop their properties. 11. Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will not only benefit the immediate Merged Project Area, but will have spin-off effects of benefiting surrounding commercial uses in other parts of the adjacent community. Assistance by the ` Agency will stimulate the economic base of the area by motivating commercial and industrial involvement, and improving overall economic conditions; which in turn will benefit the community at large. 12. The Amendment/Merger will attain the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law through the assemblage of land into parcels suitable for integrated development, and the planning, redesign and development of areas that are stagnant or underutilized. ' 13. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will -generate new home ownership, and property owner investment will be. encouraged by the Amendment/Merger. Property taxes will be used to increase and improve the supply and quality of low and moderate income housing for all age groups. 14. Development and preservation of sound residential neighborhoods in the Merged Project Area shall be encouraged by the promotion of residential property rehabilitation, and implementation of sensitive and well designed infill housing. 15. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide a basis for the location and programming of public service facilities and utilities including, but not limited to, library facilities, street lighting, drainage improvements and roadway improvements, and coordination of the phasing of public facilities with private development. -16. Implementation of the proposed Amend ment/Merger will provide the public improvements necessary to eliminate' impediments to private investment in the area. 17. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide a full range of employment opportunities for persons of all income levels. 18. Through new investment opportunities, the local job force in the community shall be preserved and expanded. To the extent feasible,- developers in the Merged Project Area will be encouraged to hire at least a portion of the workforce to be employed at the new developments from within the City of Huntington Beach. 3 G.SF-96-Misc:Attach-C 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 19. _ The development of new businesses in the Merged Project Area will provide construction jobs 'and create new employment 'opportunities by attracting new employers as tenants, who will, in turn, provide additional, employment opportunities. As'new development is stimulated; it is anticipated that additional employment opportunities will : be achieved as new ,businesses with new employers/employees replace vacant or underutilized business establishments. 20. 'New development within the Merged Project Area :will provide the City annual increased revenues from sources such as,:but not limited Jo:to: property taxes, commercial property, rental taxes, telephone taxes, telephone equipment rental _ taxes, electrical taxes, natural gas franchise taxes, sales taxes, retail business taxes, retail property rental taxes, and liquor and cigarette taxes. 21. New development brought about by the Merged Project will generate an increase in revenues available to the Agency from tax increments, which can be used to further goals of the Redevelopment Plan. 22. The proposed Amendment/Merger will coordinate the revitalization effort in the five existing Redevelopment Project Areas with one coordinated revitalization effort that will leverage and maximize the effect of other public programs of the City of Huntington Beach and the metropolitan area. 23. The Merged Project is required by provisions included within it to be consistent with the City's General Plan. All land uses, infrastructure and public facility improvements projects, roadway improvement projects, and economic development actions carried out by the Agency in the Merged Project Area must be consistent with the Adopted General Plan. As such, the proposed Amendment/Merger does not allow any economic development activity, physical improvement, or infrastructure improvement that has not already been authorized by the General Plan. In adopting a revised and updated General Plan on May 13, 1996, the City Council made the following findings that also apply to the proposed Amendment/Merger: • The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of society by establishing programs for the provision of affordable housing, the preservation and improvement of existing housing, and a provision for the development of housing for people with special needs. • The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with available and expanded infrastructure and services, including streets, transit, sewers, water, storm drainage, energy, and communication. The timing of development will be phased with the provision of necessary infrastructure/service improvements. 4 G.SF-96-M isc:Attach-C 11/5/96-#1 RLS 96-806 • The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and programs designed to provide a transportation network with adequate capacity to accommodate proposed build out, including ,mechanisms to monitor and maintain acceptable traffic conditions. • The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic, equipment, construction and other noise sources,through policies that require the installation of mitigation measures of many,different means to ensure that noise levels are maintained within City noise standards. The City of Huntington Beach finds that the unavoidable , risks of this, project are acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project for the reasons set forth above. 5 G:S F-96-M i sc:Attach-C 11/5/96-41 RLS 96-806 RESOLUTION NO., 279 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL- ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (NO. 96-2) FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN PREPARED, CIRCULATED AND COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR CEQA AND THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California (the "Agency") as Applicant has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report(the"Final EIR") for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and The Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for CEQA; and A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 19, 1996, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearing,has been prepared pursuant to said statute and Guidelines; and The City Council as Lead Agency certified the Final EIR on October 7, 1996 (Resolution No. 96-63); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California as follows: Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared, circulated and completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable regulations. Section 2. The Redevelopment Agency certifies that the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and considered by the Redevelopment Agency Members. 1 SFA PCD•Resolution:Agen96-2 1115196-#2 RLS 96-806 Section 3. The Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines for CEQA. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements: ' a. Draft EIR and appendices; and b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. All of the above information has been and will be on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community,Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, and with the City Clerk. Section 4. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. Section S. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project (including the No Project Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the Agency finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November , 1996. Chairman ATTE : APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Clerk ' Agency Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITI O Executive Director or o cono c Develop ent 2 SF/s:PCD:Reso1ution:Agen96-2 11/5/96-#2 RLS 96-806 Res. No. 279 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 18th day of November, 1996 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Garofalo Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. G/reso1uti/resbkpg2/Rcs.279 From the desk of. CONNIE BROCKWAY City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 536-5227 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney David Biggs, Economic Development Director FROM. Connie Brockway, City Clerk (� SUBJECT. Mailing of Notices of Public Hearing Pursuant to Page No. 3 of Ordinance to be Placed on November 18, 1996 Agenda (Merger of Redevelopment Project Areas) DATE: November 8, 1996 Please inform me as to whether the mailings etc. that the ordinance states were sent to property owners and affected governmental districts must be on file in the City Clerk's Office. My office requested by phone, at the time of the first publication, a list of the addressees and have not yet received same. As the ordinance does not reflect by whom or what department, or perhaps consultant performed this mailing, I believe it is necessary for the city to have the ability to find the mailing list. Please provide whatever record of said mailing, if any, the City Clerk's office is to have on file for public review. (This office did receive the attached memo from the Economic Development Department verifying that publication dates were sufficient.) I C13/mcm:96-940jc.doc / Su--539 Distribution : White: Requesting Department Yellow: Office Control File Pink : Assigned Staff Member REQUEST FOR LEGAL SERVICES FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM To: Connie From: Office of the City Attorney Subject : Your Request for Legal Services Date: 11/ 12/96 This will acknowledge receipt of your Request for Legal Services , below listed. Dated: 11/0/ 96 Type of Legal Service Requested: [ ] Ordinance [ ] Insurance [ ] Resolution [ ] Bonds [ ] Contract/Agreement [ ] Opinion [ ] Other : Description: provide record of mailing of notices of public nearing This Request for Legal Services has been assigned to SCOTT FIELD for handling . He/she can be reached through extension 5555. The Control Number assigned to this request is: 9G-O39 Please reference this number when making any inqu ries in regard to this matter . Thank you. 0673L �C- IS73q - OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney David Biggs, Economic Development Director FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk l/J SUBJECT: Mailing of Notices of Public Hearing Pursuant to Page No. 3 of Ordinance to be Placed on November 18, 1996 Agenda (Merger of Redevelopment Project Areas) DATE: November 8, 1996 Please inform me as to whether the mailings etc. that the ordinance states were sent to property owners and affected governmental districts must be on file in the City Clerk's Office. My office requested by phone, at the time of the first publication, a list of the addressees and have not yet received same. As the ordinance does not reflect by whom or what department, or perhaps consultant performed this mailing, I believe it is necessary for the city to have the ability to find the mailing list. Please provide whatever record of said mailing, if any, the City Clerk's office is to have on file for public review. (This office did receive the attached memo from the Economic Development Department verifying that publication dates were sufficient.) CB/mcm:96-940jc.doc CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �� D To Connie Brockway, City Clerk n From David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development Date November 5, 1996 Subject Approval of Notice Dates -- Redevelopment Plan Amendment Pursuant to your request, attached is a copy of a letter from Murray O. Kane, Esq., of the firm of Kane, Ballmer & Berkman, which acts as Agency special counsel. You'll see from the letter that it outlines the advertising requirements for the joint public hearing to be conducted by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency on November 18, 1996, and specifically references the publication dates used to advertise this hearing. We hope that this provides you with the information that you need. DCB:SVK:Ib xc: Gail Hutton, City Attorney Scott Field, Deputy City Attorney Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager 7. KAtiE. BALLMER & BERKMAIN A LAW CORPORATION 515 5OU I H �IGUERUA 31REET, ;UITE 1860 LOS ANGELES, CALIFOR`IA 90071 TELEPHONE 1?131 617-0480 MURRAY 0, KANE FAX (213) 625-0931 ROBERT P BERKMAN DRUCE D. BALLMER RCT,AEO CLENN r V4A%SEFMAN R. URUCr TEPPrR. JR CUGE:NE H. JACOBS JOSCP" W. PANNONE A PPOFESS,ONAL COOPOAATION ROTCE A. JONE5 orCOUN3C� PRINCIPALS November 4, 1996 Stephen Kohler Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re. Requirements for Notice of Joint Public Hearing Proposed Merger and Amendment Lear Mr. Kohler: The following is a brief outline of the requirements for publication of the notice of the joint public hearing of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency for the above-referenced matter* The Joint Public Hearing is governed by Health& Safety Code Sections 33355 et seq. Section 33356 refers us to Sections 33349 and 33361 as to the specific requirements for publication of the notice of public healing. Section 33349 requires publication for"not less than vawc a week for four successive weeks prior to the hearing" Section 33361 requires publication for"not less than once a week for four successive weeks " Your publication of the notice on October 24, October 31, November 7 and November 14 for the November 18 joint public hearing satisfies these applicable"once a week for four weeks" legal requirements, as set forth in these statutes and as interpreted by applicable case law. Stephen Kohler,Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach November 4, 1996 Page 2 Please let me know if you have any fiuther questions on this matter. Sincerely, hurray 0. Kane Agency Legal Counsel r.f . Y . J� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney David Biggs, Economic Development Director FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerk SUBJECT.• Mailing of Notices of Public Hearing Pursuant to Page No. 3 of Ordinance to be Placed on November 18, 1996 Agenda (Merger of Redevelopment Project Areas) DATE: November 8, 1996 Please inform me as to whether the mailings etc. that the ordinance states were sent to property owners and affected governmental districts must be on file in the City Clerk's Office. My office requested by phone, at the time of the first publication, a list of the addressees and have not yet received same. As the ordinance does not reflect by whom or what department, or perhaps consultant performed this mailing, I believe it is necessary for the city to have the ability to find the mailing list. Please provide whatever record of said mailing, if any, the City Clerk's office is to have on file for public review. (This office did receive the attached memo from the Economic Development Department verifying that publication dates were sufficient.) CB/me m:96-9.10jc.doc Mr. Michael Uberuaga Mr.Stan Oiflelie,CEO Mr. Bradley Jacobs City Manager Orange County Transit Authority Orange County Assessor City of Huntington Beach 550 South Main Street 12 Civic Center Plaza 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 14184 Santa Ana,CA 92702 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Orange,CA 92613-1584 Ms.Kathleen E.Goodno Mr.John Moorlach Mr.Gilbert Challet Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Orange County Tax Collector District Manager County of Orange P.O. Box 1438 O.C.Vector Control District 10 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana,CA 92702 P.O. Box R7 Santa Ana,CA 92701 Santa Ana,CA 92702 Mr.Stanley Sprague Mr.John Wodraska Ms. Jan Mittermeier,CEO General Manager General Manager County of Orange Municipal Water District of O.C. Metropolitan Water District of S.C. 10 Civic Center Plaza,3rd Floor P.O. Box 20395 P.O. Box 54113 Santa Ana,CA 92701-4062 Fountain Valley,CA 92728 Los Angeles,CA 90054 Mr.Steven E. Lewis Mr.Herb Nakasone Mr.Sam Randall Orange County Auditor-Controller General Manager General Manager P.O. Box 567 Orange County Flood Control District Orange County Cemetery District Santa Ana,CA 92702.0567 300 N. Glower Street 25751 Trabuco Road Santa Ana,CA 92702-4049 Lake Forest,CA 92630 Mr. William R. Mills,Jr. Mr. Don McIntyre Mr. Bob Fisher,Director General Manager General Manager Orange County Harbors, Reaches Orange County Water District O.C.Sanitation District#3&911 and Parks District#26 P.O. Box 8300 P.O. Box 9127 P.O. Box 4048 Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Fountain Valley,CA 92728-SI27 Santa Ana,CA 92702.4048 Mr.John Nelson Mr. Tish Koch Mr.Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent of Business Asst.Superintendent of Admin.Services Orange County Dept.of Education Huntington Beach Union High School Dist. Huntington Beach Elementary School Dist. 200 Kalmus Drive 10251 Yorktown Avenue P.O. Box 71 Costa Mesa,CA 92628 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ms.Nancy A. Pollard, President Dr.James Tarwater Ms.Gail Wickstrom Board of Trustees Superintendent Superintendent Orange Coast Community College District Ocean View Elementary School District Westminster Elementary School District 1370 Adams Avenue 17200 Pinehurst Drive 14121 Cedarwood Avenue Costa Mesa,CA 92626 Huntington Beach,CA 92641 Westminster,CA 92683 Mr. David J. Martin, Supervisor State Board of Equalization 450"N"Street,MIC: 59 P.O. Box 942879 Sacramento,CA 94279-0059 hunt►chta.l.hl �N 6, z1 00l4 _)NI ° 9Sd Tlh;:RSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 1996 PUBLIC NOTICES PUKIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES Exhibit B(9 of 9) HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea S (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROJECT AMENDMENT NO.1 A parcel Wand situated partially in Sections 10,11,12,13,14,Township 6 South,Range I 1 West, San Bernardino base and meridian,County of Orange,Stale of California.Said parcel being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the intersection of section corners,Sections 11,12,13 and 14. thence North 89'37'06'East 20 feet to the True Point of Beginning; thence South 0'40'00'East 1,320.00 feet to the point; thence South 89'43'00'Weat 1.955.76 feet to a point; thence North 0'43'15'West 1,350.04 feet to a point; thence South 89'43'00'West 670.00 feet to a point; thence North 0'00'11"West 2.640.00 to a point; thence North 89'58'15'West 262.10 feet to a point; thence South 0'00'00'East 294.10 feet to a point; thence North 89'57'13'West 375.15 feet to a point; thence South 41'38'18"West 419.76 feet to a point; thence South 48'21'42'East 190.00 feet to a point; thence South 41'38'18'West 1890.00 feat to a point; thence North 48'21'42'West 15.00 feet to a point; thence South 41'38'18'West 125.00 feet to a point; thence North 48'21'42'West 750.00 feet to a point; thence North 45'12'51'West 400.66 feet to a point; thence North 48'21'42'West 4255.00 feet to a point; thence South 41'38'W West 326.00 feet to a point; thence South 46'30'00'East 5.628.00 feet to a point; thence North 41'38'le East 990.00 feet to a point; thence South 48'21'42'East 1.330.00 feet to a point; thence South 10'09'04'East 414.00 feet to a point; thence North 41'38'18'West 690.00 feet to a point; thence South 52'54'IV East 4,618.03 feet to a point; thence North 0'40'00'West 1.947.92 feet to a point; thence North 89'36'56'East 469.56 feet to a point; thence North 0'40'or West 3,029A6 feet to a point; thence South 89'87'01r Want 409M hat to a poird4 thence South 0'44t'(W RN.J Rn m f..e e.,.t,.T_..n.:_._•n_ PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of California, and that attached Notice is a true and complete copy as was printed and published in the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: OCTOBER 24, 31 , 1996 NOVEMBER 7. 14, 1996 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on NOVEMBER 14, , 199 6 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 14,1996 independent PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE, IUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a joint public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach("City Council")and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach("Agency")at the Council Chambers of the City of Huntington Beach,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California,92648,on Monday, November 18, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon as possible thereafter, to consider amendment and merger ("Amendment/Merger")of the existing Redevelopment Plans for the Huntington Center Commercial District,Oakview, Talbert-Beach, Yorktown-Lake, and Main-Pier Redevelopment Projects ("Existing Plans"), that would establish the merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area"), Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Project")and Redevelopment Plan("Merged Plan"). If adopted,the Amendment/Merger would: 1) merge the redevelopment plans for the Existing Plans into the Merged Plan,2) increase the dollar limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Project and eliminate all preexisting annual limits, 3) increase the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time,4)extend the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness on behalf of the Project, 5) on a selective basis, extend the time frame within which the Agency may employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas and rescind Resolution No. 48, 6) extend the time periods within which the Agency may undertake redevelopment activities and receive tax increment,and 7)expand the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the Agency may undertake within the Project Area.If adopted,the Merged Plan would allow the Agency to continue to implement activities which will eliminate and prevent the spread of blight in the Project Area. The Agency's Report to the City Council("Report")on the proposed Amendment/Merger will be presented at the joint public hearing. The Report includes a Final Environmental Impact Report,the Report and Recommendation of the Planning Commission,a summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies,and other documentation required by the Community Redevelopment Law. Interested persons may inspect thc proposed Merged Plan and all other information pertaining thereto at the Agency's offices at 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California. At the joint public hearing,the City Council and the Agency shall consider all evidence and testimony for and against the Amendment/Merger. All persons having any objections to the proposed Amendment/Merger or the regularity of any of the prior proceedings may appear before the Agency and City Council and show cause why the proposed Amendment/Merger should not be adopted. At any time not later than the hour set for the hearing,any person or organization may file a written statement with the City Clerk,of their objections to the proposed Amendment/Merger. Any person or organization desiring to be heard will be given an opportunity to be heard. At the public hearing,the City Council and the Agency shall proceed to hear and pass upon all written and oral objections to the proposed Amendment/Merger, in accordance with the procedures of the California Community Redevelopment Law. The City Council will make written findings in response to written objections filed at the public hearing prior to adoption of the Amendment/Merger. The boundaries of the Project Area are depleted on Exhibit A. A legal description of the Project Area boundaries is included as Exhibit B. Anyone having specific questions can visit the Agency's offices at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California,or call,(714)536-5582. On October 29,1996,the Agency will be hosting a community meeting at 6:00 p.m.at Huntington Beach Civic Center,2000 Main Street,in Room B-8. The purpose of the community meeting is to discuss the goals and objectives of the Amendment/Merger,to solicit public iuput,and to answer your questions. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are hereby invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the action outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's/Redevelopment Agency's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, at or prior to the public hearing. If there are any further questions, please call the Economic Development Department at(714) 536-5582. Direct your written communication to the City Clerk: CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET, 2ND FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536-5227 CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE... t3 Independent THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 14,1996 PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES 1 Exhibit A 4 .. i(l •atf0lU1I MNn de1[V P� MITI LYl(O g3�OKAY[}lYp 1A01 Wrt� ' 1 ` � d10MNMM pCn AMM •L`Y �� MwrO� . ♦LMY �M NM fib( {MMIC HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Project Area Boundaries CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE... THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 14,1996 Independent ff/ PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES Exhibit B(1 of 9) distance o(193.59 feet to a point of reveres curvature,a radial bearing through said point been North 63.16'07'Weak said curve being concave to the northwest and having a redlu.of iIUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 34500fw; Subarea 1 thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 34'21'5Y,as ere (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) distance of20S92 featto a point on a tan eu en gentrve,a radial bearing through said point be North a8'22'01'Best;said turve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 345.00 feeC LEGAL DESCRIPTION thence northerly and westerly through a central angle IW 27 01%an an datance of 62.93 feet to a point on a tangent tine; Beginning at the northwest corner of Parcel 2 as shown on a map recorded in Book 107,page 18.Poured.Maps,Records of Orange County; Exhibit B(3 of 9) thence North 47'28'1Y West 20 57 feet along the northwesterly prolongation of the northerly line of.aid Pun17 to the Tine Point of Beginning, HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT thence South 00'39'18'East 421.27 feet along the—at line of the southwest quarter of the Subarea I a northeast quarter of Section 14,Township 5 South,Range ll West,as shown on said parcel (formerly Huntington Center Commercial Redevelopment Project Area) map to a point said pmnl being the center of Section 14,Township 5 South,Range 11 West ae.hewn on a map recorded In Book 169,pages 45 and 46,Parcel Maps,Recordi or Orange County, LEGAL DESCRIPTION(con't) Thence South 89'32'08'West 30100 feet; thence South OD'39'35'East 543.82 feat to.tangent curve,said curve being concave thence North 18'OS'00'West 24100 feet W a point no tangent curve,said curve being northwesterly and having a r.dius or wo o0 feet, concave to the southwest and having a radius of 27000 feet, thence southerly and westerly along said curve through a central angel of 44'59'42'an we thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 72'34'35',an we distance 0392,66 feet to a point on a tangent line, distance of 342 00 feet to a point on a tangent line; thence South 44'20'07'East 94 94 feet long said tangent line W a tangent curve,said thence South 89'20'25'West 16028 feel along said tangent line W a Point on a tangent curve, curve being concave southeasterly and having a radius of 500 DO feet, said curve being canvave to the northeast and having a r.dm.of 175 00. thence southerly and westerly through a central angle or 45'00'00',an are distinct or thence westerly and northerly along said Oahe through a central angel of 90.00'00',an are 392,70 feet to a point,said poust being the southeast comer of the west half of the northeast distance or 274 89(sat to a point an.tangent line; quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 14.Townehlp 5 South,Range 11 West Parcel thence North 00'39'35'West 64 64 feet along acid tangent line to a point on a tangent curve, Map 81 511: said curve being concave to the southwest and having a radius of 34 00 feet, thence North He 32'15'East 395.47 feet W a point,said point being the southeast corner of thence northerly and westerly along said curve through a central angle of 49'09'22,an are said Parcel Map 81.571: distance of 29 17 feet to a point on a non tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point thence South 00'39'35'East 150.00 feet; bears North 40'11'03'Ees4 said curve being concave to the...th and having.radius of thane.North 89'31'S5'East 109,00 feet; 60 00 feet. thence South 00'39'W East I320 67 leek thence westerly along said curve through a central angle of 00'24'45',an are distance of 4.03 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve,a radial bearing through said point bears North 47'38' thence North 89'32'04'East 1%00 feet to a point said point being the South quarter 14'East said curve being concave authwest end having a radio.35 00 feet, comer of Section 14,Township 5 South,Range It Weal as shown on a map recorded In Book thence northerly and westerly through a central angle or65'Ol'29,an we distance of 39 72 22,page 18.Parcel Maps,Records or Orange County, - feet to a point on a non-tangent line,a radial bearing through said point been North 17'23' thence South 00'N'25'East 660.00 feet; 15'West thane North 89.24'5T East 45.00 rest to.point acid point being the northwest comer of thence North 00'39'35'West 30 l2 feet Tract 5894,a.shown on a map neorded In Book 23,pages 18 and 19,Miscellaneous Mapa, thence South 89'32'00'West 1500 W the Point of Beginning Record.of Orange County: thence North 89'24'S0'East 100493 feet along the north lim of said Tract 5894 and the Exhibit B(4 of 9) easterly prolongation of sold north line to a point said point being on the centerline of Sher We: i HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT thence North OO'44'25'West 13000 Let, Subarea 2 thence North 89'24'Sty EW 376,00 feet (formerly Oakvlew Redevelopment Project Area) thence South 00'N'25'East 100.00 feet. Exhibit B(2 of 9) LEGAL DESCRIPTION HUNTINGTON BEACHREDEVELOPMENT PROJECT OAxvlEwnnEA Pno3ecr Subarea i That pomon of Section 26,Township 5 South,Range Il West m the Rancho La Bola.Chore (formerlylluntingtonCenterCommercialRedevelopmentProjectArea) and the Rancho Betas,City of Huntington Beach.County of Orange,State of California,ad _ shown on a map recorded In Book 51,page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps In the Orfic,or the County Recorder described as follows. LEGAL DESCRIPTION(con't) Beg nning at the east one•q.wte,corner of said Section 26. thence South 89'24'16'West 463 It feet W a point on the southerly prolongation of the east there,North 89'24'50'East 52896 feet line of Keelson Lane,a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either aide centerline,said point thence North 00.44'25'West 180,00 feet to the centerline intersection of Park.ide Len.and being the True Point of Beginning; Aldrich Avenue; then,,along said southerly prolongation South 0'45'06'East 40 feet to the south line of thence north SW 16'15'East 685 03 feet W s point on the section line of Huntington Beach Slater Avenue,a street 80 feet In width,40 feet either side of centerhne, Boulevard per Tract 417,as shown on a map recorded in Book 16,page 47,Miscellaneous thence South 89'24'16'West 1187 feel along said south line W the west line of Tract No Maps Record.of Orange County, 4091. thence North 00'16'46'East 1275 36 feet; thence along said west line North 0'44'31'West 70D feet to the north line of and Tract 4031, thence North 49'16'37'West 900.0o feet thence along said north line North 89'24'39'East 300 feet to the southerly�extcmnoo of the thence North 00'27'57'West 125 00 feeC west line croak Lane,a street being 60 feet in width.30 feel either side of centerline, thence North 46'55'24'West 572 85 feet, thence North 0'44'46'West 2041 feet along said southerly extension,the west line of Oak Lane and its northerly extension to a line parallel with and 60 feet north measured at right thence North 46'19'32'West 501.21 feet angles from the centerb.of Wainer Avenue; thence North 60'25'S8'West 329 65 feet, thence along said parallel line North 89'25'46'East 1386 feet W the centerline of Beach thence North 54'14'34'West 1196 05 feet W the True Point of Beginning, Blvd,said street being 132 feet In width.66 feet either side of centerline, ' thence along said centerbe South 0'45'14'East 996 feet, Excepting herefrom that portion described as follows, thence South 89'25'W West 293 real,. Beginning at the center of Section 14,Tbwnehip 5 South,Range 11 West..shown on a map thence South 0'45'14'Fast 288 feet recorded in Book 169,pages 45 and 46,Parcel Maps.Records of Orange County; thence South 00'39'35'East 122082 feet along the west be of the southeast quarter of thence South 89'25'00'West 20 feet Section 14,-7bwnship 5 South,Range Il Wee4 as shown on a parcel map,recorded in Book 81, thence South 0'45'14'East 96 feet W the easterly..tan.ion of the north line of Tract No page.12 through 14,Parcel Maps.Records of Orange County W a point said point being on 8916. the north rightof-wey line of Center Drive; thence along said north line South 89'25'00'West 516 feet W the ,at line of Ash Street,a thence North 89'32'03'East 650.41 feet stone the south kne of P—.13 of said Parcel Map. street being 60 rest in width,30 rest either ode of the centerhne, W a point on a tangent curve,paid curve being concave W the northwest and having a radio,of i thence along said cut line South 0'44'46'East 100 feet to e curve concave northeasterly 34 DO feet,a radial bearing through said points been North 37.53'39'West ounce northerly and easterly along said curve,through s central angle of 52'45'4Y,an are having a radius of fill feet. dufan<e of 3131 feet W s point on a tangent One; the slang said curve southerly and southeasterly thou a centerai angle of38'52'IY an we thence North 00'39'21'West 22.68 feet talon geld tango line W a g distance of 3220 feet W a point on a reverse curve concave westerly having a radius of 50 feet g g point on a tangent curve, a radial room said point be—North 52'23'027 East, said curve being concave W the southeast and having a radius of 405 DO feet thence northerly end...terly along said curve through a central angle of 27'23'14',en arc CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE._ CZ ladepmcimt THURSDAY,NOVEMBER 14,1996 PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES PUBLIC NOTICES Exhibit B(S of 9) Exhibit B(7 of 9) HUNTiNGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Subarea 2 Subarea 4 (formerly Oakview Redevelopment Project Area) (formerly Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION LEGAL DESCRIPTION OAKVIEW AREA PROJECT(coal.) YORKTO WN-LAKE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA thencealonga old revue curve southeasterly,southerly,anaaouthwesterly thm a central angle of TTat poruonof Section2,Townahip6South,Range ll WmthiLhe Rancho La Bolass,inthe 78'54'35'anandisfanceof68.866eetto.eompoundeurv.eoncw.northwe.terlyb.vinprad,ae City of Huntington Beach,County or Orange,State of California,as shown on a map recorded i of 35 feet,a redid to aid point bean South 48'42'23'East, in Book 31.page 14 of Mieeellsneous Maps,in the Office of the County Recorder*(mid (hence slongnid compound eurvesouthwesterly and w.terlythrus central anglaof48'11'23%im C...tyde—lbed m follow., arc dist—tof2944feet too pointon the south line ofMandrel)Drive beingfio feetlnwidlh,30 feet Beginning at the centerline intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Main StrzeC • either side of ant<rbne, thence along said south hdb South 89'29'txf Wed 11.8 feet to the east Lne of tract No 4301; - thence west along aid centerine of Yorktown 60 feel to the west line of Main Street; thence along said mentioned east line South 0'44'46'East 270 feet to a pointon a non-tangent thence slang said west line North 50 feet to the westerly extension of the north lint of curve and thei.at Do,terlyeen. anedweof70 feet,aid polntbong on the north linen(Berton Yorktown Avenue,said Point being the True Point of Beginning. Drive and the east Bne of Queens lane; thencealongmid curve and eaatline.outheasterly and southedythm ecentral angle af77'44'59' thence along said mentioned north line East 420 feet to a curve concave southwesterly having an an distance J95 feet, a radius of 850 feet; thence South 0'44'5V East 22 feet to a curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 70 feet, thence easterly and southeasterly along said curve thm a central angle of 38'IV 40'an arc distance of 567 feet to.reverse curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 750 feet,a thence continuing along the teat line of Queens Lane and aid mentioned curve southerly and radial to sold point bean North 38'14'40'Esat. southeasterly this a central angle of 27'38'00'an arc distance of 34 feet to a revere curve concave ' .outheuterly having a radius of 130 feet,a radial to told point been North 81'37'08'Eat, thence along said reverse curve southeasterly and easterly thin a central angle of 35'46'09' thence alanguld reverie curve southeaskrly and wutherly t}waeentntengleaf2T 38'00'tnerc an ere distance of455 feetto the intersection with the east Lne or.40(oot wide strip of land durance of 6J feet ve north line Tract I lya, shown on the map of said Tract No.12 recorded In Book 9,page 13 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the Orange County Recorder as ST.R.R.right of-way, thence along said north brie North SV 24'35'East 125 feet to the east line orTract 4153, thence along aid east Lne South 0'4P 68'East 500 feet, thence South 1054 feet along aid east line to the easterly exknsion of the southerly line of Utica Street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline, thence North B9'24'16'East 197 feet to the east lint of Keelson Lane; thence along mid east line and it.southerly prelongehon 160 feet to the True Point of thence West 1383 feet along said easterly extension,southerly line and its westerly extension Beginning of Utica Street to the most westerly lint of Main Street ea shown on aid mentioned map of Tract No,12; thence North 1396 feet along said west line to the True Point of Beginning Exhibit B(6 or 9) HUNTiNGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Exhibit B(8 of 9) Subarea 3 HUNTiNGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (formerly Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area) Subarea 5 (formerly Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area) LEGAL DESCRIPTION TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA LEGAL DESCRIPTION MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Those portion.of Section.Mend 26,Township 5 South,Range I West.in the Rancho La Boise Ch,caend Ranch.La.Bolles in the CityofHuntington Beech,C...tyor Orange,5ta1eof Celifor- Thal portion of Huntington Beach,County of Orange,State of California a a shown on a map me,u shown an a map retarded in Book 61,page 13 of Miscellaneous Mips in the Office of the recorded in Book 3,page 38 of Miscellaneous Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of County Recorder of aid County described as follow.. said County described as follow. Beginning at the southeast comer of said Section 26, Beginning at the center Lne interaction of Pacific Coast Highway end Lelia Street shown m Ocean Avenue and First Street respectively on said mentioned map, thence South 99'54'23'West 132010 feet siongthe south line of seid action,aid south Ime also thence along the center line of Pacific Coast Highway South 4V 21'42'East 37 50 feet to the being the centerline of Talbert Avenue.to the True Point of Beginning, intersection with the southwesterly extension of the southeast line of Lake Street, the—NorthV 01'l6'Emt50 feet to aline parallel withand So feet north measured at nghtangles from the centerline of Talbert Avenue, thence along said mentioned extensor South{l'3R'IB'West 50 feet to the True Paint of Beginning,aid point being distant Southeast 484 21'42'East 1655 feet along the southwest thence along aid mentioned parallel line North 89'54'23'East 800 feet to the intersection with a line of Pacific Coast Highway to the intersection with the southwesterly extension of the linepnslld with 10,00 feel east meeaured atrightangle.from the easthne of Lot No 3,111-kCof northwest line of Sixth Street, Tract No 172 as shown on a map recorded In Bonk 12,page 21,ofMiacellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said County; thence continuing South/1'38'18'West 525 feet more or leas along said extension to the High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean, thence along aid mentioned 73 00parallelfeet. line South O'b'37'Eaet300 feet W e pointon a curv<eonceve easterly having.radius of 27300 feet, thence northwesterly me feet more or tax along said High Tide Line to t inns parallel with and 35 thence souther aloe sold curve through*central angle l5'33'4Van arcdlslance of7400 feet mein treessout as showterly measured ator angles fromthe southwesterly extension of the line of o L 8 b Main Street as shown on said Mop of Huntington Bench, to s point on a tangent reverse curve concave weskrlyhaving a rrdma of a2700 fees a redid to said ' point Seers North 7/'20'31'Eat, thence along said mentioned parallel line 11'38'18'West 7470 feet to a line parallel with and 60 feet southwesterly,measured at right angles from the southwesterly end of the Huntington thence motherly along said reverse curve through a central angle of 154 33'49'an arc distance of Beach Municipal Pier, 88.82 feet to a line parallel with end 32 feat act measured A fight angles from the west line of Lot No.82.Block C,of said mennaned Tract No 172. thence North 48.21'42'West 145 feet along said parallel line to a line parallel with and 35 feet northwesterly measured at nghtanglea,from the southwesterly exleralo;of the northwest time thence southerlyalong test aid mentioned porailelime South O.05'37'Esat249 feetto the inter. of Mein Street section with the easterly prolongation arthe north boundary line of TnctNo 8197 n shown em s map recorded In Book 452,pace 44 ofMrscelloneoua Maps In the Office ofthe County Recorder of thence North 4l'38'18"East 1470 feet to the High Tide Line of the Pacific Ocean aid County, -thence northwesterly 600 feet mom or less along sold IBgh Tide Line to the southwesterly thence slongmid mentioned prolongation and northerly line South 89'55'44'Wmta22fmtto the extension of the northwest line of Sloth Street; west boundary line of alci Tract No.8197, thence along said extension and northwest line of Sixth Street North 41'38'18'East 1035 feet thencealongsaid vestbounduy Lne Southo'01'16'West690 feet tothe south right of weyline of more or less to the intersection with the northeast line of Walnut Avenue,being 60 feet in Taylor Drive,a street being 60 feet in width,30 feet either side of centerline; width,30 feet either side of center line,said point being distant North 41'38'IS'East along said northwest line 510 feet from the southwest line of Pacific Coast Highway, thence along aid south right-of-way line South89'56'WWmt660 feetto the Intersection with the thence don dnortheeat bran of Walnut Avenue South/8'21'IE'Esat 1330 feet to.n anglesoutherly pmlopgatlon otthe outline of Parcala No.7.10a shown on.map filed In Book 79,page ai 15 of Parcel Mapx bathe Offset of the County Recorder of aid County; point in aid Loa said point also being on the southeeat line o!Second Street being 60 feel In width,30 feet either aide of center line, , Vence sleet said prolongation and east Una North 0' 1 Eat I01/feet to a line parallel with and 335 feet.oath measuredm�at right angles from the ntererLna or'filbert Avenue; thence continuing along said northeast Lne South 10'09'04'East 411 feat to the southeast thence aong last aid mentioned parallel Lno North 89'56'37'East 660 feet to the west line of line of Lake Street, Tract No.172, thence along said southeast lint South 41'38'18'West 254 feet to the Tme Point of thence along said west line North 0'01'16'Beat 335 feet to the True Point of Beginning. Beginning - a CONTINUED ON THE NEXT PAGE... � ,fits P �d Q Y LU OI Yw t u\ �� W ~U )OIZN, U Y z¢2UaUC /J oa f=wm wi /L iz o� ��! C� sSCT �C D - •e D!1• ?y j 4S!! e w �QU �A l d�J -a_ -A •------____�-1.�1�--._ �T L a'-�. .GL�£f�_f�. __f704,S�� ,s l�0lt �_�._---------.. .._ _. 0 41?4ke--r5�e e---1,041s-�i_ze J- . IVA /'ley ell v C,zo �� yfcf- �ilS! hCSS C9 l�lo'ct�i�- Clea YP/ ... i. I u'� I � i.n .1. 1�LI:1.I It ILLI\LI\ JJf-tl•J'Jr .r* RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, 14TH FLOOR COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92626-1998 MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 1950, Coats Mesa, California 92628-1950 TELEPHONE: (714) 641-5100 FACSIMILE: (714) 546-9035 FAX TRANSMITTAL COVER PAGE DATE: November 18, 1996 Page 1 of 4 (Including This Page) Is Being Transmitted To The Parties Listed Below: TO: Name: Eldon Bagstad Name: Ann Mase Company: El-Don Liquors Company: Bare Nothings City: Huntington Beach City: Huntington Beach Telephone No.: (7141 960-5536 Telephone No.: (714) 848-8532 Telecopier No.: (714) 536-7401 Telecopier No.: (714) 848-3362 Name: City Council/ Name: Mike Uberuaga Redevelopment Agency Company: City of Huntington Beach Company: City of Huntington Beach City: Huntington Beach City: Huntington Beach Telephone No.: (714) 536-5575 Telephone No.: (714) 536-5227 Telecopier No.: (71 4) 375-5087 Telecopier No.: (714) 374-1557 Name: David Biggs Name: Gail Hutton Company: City of Huntington Beach Company: City Attorney's Office City: Huntington Beach City: Huntington Beach Telephone No.: (714) 536-5582 Telephone No.: (714) 536-5555 Telecopier No.: (714) 375-5087 Telecopier No.: (714) 374-1590 Transmittal From: Jeffrey M. Oderman Document Title: Letter re Proposed Amendment/Merger of Existing Redevelopment Plans Client-Matter Number: 017354-0001 Hard Copy To Follow Via Mail: NO Message: The attached relates to tonight's Council/Agency meeting. FLBL I,_ EI Lii,Ot^I l_S I t l'_ 04 i PO JG ' 1= y- PUBLIC ECONOMICS, INC. 44 RECEIVED FROM H; Riblk AND MADE A PART OF THE RJ O C HT COUNCIL MEETING OF 06M Emmmia OFFICE OF THE CITY GLEk• CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK vevdopme,►t Sentcei �� ,� p ,,� �,��.,... o{ ►,►+�•++N November 15, 1996 Mr David C. Biggs Director of Economic Development Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 :Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE- Statutory Entitlements from Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Biggs. As you know, the Orange County Department of Education and the Coast Community College District (together "Districts"), with the assistance of Public Economics, Inc , have been consulting with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency') regarding the Districts' redevelopment entitlements from the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Project"). K request that this letter, including attachments, be submitted for the administrative recorol at the Joint Public Hearing on November 18, 1996. The Districts want to expressly state that this correspondence is not an objection to the proposed Project--it v. meant to address specific concei ns related to calculation and implementation of statutory payments. While the Districts have concerns regarding statutory entitlements, the Districts support the Agency's efforts to eliminate blight within the Project Area and to improve the Project Area and surrounding areas. The Districts believe that adequate educational fv:ilities are an integral part of this effort, and that the Districts can be meaningful. participants in the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Districts hope to soon propose facilities that will benefit the Project and surrounding neighborhoods and alleviate blight within the Project Area, as permitted in the plan. Although the Agency's willingness to consider specific facilities is a reflection of the spirit of cooperation and relationships between the Districts and Agency, the Districts are concerned that this same spirit is not as clearly reflected in the Agency's response to the District's request to memorialize any agreed-to aspects of the implementation of the statutory payment process. The Districts recognize that more recent discussions have at least produced forthright answers to some issues and the Districis appreciate these direct indications of the Agency's intentions. (Please note that memorialization does not necessarily demand a formal agr-Xment--a memorandum of understanding, letter of comrnitrient, or Agency resolution could be considered, as well.) l 1970-0 Old Tustin Avenue-Santa Ana,Calitumia 92701 (714)647-6242.FAX(714)647-6232 World Wide web:h1tp:,%www,p4db-er9n.ca" +^1.46-4 S a4 i F107 J 74tr. I c Mr. David C. Biggs Xovt mber 15, 1996 page 1 of S The Districts believe that there are many issues that are vague or not specified with regard to the statutory, payment process, and that it is in the best interests of the Agency and Districts to proactively resolve these matters. The enclosed table summarizes these issues, as well as statutory requirements, and the Districts' specific requests for resolution. The table also has a column titled "Agency's Response," which includes text from the Agency's letter to the Districts dated October 23, 1996. The last column provides the Districts' reply to the Agency's response. As shown on the attached table, the following identifies the Agency's S eneral responses • "In general, there are two reasons why the Agency cannot enter into such agreement (to insure payment of the statutory fiscal mitigation revenue to the Districts] The County [Auditor-Controller's] practices and procedureE for the allocation of (TIl revenue prohibit the Agency from making such assurances to the Districts State law appropriately and sufficiently already addresses many of your concerns." (emphasis added] In reply, most of the issues under discussion are not directly determined by any Auditor practices, and Auditor's practices and procedures for the allocatior► of tax increment to the Agency do not prohibit nor in any way hinder the Agency's ability to discuss and resolve most of these issues. While the Agency may want, or need, to work with the Auditor, Vid request of the Auditor information needed by the Agency to properly make the payments, if is, nevertheless, ultimately the Agency's sole responsibility to make payments to the Districts. With respect to the second point above: How can state law "sufficiet:tly address" eoncems when in some cases statutory requirements are not even specified? Other overall responses of the Agency include: • ". . issues raised . dealt with matters beyond the Agency's control." • . . . due to [changes in the law] it is best to defer to the effective: language M the law." In reply, most issues simple do not "deal with matters beyond the Agency's control," and nothing ME be settled if the parties simply concede that future changes in the law make it unfeasible to come to some sort of arrangement. (To deal with future changes in the law, any farm of rnemorialization or agreement between the parties need only state that it represents the understanding based on the law as it cur.ently reads, and any future changes in the law will be addressed by the parties at that time.) +71464'7 c�-.2 PUBLIC EC OriCM I C S INC 041 PO4 is ' 96 1 L __ Mr. David C. Biggs November 15, 19.96 page 3 of 5 As also shown on the attached table, the following identify the Agency's responses to individual issues, and provide a District reply to each specific issue- to • the Agency will adhere to the provisions of[HSC] Section 33607.7 to make the determination of the first adjusted base years and assessed values." In reply, while the Districts agree with initial Agency conclusions of when the Agency will reach limits that trigger payments, the Districts still request TI allocations to dhte so as to calculate and confirm progress made towards prior financial limits. This request is not unreasonable, and the Agency has since agreed to provide this information. " the definition of the 'tax increments received by the Agenc)' can be no clearer than it is in [HSCJ 33607.2 [sic] and no further description is necessary." In reply, if the definition of TI is evident, then why not simply agree as to the definition that will be used" The Districts will expect statutory payments to include TI generated from all sources. (The Districts are concerned with the definitior. of TI based on their consultant's experience with the frequency ,with which portions of TI, especially supplemental property taxes, are inadvertently and inappropriately omitted in the calculation of other types of"pass-through" payments.) • ". . . the statute is quite clear that amounts deposited into the low and moderate income housing fund will be subtracted prior to calculating the payment amounts . . . " In reply, if the statute is "quite clear," then why is it impractical for the Agency and Districts to agree that payments will be based on actual Llil deductions up to a maximum of 20 percent? • the County Auditor-Controller is responsible for making tax revenue deposits to the ERAF. Therefore, the Agency will simply forward any statutory payments relating to the ERAF to the [Auditor] who will, in turn, make the appropriate disbursements as required by law." In reply, if these amounts forwarded to the A.iditor-Controller were to be put into the ERAF fund, then these dollars would be distributed to all school districts in the County (except basic aid districts) based on the county-wide formulas for the distribution of ERAF. This outcome would be inappropriate and incorrect because it would be distributing dollars, whose purpose is specifically for mitigation of the redevelopment project's impact, to Districts which are not affected taxing entities. Additionally, with regard to this issue, no mention of an Auditor-Controller's involvement in disbursing statutory payments can be found n sections 33607.5 and 33607.7 of Redevelopment Law, while the authority and responsibility of the Agency for disbursing these payments is quite evident in these same section:. of Redevelopment Law. For the Agency to remit statutory payments relating to ERAF to the Auditor improperly absolves the Agency from its statutory obligation to make payrntr►ts to the Districts. +^14E4?6-2-�72 PUB'_i - ECn`JJN I CS I NC 041 P05 I O i 1!7 IC 1= Afr. David C. Biggs November 15, 1996 page 4 of 5 • "As of yet, we have not received any specific comments to the provisions of [the Oakviewl agreements, nor any proposals as to how these agreements should be amended. It is the Agency's opinion that both agreements with the [Districts] are unambiguous and do not present any problems for impiemewation. Therefore, if the Districts feel otherwise, we ask that these specific issues and }proposed amendments be forwarded to the Agency as- soon as possible." In reply, basec on the Districts' and the Districts' consultant's prior discussions with City staff and City redevelopment consultants, it is quite clearly the case that all parties believe ti at certain aspects of the Oakview Agreements with both Coast CCD and Orange County Department of Education ("OCDE") are ambiguous. However, because the letter to which we are responding here states the opinion that these Agreements are not ambiguous, the Districts are happy to be informed on this unambiguous interaretation. We would be happy to review the method of calculating the payments utilized in previous years and document and agree, if the method is acceptable, that this will be the future formula for calculating these alleviation payments. If, however, a change in the method of calculating the payments is contemplated, the Agency and the Districts should discuss, agree on, and document for the future reference, this revised method of calculation The Agency has since agreed to meet and confer with the Districts regarding administration of the Oaly iew agreements. "The request for a specific subordination agreement is inappropriate at this time because the Agency is not currently contemplating any specific bond issues that would require such subordination. Again, because the law changes from time to time, the Agency -.Wl address that issue upon the advice of bond counsel based on the then effective requirements of the Health and Safety Code." In reply, the Di 3tricts believe that after due consideration of the Subordination Guidelines presented in the September 24th Consultation Meeting, the Agency may agree that predetermined subordination guidelines would be of benefit to the Districts and the Agency—especially to the Agency because of the increased assurances of the Districts' granting a subordination request created by a known set of criteria against which the Agency's request would be evaluated. However, if the Agency at this time does not wish to commit to subordination request criteria, the Districts accept this position and as an alternative will do the following: The Districts are submitting for the a&ninistrative record of the Joint Public Hearing on the Merger/Amendmenl a set of Subordination Guidelines describing the Districts expectations with regards to what constitutes ".v0stantial evidence"from the Agency showing that it will be able to pay both the statutory payments and the contemplated debt service (enclosed as E,zhibit A). The Agency and the District should keep these Guidelines on file for reference in the case of a future Agency request for subordination. -71464 i 6 232 F!;BL I(= E:DNON i C S Mr t�av:d r'. Biggs November 15, 1996 pate S of S 'to surranarize, there are many ambiguous or unspecified issues regarding calculation and implementation of statutory payments and the Oakview agreements. Many of these issues are straightforward, simply dealing with administration of payments over time, and resolution of these issues is meaningful and important. The Districts believe that any significant financial arrangement between public agencies should have a specific execu'ang process, and that it is reasonable and prudent to determine how payments will be administered It is also extremely important for us to proactively deal with calculation issues so that thi: Agency can understand it: obligations to the Districts and so that the Districts can plan and budget effectively. The Districts feel it is important for the Agency to respond to these matters with the Districts. We therefore request a meeting with the City, with the intent of resolving statutory payment matters to the mutual benefit of all concerned. %Ue resolution of issues and any resulting memonaUation does not need to be completed prior to the adoption if the Redevelopment Plan. the Districts believe that this meeting should be held as soon as possit le. We, or a representative of our offices, will be contacting you to schedule this meeting Thank you for your cooperation and attention to this matter. Sincerely }'o�}rs/Ote�A /. Robert D Ours, Administrator Mr. Chandulal (C.M. i Brahmbhatt Facilities and Planning Administrative Director of Fiscal Affairs Business Services Division Coast Conununity, Cc llege District Orange County Department of Education Mr. Ke mp, Consultant Public Economics, Inc. Enclosure cc'. Mr. Bob Franz, Deputy City Administrator Mr. Carl Goodwin, Public Economics, Inc. Mr. Frank J. Spevacek, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Mr. James C Simon, Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. L.iliB.%frR0ER.1ZDA\LLTTER04.sAM :±ElMnge. Aux p �t MEd irira# tnd:# : ' >t itg 11 e 1 Pri 1 Frequency and dates of all Not specified. Districts request.that Agency The following represent.the The County Auditor's practices payments to the Districts, agree to specified payment dates Agency's general response,;: and procedures for the allocation + so as to aid the District's(and of TI revenue to the Agency do A Agency's)planning and "in general,there are two not probilrit nor in any way financial managejment_ reasons why the Agency cannot hinder the Agency's ability to Districts'inWal request was for enter into such agreement(to discuss and resolve any of the two payments,with the second insure statutory payments to the -five issues that are identified in _U installment for any fiscal year Districts]: this column. if anything,set ("FY")being no later than July Auditor-Camroller practices C) n 31_ofthe following fiscal year. • The County[Auditor's] enhance the Agency's ability to m practices and procedures for the agree to the first three items. z allocation of rM revenue 0 prohibit the Agency from The fourth and fifth items making such assurances. . . not related to any Auditor- N Controller practices,and both of • State law appropriately and these issues are predicated on sufficiently already addm&qp-s the fact that it is the Agencys 2 Documentation to accompany Not specified. Districts request calculations many ofyour concerns.'° responsibility to make statutory last payment.of each year. that validate payment amount, payments to the Districts. 3 Interest provisions for late or Not specified. Districts request interest on Other overall responses. deferred payments. cYuerdue or unmade payments. Also,how can state law ------ — ir," c raised- dealt with "Sufficiently address"the first 4 Payments are an indebtedness of Not specified. Districts ask Agency to Matters beyond the Agency's four concerns if statutory Agency,in case the Project is recognize payments as an control." requirements are not even terminated early. Agency debt,so that Districts specified? may collect income during all due to [changes in the law] m years that 71 may be collected. it is best to defer to the effective Lastly,none of these issues S Community slue in Tier 2 and The Agency„shall pay to the Districts request Agency to language in the;law." "deal with matters beyond the o Tier 3 reallocated among all 'affected taxing entities,other- acknowledge that the City's Agencies control,"and nothing other affected taxing entities, than the conuitunity,. ..an share in Tiers 2 and 3 go to all The Agency has since agreed to will ever be settled if the parties m including the Districts. amount equal to[2L1141 percent other affected taxing entities makeMinen s m e per year simply concede that future of the portion of[TI] . . . " other than the City,and not to and to provide dommerafa#iom changes in the law make it r' (HSC 33607.5(c)and(d)] the Agency. unfeasible to come to agreement. N hJ Public Emnomias,Inc. paw] of 5 -- • - -men h ri a `F rrsd #+ri .itst ' a �� iD ..: i�s #. . air 6 Determination of adjusted base "The adjusted base year FAV'] The Districts requested that the the Agency will adhere to While the Districts agree with years and adjusted base year shall be the[AV] of the project Agency provide tax increment i the provisions of[fECI Section initial Agency conchLdons of assessed valuations("ATVs'). area in the year in which the ("TI")allocations from inception 33607.7 to make the when the Agency will reach CD limitation being amended would through FY 1995-96 for each determination of the first limits that trigger payments,the 11 have taken effect without the sub-area of the Project, adjusted base years and.assessed Districts still request Tl amendment or,if more than on including breakouts for values." allocations to date so as to rev limitation is being amended,the Main-Pier and Main-Pier calculate and confirm progress _0 first year in which one or more Annex, This data is needed so The Agency has since agreed to made towards existing financial W of the limitations would have the Districts and Agency can provide infornunlion regar&ng limits. This request is not F In taken effect without the independently verify progress 17 aiiocatfons to individad Unreasonable. m amendment."[HSC 33607.7(c)] towards existing limits. sub-�reav z 7 TI includes TI generated from Basis for payments is". . .the Districts request Agency to ". . .the definition of the'tax If the definition of TI is evident, a the secured,unsecured, state tax increments received by the recognise that"the tax increments received by the then why not simply agree as to Cy assessed and supplemental tax Agency. . . "[HSC 33 607.5(b), increments"include TI from all Agency'can be no clearer than it the definition that will be used? rolls. (c),and(d)) available sources. is in[Hsq 33607-2 (sic)and no The Districts will expect z further description is necessary." statutory payments to include Tl generated from all sources. 8 Total pMlnnents may be different Payment percentages are applied Districts vaunt to ensure that . ..the statute is quite clear If the statute is"quite clear," than 20 percent of grass T1 in to"_ . . [Tlj received...alter payments are based on that amounts deposited into the then wiry is it impractical for the Tier 1, 16.8 percent of gross TI the amount required to be minimum statutory LMI low and moderate income Agency and Districts fo agree in Tier 2,andlor 112 percent of deposited in the[I.,MI]Housing deductions or actual Project housing fund will be subtracted that payments will be based on gross TI in Tier 3,because Fund bas been deducted.. ." Area LNU Homing Fund 'prior to calculating the payment actual LIMI deductions up to a Agency has the authority to vary [HSC 33607.5(a)(1),33334.2, deductions,whichever is less. amounts. .. " maxirntun of 20 percent? a) LMI housing obligation. 33334.3,and 33334.6] -n m z 0 c F-i 00 UD r IU ro 0) Public Boonamics,Inc. page 2 o)O . ri ,dEdtat, io ii Ihe: is utitic •• . .::. ":,:'= ii`tr the`�3.tiil�t��ri� ::... .... 1 : � dJlrierstWW— 1 itdniS@ 1J�l; s` 9 Property taxes each taxing entity Payments are allocated to". . . Di`-Micts request Agency to ". . . the Coauty Auditor- To remit statutory payments receives includes adjustments affected taking entities. . .in recognize that payments are Controller is responsible for relating to ERAF to the Auditor + for the ERAF pursuant to proportion to the percentage based on"post-ERAF"tax nuAi ng tax revenue deposits to improperly absolves the Agency Remnue and Taxation Code share of property taxes each shares,and that property tax the ERAF. Therefore,the from its statutory obligation to a Chapter 6,Article 3,and that affected taxing entity reoeivves shares will be adjusted each Agency will simply forward any make pTyruents to the Districts. ry property tax shares are adjusted during the fecal year the.funds fiscal year. statutory payments relating to r`�v each fiscal rear. are alienated." fHSC the ERAF to the[Auditor]who Nonetheless,if the Auditor -o 3W7.5(a)(2)] will, in txum, make the disburses payments to all sehaal appropriate disbursements as entities,as is customary with r nquired by law." ERAF allocations in general, m then school entities thatare not 0 z affected taxing entities will 0 receive a portion of payments. This is improper since payments were set into law to mitigate the financial burden caused by redevelop ue nt,and burden cannot be;realized by school agencies that are located outside the Project Area. m z 0 GO �n m ry R7 Public EcOTIomics,Inc. page 3 of 5 -the Vic: i iri i f, 10 Difficulty with prope±-ly The Agency". . .shall pay to Both the Districts and the "As of yet,,we have not received The District's request that, calculating and administering the[Districts,ifJ an agreement Agency's consultant observed any specific comments to the because the Agency feels the +a the payment formula for the exists that wp=s payment to difficulties in calculating provisions of these agreements, Agreement is unambiguous,the i Districts'agreements for the the[Districts],the amount income under the Oakview nor any proposals as to how Agency share with the Districts TrIl Oakview Redevelopment required to be paid by an agreements,specifically with these agreements should be its method of calculating the iW PmJect. agreement between the Agency relating"two percent revenues" amended. It is the Agency's payments per the Agreement: II-) and the[Districts] . .."[HSC under Prop, 13 with the opinion that bath agreements over the past few years(suggest 33607.7(b)(1)] $350,000 annual limit. The with the[Districts]are 2 tax.years). The Districts will W Districts requested that the unambiguous and do not present be happy to review the method. Agency evaluate the Districts any problems for If the method is acceptable to m agreeme is and respond with implementation. Therefore,if the Districts,then this method 0 n L' proposals to correct their the Districts feel otherwise,we can be documented as the oz deficiencies. ask that these specific issues and formula for future calculations. C) proposed amendments be Otherwise,if a change in the forwarded to the Agency as soon method of calculation is � as possrsible." contemplated,then the parties should discuss,agree on,and T'he Agaicy has since agreed to document for future years,the meet and confer%*h the method of calculation. DEAW c&regarr&ng working out ambiguities of the Oakview 0 z 0 c 0 n� ru 0 ?uhlic Econamics,Ina pa gp 4 of 5 . : - - - .. --.. -��tft� �•�ta��xe�t"rttl�n-gf ��t�u�:�� t~��-t`�=. - :. . . Mv • �. : _•-. = -- rr�.:-;::::�:� - -- eta:- ;�. �� +�r `�?t - . .�s'- S�i� 11 Paranieters avernin request. r and approval of wbar&nafion: A Sufficient noticing of Not specified. Subordination request to be sent 'The recast for a specific Even though the Agency is not + subordination request. by certified mail,followed by subordination agreement is currently contemplating any -P- phone contact. inappropriate at this time specific bond issues,the Agency B Districts will be subordinated on Not specified. The Districts request that their because the Agency is not and Districts still mare the a) an equitable basis with other payments not be subordinated currently contemplating any ability to proactively agree to ry acted taxing entities. unless payments to all other specific bond issues that would certain items that would snake -o afI'ecW taxing entities are also require such subordination. the subordinationprocess run a subordinatol(unless written Again,because the law changes more smoothly for both the r n consent is provided by Districts). from time to time, the Agency Districts and Agency. m C Documentation to accompany Not specified. Districts rognest prelitztinary will address that issue t gton the z subordination west so Official Statement(or advice of bond counsel based on As stated to the Agency,PEI 0 Z- Districts may adequately equivalent),report explairiing the then effective requirements would rewmmm i that the t) evaluate and accept how Agency intends to meet its of the Health and Safety Code." Districts agree to accept in Go subordination request. obligation to Districts,annual TI advance arty Agency request for �z, projections,and annual debt subordination,if these service requirernems. conditions are met at the time D Parameters of debt issuance to Not specified. Districts request that i)TI such request is made. be demonstrated in documents. projections assume ayear to year maximum AV growth of Without such criteria,the 2.0 percent,ii)TI projections, Districts request that the Agency net of n nJCIMtc to all affPi*-d not sub rdinate payments to the taxing entities, are egnal to or Districts unless an explicit greater than debt service approval has been provided by A r requirements in each year,and the Districts(i.e.,consider a iii)any missed payments shall lack of response as a denia3 of be considered a loan to the the request for subordination), Agency by the Districts and provided that the Districts shall D shall be repaid,with interest, not unreasonably withhold such C i from the first available TI. approval. m m ' NI N u� 'ssb3ic F mnonyc s,Inc. 5 of 5 +71464^E PUELIC ECOrr�rrIC IN (✓�1 �:� rJ�_ 196 Exhibit A Huntington Beach Redevelopment Pro' eef Guidelines Regarding Future Requests for Subordination from Coast Community College District and Orange County Department of Education The redevelopment agency ("RDA") is authorized to request subordination of the Districts' statutory payments to RDA bonded indebtedness. Subordination is beneficial for the RDA Districts, and community because it allows the RDA to issue bonds at lower interest rates and accomplish more with the available revenues. Subordination is detrimental to the Districts in the event that the RDA does not have adequate funds to pay the Districts. When requesting subordination, redevelopment law requires the Agency to provide "substantial e\zdence" that sufficient funds will be available to pay both debt service and the statutory payments. The Districts consider the following items as constituting gabstantial evidence 1. Along with a request for subordination, provide the following materials (all of which are typically produced as part of a tax allocation bond financing), at least 30 days in advance of debt issuance: a Copy of the Preliminary Official Statement and related documents b. Report explaining how RDA intends to repay indebtedness anc still meet its obligations to. affected taxing entities c. Annual tax 'increment projections, including annual assessed valuation growth assumptions d. Annual total debt service requirements of the Agency Request subordination using tax increment projections which as3ume an assessed valuation growth of no more than 2.0 percent in any year, unless clearly justified 3. Request subordination only if tax increment projections, net of payments to affected taxing entities, are equal to or greater than debt service requirements in each year In addition to the above items constituting "substantial evidence" of the Agency's ability to make payments, the Districts believes that adhering to the following actions would make the process nin much more smoothly for both the Districts and the Agency: 1 Submit ail documents via certified mail, followed by phone contact 2. Do not subordinate payments to the Districts unless payments to the other affected taxing entities are also subordinated (unles.s written consent is provided by Districts') 3. Provide commitment that payments missed due to subordination should be considered a loan to RDA by Districts and should be repaid, i6th interest, from the first available tax increment. N(-%-VMIW 14, 1996 I.:.liSMERGEF.RDAJPH SL'B.SANI J. A. wplc,� �covtcml," T-Kc, c6 coa4l- cdyvuitq7 6&14�r 0-5 twet- d4,cl 4t"Iy Oiefict T• � L y� � e f °`� S', ICe c /,Yahr RECEIVED FROM AND MADE A PART OF THE REORj�cT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF 11-► 1 P M OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 04-/A CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK_71L V o AL Reasons for the Amendment/Merger ■ Provide Legal&Financial Capacity to Complete Proposed Agency's Redevelopment Program mendment and Merger of -Without Amendment/Merger,Agency Could Redevelopment Plans Only Retire Debt p -With Amendment/Merger,Agency Could Both Retire Debt and Complete Redevelopment Program -Amendment Provides Financial Flexibility AUL VSummary of Summary of Redevelopment Plan Redevelopment Plan V(Copt) ♦Consists of Technical Amendments •Extends Time Limits •Merges Five Projects into One •Extend Time Period to Incur Debt-2004 to 2014 •Expands Infrastructure and Facility Project •Extend Plan Duration-2017/2019 to 2022/2024 •Extend Time Period to Collect Tax Increment Listing Revenue-2027/2029 to 2032/2034 ♦Establishes New Financial Limits •Extend Eminent Domain Authority for •$850 Million Cumulative Tax Increment Limit Nonresidential Properties to 2009-Only Affects ♦Establishes a S250 Million Bond Limit Huntington Center and Main-Mier Areas •Rescinds Resolution No.48 Ad, AAAL Resolution No. 48 ZI-WPrevious Actions ecember 1995 •Applies to Main-Pier Area City Council Workshop •Requires Property Owner Approval of Any •March 1996 Eminent Domain Acquisition Agency Approves Preliminary Plan •2/3 Approval by Land Area;and (Proposed Eminent Domain on •2/3 Approval by Number of Owners Nonresidential Properties Only) ♦July 1996 Draft EIR Circulated y- / Al- A14 Previous Actions (Cont.) 17previous Actions (Cont.) August 1996 Public Hearing on Draft EIR ♦October 1996 •August 1996 City Council Certifies Final EIR Preliminary Report and Draft ♦October 1996 Redevelopment Plan Circulated Agency Approves its Report to City • September 1996 Council Planning Commission Finds Redevelopment Plan In Conformance with General Plan AiL VZ/ Summary of Community Meetings Tonight's Activities Meetings Held on September I 1 and • Report to the City Council October 29 ♦Approximately 45 in attendance •Joint Public Hearing ♦Areas Discussed Included: •Agency Resolution Certifying Final EIR •Overview ofRedevelopment ♦Council Resolution Relating to Findings of •History of Redevelopment in the City the EIR ♦Reasons for Amendment/Merger IAL AU 11�;lReport to the City Council Report to the City Council Summarizes the Reasons for,and Benefits of,the Amendment/Merger •Contents(Cont.) • Contents Include: •Financial Feasibility Analysis •Description of Remaining Blighting Conditions •Relocation Plan •Listing of Proposed Projects •Report of the Planning Commission •Statement of General Plan Conformance •Five Year Implementation Plan •Program Environmental Impact Report •Explanation of Why Blight Cannot Be Alleviated without Amendment/Merger •Neighborhood Impact Report •Summary of Taxing Agency Consultations Joint Public Hearing ♦ Mailed Notice •Notified Property Owners,Tenants,Business Owners and Affected Taxing Agencies ♦3,722 Notices Mailed on October 15 and 16 ♦Published Notice •Notices Published in The Independent on October 24 and 31,November 7 and 14 v 1 Item D-1 JOINT PUBLIC HEARING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND MERGER 1 ' OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS JOINT PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES �. November 18, 1996 1. Prior to calling the Joint Public Hearing to order,the CITY ATTORNEY will make a statement regarding those City Council/Agency Members who will be abstaining from participation in the Joint Public Hearing and consideration of the Amendment/Merger due to a potential conflict of interest. 2. Opening of the Joint Public Hearing A. Call to order of the City Council (MAYOR): "This meeting of the City Council will come to order. The record will reflect that all members of the City Council are present together with the City staff." B. Call to order of the Redevelopment Agency (AGENCY CHAIR): "This meeting of the Redevelopment Agency will come to order: The record will reflect that all members of the Agency are present together with the Agency staff." (AGENCY CHAIR): For the purpose of the joint public hearing,the Vice-Mayor of the City will be authorized to act as the Chairman of the Agency." C. Declare joint public hearing open (MAYOR): "This is the time and place for a joint public hearing to be conducted by the City Council and Redevelopment Agency for the purpose of considering the amendment and merger of the Agency's five existing redevelopment projects. f huntbcbljphproc 1 3. Introductory Remarks A. (MAYOR): "Madam Clerk/Secretary have all the required notices been given concerning this public hearing?" (CITY/AGENCY CLERK): "Yes, Mr. Mayor,I have here affidavits of mailing and publication which are marked Exhibits A and B." (MAYOR): "Exhibits A and B are accepted in evidence without objection. "The following documents will be under consideration: "(1) The Proposed Redevelopment Plan, and "(2) The Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Merged Redevelopment Plan." B. (MAYOR): "Our order of procedure tonight will be as follows: "(1) The staff will present the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project and other evidence and testimony in support of the Amendment and Merger. y "(2) Next,we will acknowledge receipt and enter into the record any written correspondence received-prior to the joint public hearing. "(3) We will then receive any written evidence or oral testimony from the audience concerning the Amendment/Merger. "(4) After all presentations have been made and public testimony and comments received,there may be a short recess, following which responses may be made to any objections raised during the public testimony. "(5) After questions, comments, and objections have been responded to, the public testimony portion of the joint public hearing will be closed. If written objections have been received during the joint public hearing,the action will be continued to a meeting of the City Council and the Agency to be held on December 2, 1996,at which time written responses to the written objections will be presented and the City Council and the Agency will consider and take action on the proposed Amendment/Merger and related matters." huntbchl phpmc 2 r_ 4. Staff Presentation A. (MAYOFy: "At this time, I will ask the Director of Economic Development to present the staff report concerning the subject to the public hearing." B. (DAVID BIGGS): Summary Presentation (1) Summary of the background and reasons for the Amendment/Merger; (2) Summary of the Redevelopment Plan; (3) Summary of Community Meetings; (4) Summary of Previous Actions by City Council, Agency, and Planning Commission. fC. (DAVID BIGGS): introduces Frank Spevacek of the Rosenow Spevacek Group to provide additional presentations. (1) (FRANK SPEVACEK): Presentation r (a) Provides summary of the Agency's Report to Council. r E. (DAVID BIGGS): Requests to introduce documents into the record of the hearing. Introduces Murray Kane. F. (SPECIAL AGENCY COUNSEL): "Staff and the consultants have prepared,and each of the City Council members has received certain documents relating to the Amendment/Merger. Included in these materials are: "(1) The Report to the City Council on the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and "(2) The Redevelopment Plan; "Labeled as Exhibits C and D,respectively. "I would like to introduce these documents into the record of this hearing at this time. If there are no objections,these materials shall be made a part of the record." 5. Written Communications Received Prior to Public Hearing A. (MAYOR): "I will now ask the City Clerk to enter into the joint public hearing record any written correspondence concerning the Redevelopment Plan." huntbchl phprm 3 B. (CITY/AGENCY CLERK indicates by author and date each letter or statement distributed to the City Council. If letters are received that have not previously been distributed to the City Council members,these letters should be read into the record. 6. Public Hearing A. (MAYOR): "The rules governing public testimony are as follows: All persons wishing to speak will be given the opportunity to do so. Persons making statements and giving testimony must direct questions through the Chair. "Before speaking,please give your name, address, organization(if any)you represent, and whether you own property or operate a business in the Project Area. "Please limit.your comments to the subject at hand and to three minutes in length. We will hear comments in the order that speaker cards are received. "I now declare the public hearing open." B. Written and oral comments by persons in the audience concerning the Amendment/Merger. C. (MAYOR): "I now declare a recess of the City Council and Agency." r 7. City Council/Agency Recess,if necessary (10-15 minutes). 8. City Council/Agency Reconvene In Session A. (MAYOR): "Do staff or the consultants have any additional comments or responses to the testimony presented before us tonight?" B. (SPECIAL AGENCY COUNSEL): The Agency has received certain written materials which could be deemed to constitute objections to the adoption of the Merged Redevelopment Plan. Pursuant to Sections 33363 and 33364 of the California Community Redevelopment Law, where written objections are received, the Agency is to respond within not less than one week before it may proceed to adopt the Merged Redevelopment Plan. In light of this requirement,I would request that the Agency and the City Council close this public hearing and continue this joint meeting to December 2, 1996, in order for the City Council and the Agency to consider responses of the Agency to the written objections." C. (MAYOR): "Are there any final questions by members of the City Council or Agency?" D. Questions by members of City Council and Agency, if any. huntbch\jphproc 4 n 9. Close Joint Public Hearing A. (MAYOR): Closes Joint Public Hearing and continues joint meeting to consider the Amendment and Merger to December 2, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in City Council Chambers. 10. Agency Actions A. (AGENCY CHAIR): "If there are no further comments, the Agency will act on the agenda items related to the Redevelopment Plan. The Agency will consider and take action on the following: MOTION TO APPROVE- (1) A Resolution Certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report(No. 96-2) for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Has Been Prepared, Circulated, and Completed in Compliance With CEQA and State Guidelines for CEQA and that the Agency Has Reviewed and Considered the Information Contained Therein." 11. City Council Actions A. (MAYOR): "The City Council will now act on the agenda items related to the Amendment and Merger. City Council consider and take action on the following: MOTION TO APPROVE: (1) A Resolution Making Certain Findings and Determinations Concerning the Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Making Certain Findings Regarding the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project,Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. oov"(,�&L n�j��kx� 12. Agency and City Council Adjourns r Consider Ot cr Items,If Required huntbch\1phproc 5 V73 1_ f' f October 28, 1996 / U�ea,w jam-, J.A. Wiley G ' 111o'c, , 5", 15651 White Oak Lane Huntington Beach, California 92647 Connie Brockway, City Clerk, City Of Huntington Beach 200 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Connie, This letter registers my objection to Redevelopment"Amendment/Merger." My objection is to the city council being able to waste the tax payer's money by using this merger. Stop wasting money!!! This city council should not be permitted to control any tax money without the approval of the tax payers consent. I mean that a vote should be taken not these stupid public notices when it involves large sums of money. Paragraph II of the public notice is why I am against this merger. It allows too much freedom of the council assigning too much time and too much access to taxpayer's money for an unnecessary project. These types of projects are some idiots dream to control the taxpayers. 7I A.w., o x IV w^t�>m LAD r x_ rypw (1 weer. r T 07 I j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM To Honorable Mayor and City Council Member From David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Devel Arent Via Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator I Date October 4, 1996 Subject Redraft of Introduction to the Response to Comments -- Redevelopment Plan Amendment Environmental Impact Report(EIR) On the City Council's agenda for Monday, October 7, 1996, Item F-3 requests the Council to certify the draft EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment. In advance of this meeting, the Response to Comments received on the EIR were prepared by the Agency's consultant and distributed to all those public entities which provided comments. Representatives of the Huntington Beach High School and Huntington Beach School Districts requested additional language in the Introduction to these Response to Comments which clarifies the Districts' position on the calculation of school capacities. A complete new Response to Comments is attached for the Council Members' information in preparation for the agenda item on the 7th, which includes the new Table of Contents and Pagination. This amendment has been reviewed and found satisfactory by representatives of the two school districts which requested the addition. We hope you will find this information useful in preparing to certify the Draft EIR for the Redevelopment Plan Amendment. If you should have questions, please call. DBC:SVK:Ib Attachment xc: Ray Silver, Assistant City Administrator RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DRAFT EIR NO. 96 September 26, 1996 Prepared by: The City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Attn: Linda Niles i TABLE OF CONTENTS/LIST OF COMMENTORS PAGE GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 4 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY . . . . . . 21 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 23 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 THE GAS COMPANY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ATTACHMENT A: REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13 ii t� GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES This response is provided to address a general issue brought up in each of the school districts' comment letters. This general issue involves the methodology used by the City to determine school capacity and the assessment of impacts of the adoption of the Amendment/Merger on school district capacity. The school districts commented that the methodology used in the Draft EIR was flawed in that the impact assessment failed to take into consideration the variable class- room loading that the districts have to provide for such classes as science labs, special education, shop and other education programs that had smaller class- room sizes. The effect of these comments, in general, provides a lower average number of students per classroom than the student average employed in the Draft EIR. As indicated in several of the responses to individual comments, specifically HBU-4, OV 3, and HBC-9, the Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger reviewed school district reports and personal communication with district facilities plan- ning staff to determine school capacity and student loading figures. The capacity and loading averages for each school took into consideration the smaller class- room sizes demanded for labs, shop and other special programs, as well as classrooms that hold larger classes such as physical education, band, and choir. This led to the use of an average class size in calculating capacity for each school. The school districts did not include school capacity alternatives in their com- ments. The City will rely on the capacity figures provided by school district staff and in their district's facilities master plans as used in the Draft EIR,because the City believes its assumptions are well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity within the scope of the EIR. The analysis of school capacity and school impacts in this EIR is an across the board analysis of effects to school districts from adoption of the Amendment/ Merger for the entire Merged Redevelopment Project Area. The use of school capacity calculations is different from the methods employed by the school districts in calculating capacity utilization for the purposes of calculating devel- opment fees and State eligibility for new construction funding. The analysis in this EIR calculates a baseline capacity on top of which is added growth antici- pated from new development within the Redevelopment Project Area. This method of calculation is not necessarily to be used in subsequent California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts using student generation and school capacity assumptions in light of current circumstances in effect at the time of development. It is not the intent of the City to rely solely on the school analysis in this EIR as a basis for assess- ment of the effects of individual development proposals. Future development proposals should be assessed using school district capacity specifications for individual campuses that take into account specific issues germane to the indi- vidual schools being studied,future cumulative and programmatic changes that may affect school capacity, and the methodology used at that time by the af- fected school districts for the specific schools that may be impacted. This future analysis should also take into consideration the alternatives available to school districts to increase a district's or school's student capacity that might include: 1) constructing new permanent classrooms, 2) adding portable classrooms to an existing school, 3) busing students to sites with excess capacity, 4) changes to the educational schedule or school boundaries, and 5) construction of a new school. The City wishes to cooperate with the school districts in finding solutions to overcrowding. In the recently adopted General Plan (May, 1996),the City Coun- cil adopted policies to assist the school districts to offset impacts from new development. The General Plan and E1R acknowledge cumulative citywide " impacts to schools from new development, and propose mitigation for these impacts as development occurs by,requiring developers to enter into agree- ments with school districts where there are school ,capacity impacts. These policies apply to all projects within the City and also within the Redevelopment Project Area. Because these policies were adopted by the City Council with input from the school districts to address cumulative growth impacts on school districts and because they mitigate impacts of growth for each subsequent pro- ject on a project by project basis, the impacts of new development have been determined in the General Plan Update EIR to be mitigated. Future develop- ment projects will be subject to these General Plan policies, and will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts and school capacity impacts from cumulative growth. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan,the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments,for additional discussion on cumulative development impacts on school districts and the mitigation included as policies in the General Plan. Current enrollment figures and the District's statements that there are school capacity problems being exacerbated by new development are noted,and will be forwarded to the decision makers. As noted in the General Plan Update EIR, continued growth in student population from cumulative development in the future will affect the abilities of the school districts'to adequately house addi- tional students. In addition, future changes in educational programs, many times prompted by new State programs such as the Class Size Reduction Pro- gram,will have an effect on school capacity and a district's or school site's ability to respond to growth brought about by development. The Class Size Reduction Program being implemented in all Huntington Beach elementary schools will dramatically affect school capacity as the districts implement this program over the next three years. The City acknowledges the potential school capacity problems addressed in the comment letters by the school districts. As future developments are proposed to the City, there will be the need to reassess school capacity assumptions to take into account: 1) cumulative district wide student population growth resulting from new development;2)cumulative development and project specific impacts on individual school capacity; 3) natural growth in student population resulting from local birth rates and cohort survival, as natural population increases move from tN_- lower grades through the upper grades; 4) the useful life of older permanent structures and older portable classrooms, many of which may be at 2 the end of their useful life,as reported by the districts in the following comment letters; and 5) the effects on school capacity as a result of changes to the educa- tional program, especially programs such as the Class Size Reduction Program. All of these variables may have the affect of depleting available excess capacity and causing future shortages of classroom space. Such a reassessment of school capacity, taking into account the issues listed above, would provide a more current impact analysis at the time of individual project development. These analyses are appropriately done prior to approval of individual projects, on a project by project basis,subject to CEQA. 3 SNOW HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT HBU-1 The comment is introductory to the body of the letter. The comment requests that the City consider a comment on one school to be applicable to all schools in the Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUSD). The City agrees . " that this request is reasonable and agrees to the requested approach. However, only HBU-6 specifically addresses one of the schools. Because the comment does not include any specific environmental concern, no further response is -- necessary. HBU-2 The Draft EIR describes State allowed fees and other possible programs that school districts may use to offset impacts resulting from increased student attendance generated by new development. The discussion was not meant to be exhaustive,but only to provide the reader with relevant background regard- ing non-fee alternatives that districts have at their disposal to address increased student load in a school or district. The City acknowledges other programs to address increases in student enrollment brought up in the comment, including purchase or lease of portable classrooms,remodeling or construction of perma- nent facilities and transportation of students. However, because there are existing City adopted General Plan policies designed to mitigate growth impacts of new development and because there is no construction authorized by the proposed Amendment/Merger beyond that is identified in the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR, there is no need to implement additional mitigation measures as a part of the Amendment/Merger. HBU-3 i As stated in Response HBU-2, there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger program beyond the development levels identified in the General Plan and analyzed and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. It is the conclusion of the City that, regardless of the potential secondary effects resulting from the minor increased student enrollment brought up in the comment, there is no physical impact on the environment associated with increased student enrollment that can be fairly argued to be caused by the proposed Amendment/Merger program. There is a limited amount of discussion of the secondary effects of increased student enrollment in the Draft EIR. As stated above in HBU-2, a school district may employ a variety of responses to address additional students enrolling in a particular school or within a school district. Many of these activities involve changes to educational programs, schedules, utilization of existing space and the use of portable classrooms. Most of these actions involve no physical changes or are exempt from CEQA because they are judged to have minor or 4 no environmental impacts (e.g., placement of portable classrooms is generally considered exempt from CEQA). It is not the role of the City through this EIR process to choose a school dis- trict's response nor can the City guess which response the school Districts might make to house additional students. Because 'of the range of student placement options, class size alternatives, transportation alternatives, space utilization decisions, boundary changes and classroom construction options, any attempt by the City to formulate an appropriate educational program would be speculative. As pointed out in the comment, reliance on existing portable classrooms may not take into consideration refurbishment needs of a particular building at a particular school, and reliance on year-round schooling may not take into consideration the nuances brought up in the comment re- garding scheduling and additional miscellaneous costs. The comment, how- ever, does not provide the City with information or evidence that the HBUSD will take any one of the actions mentioned above to alleviate possible future school overcrowding. See HBU-4 and HBU-5, below, for additional response. HBU-4 The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom that the average employed in the Draft EIR The Draft EIR uses an average of 30 to 33 students per classroom. This is not meant to be an absolute number; rather, it is a conservative estimate based on input from the HBUSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant sur- veyed each school district, including HBUSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. In correspondence to the consultant, HBUSD directed the consultant to the District's 1995 Master Plan. The consul- tant used the range of student classroom capacity or loading factors recom- mended in the Master Plan, reported on page 14 of that document. The Draft EIR includes the range of 30 to 33 students per classroom to determine capac- ity. This range is also within the lower end of the range used by the District for calculating student loading for laboratories and shops,which is reported in the District's Master Plan to be between 28 and 36 students per classroom. It is also noted in this same HBUSD report that the District "staffs the schools at 31.8 students per teacher." The City has relied on the District's own report for the calculations presented in the Draft EIR, as recommended by HBUSD staff in correspondence from the District dated May 16, 1996, on file in the City's Community Planning Depart- ment. The City agrees that there are cases where classrooms have more than 30 students (e.g., band, physical education, choir) and that there are classrooms with fewer than 30 students, as is pointed out in the comment (e.g., physics labs, chemistry labs and industrial arts). The City's calculations do not assume 100 percent use of class space, only that the average is between 30 and 33 students per classroom The use of this average is deemed to be conservative. 5 The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac- ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The,comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity. Therefore,the City,will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by school district staff and in the District's 1995 Master Plan, because it contin- ues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment,/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the AmendmenVMerger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrunity that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBU-5 The City acknowledges the effect that cumulative development has on a school District's capacity, and agrees with the State Legislature that development impact fees should be collected to offset the effects of new development. It is the City's position also that cumulative effects from citywide development should be addressed by new development as it occurs, subject to the provisions of CEQA. The City's policies regarding new growth and school impacts are included in the recently adopted.General Plan. These policies are included in revised EIR Section 4.13,which has been updated with the policies as adopted by City Council. Attachment A is revised EIR Section 4.13. As development is proposed in the Redevelopment Project Area, it will be reviewed for specific impacts on the appropriate school and/or school district. HBU-6 The decision to refurbish existing portable classrooms or to replace existing structures is a matter for HBUSD to resolve. The City is not in a position to judge the useful life of classrooms, although it is the understanding of the City that these classrooms are being utilized, and that the classrooms mentioned in the comment are occupied by students. New students generated by develop- ment should not affect utilization of these older classroom spaces. Because of the extensive utilization of portable classrooms of the site, within the District and throughout the State, use of "Permanent Capacity" would significantly understate actual school capacity. 6 HBU-7 As indicated in Response to Comment HBU-4, the City based school capacity on school district reports and input from each school district's facilities planning staff. The opinion of the commentor is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Response to Comment HBU-4 for more discussion. HBU-8 As indicated in Responses to Comments HBU-4 and HBU-7, school capacity calculations are based on input from each school district. The City has no authority over the year-round school decision, but only points out that school capacity can be increased by up to 25 percent if such a strategy is used. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4, which discuss this issue fur- ther. Regarding the use of older portable classrooms in'calculating capacity, please see Response to Comment HBU-6. Regarding the cost of additional portable classrooms to house students gener- ated by growth resulting from new development, please see Responses to Comments HBU-3, -4, -6, -9, -12, and-13. As stated above, the City's General Plan policies and future environmental review required for each subsequent project subject to CEQA will be assessed to determine whether there is a significant environmental impact on schools. HBU-9 The statement in the Draft EIR is correct. State law enacted in 1986 (AB 2926) provided a comprehensive school facilities program. This legislation amended the School Facilities Act and consolidated the assessment of developer fees into a single body of law and authorized school districts themselves to impose school impact fees. The legislation set monetary limits on these fees. The legislation expressly stated that this was to be the exclusive method of raising local financing for permanent school facilities. Although these fees have been set by State legislation, other mitigation for environmental impacts can be required, as noted below. School districts in the State now operate under an amended version of the School Facilities Act and case law mentioned in the comment. This case law helps further define the School Facilities Act. • Mira(1988) held that a local agency could deny a zone change if signifi- cant impacts resulted from that action. 7 II - _ l • Hart (1991) held that legislative acts (General Plan Amendments, Spe- cific Plans, etc.) were excluded from the Schools Facilities Act, which applied only to administrative or,quasi-judicial project approvals. • Murrieta (1991) held that the School Facilities Act did not prohibit CEQA mitigation measures for legislative land development approvals that caused school overcrowding. In consideration of the above and acknowledgment that new development may contribute to overcrowding in the future, the City's General Plan, adopted May 13, 1996, includes policies that mitigate the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The City will implement this mitigation for each new development within the Merged Project Area. See Response to Comment HBU-5 for additional discussion regarding General Plan policies to mitigate school impacts. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBU-10 The issues related to cumulative impacts are addressed in Responses to Com- ments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-9, and HBU-12. HBU-11 The Draft EIR did not include the final wording of the General Plan as adopted by the City Council. Revised EIR Section 4.13, included as Attachment A of this Response to Comments document, includes the policies as adopted. See also Response to Comment HBU-5. HBU-12 Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed 8 in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. As stated in Responses to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5 and HBU-11, citywide cumulative impacts have been acknowledged in the General Plan Update EIR, and General Plan policies have been adopted that offset those impacts. Note that all General Plan policies, including the policies applicable to schools, are applicable to individual private projects within the proposed Merged Project Area and any Redevelopment Agency sponsored development. These policies, applicable to all redevelopment projects, mitigate impacts to school Districts. Additional mitigation is not warranted in this EIR but may or may not be deter- mined necessary during the entitlement process. HBU-13 The City has responded to each comment, and has revised Draft EIR Section 4.13 to address the concerns brought up by the HBUSD comment letter. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CE A scrutiny that will P P l l P Q Y more specifically analyze project impacts. 9 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH PR-1 Comment noted. No response necessary. 10 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TA-1 Comment noted. The recently adopted General Plan includes policy CE 3.2.1, which requires developers to include transit facilities, bus benches, shelters, pads and turnouts in development plans. The City's Transportation Demand Ordinance also includes these provisions. Any project carried out under the proposed Amendment/Merger must comply with the General Plan policy and the Transportation Demand Ordinance. 11 i OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT OV-1 The commentor requested extension of the comment period to September 6, 1996. The City denied the request due to the availability of the Draft EIR to the Ocean View School District for the fu11,45 day review period, as required by CEQA. OV-2 The statement is an introduction to the comment letter stating that legal coun- sel to the Ocean View School District has reviewed the Draft EIR, and finds that the Draft EIR fails to adequately address impacts on the Ocean View School 7 District. The City respectfully disagrees with the comment. The Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes impacts to the District utilizing classroom loading charac- teristics and student generation factors provided by District staff to LSA in a letter dated May 16, 1996. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-4 through HBU-12 for a discussion of General Plan policies that mitigate future projects cwith the Redevelopment Project Area. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact.beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. OV-3 The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including OVSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. Through personal communication on June 18 and June 20, 1996, Mr. James Tarwater, Superintendent, provided the consultant with the District's classroom loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable class- rooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 34 students per classroom to determine capacity. The classroom capacity number provided via telephone was slightly higher than that indicated in Mr. Tarwater's written response of May 29, 1996. However, the City chose to use the lower classroom capacity figure to provide a more conservative approach. 12 As stated in Response to Comment OV 2, Section 4.13 has been revised to include the District's statement that there will be an overburden of 55 students districtwide. Section 4.13 also indicates that there are General Plan policies in place that offset impacts on school districts. The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capacity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should uti- lize a lower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development autho- rized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Therefore, the finding in the Draft EIR that there will be no significant impacts remains valid. See also Responses to Comments HBU-2, HBU-3, and HBU-5 for additional discussion of these points. OV-4 This comment raises the same issues as were raised in Responses to Comments HBU-2 and HBC-8. See Responses to Comments HBU-2 and HBC-8 for a re- sponse to these issues. OV5 The City agrees with the points brought up in the comment that: 1) an EIR should consider enrollment capacity impacts of a project; 2) impacts can occur to both the "natural environment and man-made conditions;" 3) significant impacts to schools should be mitigated; and 4) socioeconomic effects of a project that lead to physical impacts should be considered in an EIR. The City believes that the Draft EIR addresses these issues to the extent applicable to the Amendment/Merger. Regardless of these issues, the comment does not provide a basis for the conclusion that the proposed Amendment/Merger will cause a significant impact on the environment, either natural or man-made, nor does it make the connection that the Amendment/Merger will "overcrowd the District's schools, which in turn is a negative impact on the ability of the District to provide a sound education for its students." Without providing a factual basis or supportive evidence, the District's assertion that the Amendment/Merger will create the level of impact claimed in the comment is not supported. There is no evidence or causative chain of events that can be tied to the proposed Amendment/Merger that would indicate that an environmental impact would 13 occur to the extent that there will be a significant impact on the environment. For further discussion see Responses to Comments OV 1 and HBU-3. 14 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT HBC-1 The school capacity calculations for Dwyer Middle School have been revised to reflect use of the portable building for food service uses. Please see revised Draft EIR Section 4.13. The District's finding that there is no excess capacity is noted, and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth al- lowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBG2 Current enrollment figures and the District's statement that there is no room for expansion are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projections proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. HBC-3 Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec- tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. HBC-4 Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec- tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. HBC-5 Shifts in educational programming being implemented in the 1996-1997, and the 1997-1998 school year may have an impact on school capacity, as indicated in the comment. This new State educational program, the Class Size Reduction Program, does not mandate that local school Districts lower class size. This optional program includes State funded incentives of$650 per pupil allocated 15 for schools for classes that are reduced to no more than 20 students per teacher (kindergarten through third grade). The State also passed SB 1789 to fund facilities needed as a result of the Class Size Reduction Program. This $200 million fund allows local Districts, such as Huntington Beach City School Dis- trict, to obtain$25,000 per classroom formed as a result of class size reduction. This $25,000 is to be used for facilities at the school where the new class is formed. If any environmental or socioeconomic impacts result from this pro- gram, it is the responsibility of the District to assess those impacts in an envi- ronmental review, as required by CEQA. Because of the funding incentives offered by the State, the District may fund construction of new classrooms or convert other school space for classrooms on existing;school sites, thereby increasing capacity. There is no CEQA require- ment for the City to be directly involved in issues related to the Class Size Reduction Program and the facilities needed in this evolving program. How- ever, because this program is in the process of being implemented over a two year period, and because of the facilities funding available through the State for this program,it is premature to determine how the program will affect school capacity in,the future. Likewise, it would be speculative in this EIR to deter- mine whether, or to what extent, the proposed Amendment/Merger would affect schools in combination with the Class Size Reduction Program. Because of the uncertainties involved in implementing the Class Size Reduction Program and the absence of impacts identified in the Draft EIR related to the proposed Amendment/Merger, further environmental analysis is not practical or useful, and is not required by CEQA. HBC-6 Comment OV 5 makes the same legal points as HBC-6. Please see Response to Comment OV 5,which addresses these issues. HBC-7 EIR Section 4.13 has been revised to include updated General Plan policies that apply to school facilities impacts and mitigation, as suggested in the comment. See Attachment A. HBC-8 i The Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed Amendment/Merger. The District has several considerations in its effort to optimize use of current facilities, including modification of education programs, cost considerations, and loss of playground space issues among many others. This is further compounded by the Class Size Reduction Program mentioned in Response to Comment HBC-5. It would be highly speculative to address the multiple combinations of District responses to increased demand on individual school facilities or districtwide. Please see Response to Comment HBU-3 for additional discussion. 16 I ! HBC 9 The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR As previously discussed in Response to Comments HBU-4 and OV 2, the classroom loading capacity used by the consultant was a conservative estimate, using average classroom sizes, based on input from each school district, including HBCSD. Responses to Comments HBU-4 and OV 2 address the classroom loading capac- ity for other districts. As with these other districts, the City obtained input from each district in determining capacity, including HBCSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including HBCSD, to determine student loading factors and available ciassroom space. Through personal communication on Jun 19, 1996, Mr.Jerry Buchanan,Assistant Super- intendent of Administrative Services, provided the consultant with the District's loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable classrooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 30 students per classroom to determine capacity based on this input. Regarding year-round school programs used to increase student capacity at schools, see Response to Comment HBU-3. Please see Response to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-S, and HBU-12 for a discussion on cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac- ity for figuring potential impacts to schools.' The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. 1 Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBGIO Regarding issues of cumulative impacts, see Response to Comment HBC-9. Please see Response to Comment HBU-6 for a discussion on portable classroom refurbishment and replacement. 17 y Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Ainendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section.4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBG11 Section 4.13 of the DEIR has been revised to reflect a revised school capacity calculation for Kettler Elementary School to reflect use of the portable building for child care use. Regarding implementation of the State's incentive class reduction program, please see Response to Comment HBC-5. Regarding year-round education programs, see Response to Comment HBU-3. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan.Update EIR The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBC-12 Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. 18 HBC-13 The issues in this comment are the same as those brought up in Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4. HBC-14 The issues in the comment are the same as those brought up in HBU-9. Please see Response to Comment HBU-9. HBC-15 The statement that"the impact to each of the District's schools is significant" is a conclusion that appears to be without supporting evidence. Each of the issues in the comment letter preceding the statement is responded to in the numbered responses. As indicated in Responses to Comments HBC-8 through HBC-14, the City's recently updated General Plan acknowledges the citywide effects of additional students generated by new development and has provided mitigation, now in the form of General Plan policies. These policies are re- ported in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, included in Attachment A. The City acknowledges that new development will contribute to facilities bur- dens that must be faced by the school districts. The City has recently adopted the updated General Plan, which includes policies assuring cooperation with the school districts and providing mitigation to offset impacts. In this light, the City respectfully disagrees with the comment. HBC-16 This comment raises the concern of impacts resulting from cumulative develop- ment projects, and indicates that each project should mitigate these impacts. As stated in Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11, and HBU-12, there is acknowledgment of cumulative citywide school overcrowding impacts in the City's General Plan. This issue is addressed and mitigated in General Plan policies included in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, which are included in Attachment A. See Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11 and HBU-12 for a full discussion of this issue. HBC-17 Please see Attachment A and Responses to Comments HBU-12 and HBC-16 for further discussion. 19 HBC-18 This comment reflects the same opinion included in Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discus- sion and response to the issue raised in the comment. HBC-19 This comment is'a summary of previous comments HBC-13, HBC-15, and HBC- 16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-13, HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discussion and response to the issues raised in the comment. P 20 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY CO-1 Comment noted. CO-2 The Amendment/Merger of the existing projects will have no effect on existing trail facilities or on-road/off-road bicycle facilities. The Project Description found in Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR states that the primary purposes of the proposed Amendment/Merger are to amend tax increment revenue limits, amend the powers of the Redevelopment Agency to pursue property acquisi- tion, extend the timeframe for Agency indebtedness, expand the list of possible infrastructure-projects, and merge the five existing redevelopment projects. Table 3 A in the Draft EIR, page 3-8, shows the expanded list of possible infra- structure projects that may be carried out by the Redevelopment Agency. Among the items on the list are housing programs, public facility projects, community development programs, and commercial rehabilitation/ redevelopment projects that would have no affect on trails or bikeways. Devel- opment within the proposed Amendment/Merger area will still be subject to policies of the General Plan,which promote the provision of safe and efficient bicycle circulation through implementation of the City's bicycle plan. The infrastructure projects to improve and maintain pedestrian, bicycle and vehicu- lar circulation include: 1) completion of improvement projects already under- way (various roadways in Oakview Project Area, Center Avenue completion), 2) completion or improvement of roadway connections (Gothard and Hoover and the 405 Interstate Highway(1-405) interchange at Huntington Center, widening of McFadden Avenue/1-405 overpass), and 3) Edinger Avenue alignment project. Review of each of these potential projects indicates that there will be no nega- tive effects from these projects on County designated trails or bikeways, and there would be improvements to citywide pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle facili- ties resulting from the project. CO-3 This EIR addresses the proposed Amendment/Merger of five existing redevelop- ment projects on a program level. This Program EIR does not include specific information or environmental analysis of the bikeway cited in the comment because the project is not specifically authorized or environmentally clear in this EIR. As indicated in EIR Figure 4.1.1, the railroad right-of-way is main- tained as a distinct land use from McFadden Avenue to Edinger Avenue within the Merged Project Area. General Plan policy CE 3.1.3 requires reservation of this right-of-way for future transportation uses such as a transit or bicycle facil- ity. In addition, bikeways are projects that are permitted in the Merged Plan and could be funded by the Agency at some time in the future. Should such a project be proposed, a separate environmental review may be required for that project, subject to the provisions of CEQA. 21 CO-4 The Draft EIR prepared for the Amendment/Merger is an environmental review document'prepared according to the regulations and guidelines of CEQA. As such, the Draft EIR considers the Amendment/Merger and the probable envi- ronmental consequences of that project. The comment suggests that the City consider a linear recreation corridor along the north-south Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This comment does not bring up any environmental issue or new environmental impact related to the project. The comment sug- gests a new facility for consideration by the City. Because there is no environ- mental issue or concern raised by the comment, and the issue is a land use issue outside of the environmental issues required to be addressed in an EIR as described above, no further response is appropriate or necessary. The com- ment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. CO-5 Comment noted. The proposed Amendment/Merger includes no provisions, ` plans or projects that will conflict with this planned bikeway. As with Com- ments CO-3 and CO-4, there are no environmental issues that are required by CEQA to be addressed in this response. Please see Responses to Comments CO-3 and CO-4 for further discussion. 22 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AG-1 The comment is an introduction to the comment letter. No response is re- quired. AG-2 The comment is a summary of the Draft EIR and introduction to SCAG review processes. No response is required. AG-3 The comment_indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro- posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend- ment/Merger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental concerns or impacts discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is re- quired AG4 The comment restates the findings of the land use discussion in the Draft EIR. There is no comment regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. AG-5 The City agrees with the comment. No further response is required. AG-6 The City agrees with the comment that job creation resulting from the Amendment/Merger is within the projections included in the General Plan. The City agrees with the balance of the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-7 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. 23 AG-8 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-9 The comment regarding Newport Beach is noted. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG 0 Comment noted. The City agrees with the comment. There are no environ- mental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AGZI The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-12 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-13 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG14 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-15 The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro- posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend- ment/Merger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental effect discusF:;d in the Draft EIR. Therefore, there is no requirement to provide further response. 24 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES DOG1 Comment noted; no response necessary. 25 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL VC-1 Comment noted. The Project Area is heavily urbanized. The proposed Amendment/Merger will not affect large areas of open space typically associated with field mice and other small mammals. There are no specific development entitlements or approvals associated with the proposed Amendment/Merger. Therefore, landscaping is not being proposed as part of the project. The com- ment will be forwarded to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Agency, the City agency responsible for carrying out public sponsored landscaping projects. VC-2 Comment noted. The Project Area is already urbanized and drainage improve- ments are in place. However, one of the objectives of the Amendment/Merger is to maintain and/or upgrade existing drainage improvements. This will fur- ther the objectives of the Vector Control District to ensure proper drainage within the Project Area. 26 THE GAS COMPANY GS-1 As reported in the Draft EIR, gas service can be provided from existing mains without significant impact to the environment. No response is necessary. 27 i w ATTACHMENT A REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13 Council/Agency Meeting Held: /o-7-94a Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Sig ature Council Meeting Date: October 7, 1996 Department ID Number: ED 96-66 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: , MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Adminis r _._ PREPARED BY: DAVID C. BIGGS, Director of Economic Devwlopment C' SUBJECT: CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Vf �, 96- 19.3 E atement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: In conjunction with the consideration of the proposed Amendment and Merger of the five existing redevelopment projects to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Project"), the Agency has prepared, circulated and completed a Program Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEW). The attached City Council resolution certifies completion of the EIR for the Project. Funding Source: Redevelopment Tax Increment Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt the attached Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach certifying that the final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared, circulated and completed in compliance with CEQA and state and local guidelines, and that the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the Resolution. Alt 111 �'llav 401JI109 xli� w15 Wo 0AIISP. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIGii MEETING DATE: October 7, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ED 96-66 Analysis: Beginning with the approval of a Preliminary Plan for the Project on April 1, 1996, the Redevelopment Agency is continuing to move forward with the preparation of the Amendment/Merger. Section 33352(k) of the California Health and Safety Code requires that the City prepare an environmental impact report that assesses the impact of the proposed Amendment/Merger. According to the attached EIR, with mitigation measures there are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Amendment/Merger. The EIR analyzes the Amendment/Merger's potential impacts on the environment, discusses alternatives, and proposes mitigation measures that would offset, lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts. The EIR studies a variety of areas, including land use, population and housing, earth resources, water quality, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, public health (hazards), noise, public services and utilities, aesthetics, cultural and scientific resources, and schools. Where applicable, the Mitigation Monitoring Program incorporated into the EIR establishes mitigation measures that reduce the impacts of the Amendment/Merger to less than significant levels. Environmental Status: An Initial Study and Notice of Preparation ("NOP") was circulated to responsible agencies and interested parties on April 24, 1996. During the ensuing 30-day review period, the City received ten comments on the Initial Study and NOP. These comments were considered and addressed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR was reviewed for a 45-day period, from July 24, 1996 to September 4, 1996. On August 19, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing to receive testimony on the Draft EIR, but received no comment at that time. A total of ten written comments to the Draft EIR were received by the City. Pursuant to CEQA guidelines, the City prepared and transmitted responses to these comments on September 26, 1996. The comments to the Draft EIR and the City's responses are incorporated into the final EIR. The final EIR also contains a Mitigation Monitoring Program that sets forth measures to be taken by the City Council which will ensure that significant environmental effects or impacts resulting from the implementation of the Amendment/Merger will be mitigated or avoided Attachment(s): City Clerk's 1 Resolution NumberPage 2 Final Response to Comments 3 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. SRFEIR.DOC -2- 09/30/96 10:42 AM ATTACHMENT # 1 i f RESOLUTION NO. 9 6-9 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (NO. 96-2) FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN PREPARED, CIRCULATED AND COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR CEQA AND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California (the "City") as Lead Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and the State Guidelines for CEQA; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City on August 19, 1996, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to said statute and Guidelines; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California as follows: 1. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared, circulated and completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable regulations. 2. The City Council certifies that the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and considered by the City Council Members. i cega96/s1/jn/9/30/96 3. That the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines for CEQA. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements: a. Draft EIR and appendices; and b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments. All of the above information has been and will be on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648, and with the City Clerk. 4. That the City finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the project detailed in Environmental Impact Report No. 96-2, together with proposed mitigation measures to mitigate such effects (see Exhibit A, attached hereto), and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. 5. That the City finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project (including the No Project Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further, the City finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project. 6. The Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to file with the Office of the County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research a notice of determination for Environmental Impact Report No. 96-2, as required by Section 15094 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2 cega96/s1/j n/9/30/96 96-93 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of October , 1996. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney g-130-,1& REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator ��7Djir4pr of Economic Development 3 cega96/s1/j n/9/30/96 96-93 EXHIBIT A MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.2.6 MITIGATION MEASURES 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate income displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.5.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The following recommendations will assist in reducing air quality impacts resulting from future development and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area. The Recommended mitigation measures are as follows: Construction Exhaust Emissions 4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However, exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measured provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures to be implemented are as follows: • Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; • Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications; • Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment; • Use reformulated, low-emissions diesel fuel; • Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered 9 P equipment, where feasible; • Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than five minutes); and • Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). The City shall verify use of the above measure during normal construction site inspections. Fugitive Dust 4.5-13 The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. These measures may include the following: • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas; • Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; • Reestablish ground over on the construction site through seeding and watering; • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion over extended periods of time; • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods; • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices; • Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in coordination with local public agencies; • Sweep streets on a daily basis is silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; • Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; • Wash off trucks leaving site; • Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and • Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. Volatile Organic Emissions 4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application. • Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided whenever possible. • Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as precoated materials, shall be specified. r Contaminated Soils and Dusts 4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site assessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred, the soil will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. these activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during excavation activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate. 4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos will be removed and disposed in accordance with sound engineering practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these measures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level that is less than significant. 4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES (� 4.12.6 MITIGATION MEASURES The following mitigation measures will assist to reduce impacts to cultural resources in the Merged Project Area. Although specific project level impacts cannot be identified at this time, future specific development and redevelopment projects will comply with the mitigation measures. 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or require demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete assessment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation: A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments, special architectural features, etc. B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each building. C) A determination of construction date from existing records such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Orange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to : 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3) ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. 4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment monitoring shall be on site during grading operations. 4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed the collection of historic documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another suitable local archive. 1 y I Res. No. 96-93 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the.affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of October, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Garofalo, Green NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California G/resoluti/resbkpg ON FILE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Final Response to Comments ATTACHMENT #2 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DRAFT EIR NO. 96 September 26, 1996 Prepared by: The City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Attn: Linda Niles TABLE OF CONTENTS/LIST OF COMMENTORS PAGE GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 i OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY . . . . . . 18 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 20 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS,AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 THE GAS COMPANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ATTACHMENT A: REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13 i 9/26i96«I:\RSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOC» 11 GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES This response is provided to address a general issue brought up in each of the school districts' comment letters. This general issue involves the methodology used by the City to determine school capacity and the assessment of impacts of the adoption of the Amendment/Merger on school district capacity. The school districts commented that the methodology used in the Draft EIR was flawed in that the impact assessment failed to take into consideration the variable class- room loading that the districts have to provide for such classes as science labs, special education, shop and other education programs that had smaller class- room sizes. The effect of these comments, in general, is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the student average employed in the Draft EIR. As indicated in several of the responses to individual comments, specifically HBU-4, OV 3, and HBC-9, the Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger used school district reports and personal communication with district facilities planning staff to determine school capacity and student loading figures. The capacity and loading averages for each school took into consideration the smaller class- room size demanded for labs, shop and other special programs, as well as classrooms that hold larger classes such as physical education, band, and choir. This led to the use of an average class size in calculating capacity for each school. The school districts did not include school capacity alternatives in their comments. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure pro- vided earlier by school district staff and in their district's facilities master plans, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and be- cause of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. The City wishes to cooperate with the school districts in finding solutions to overcrowding. In the recently adopted General Plan (May, 1996), the Council adopted policies to assist the school districts to offset impacts from new devel- opment. The General Plan and EIR acknowledge cumulative citywide impacts to schools from new development, and mitigate these impacts as development occurs. These policies apply to all projects within the City and also within the Redevelopment Project Area. Because these policies were adopted by the City Council with input from the school districts and because they mitigate impacts of growth for each subsequent project and for cumulative impacts related to future growth, the impacts of new development have been determined in the General Plan Update EIR to be mitigated. Future development projects will be subject to these General Plan policies, and will be subject to separate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-_ yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\,RESPONSE.DOC» 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT HBU-I The comment is introductory to the body of the letter. The comment requests that the City consider a comment on one school to be applicable to all schools in the Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUSD). The City agrees that this request is reasonable and agrees to the requested approach. However, only HBU-6 specifically addresses one of the schools. Because the comment does not include any specific environmental concern, no further response is necessary. HBU-2 The Draft EIR describes State allowed fees and other possible programs that school districts may use to offset impacts resulting from increased student attendance generated by new development. The discussion was not meant to be exhaustive, but only to provide the reader with relevant background regard- ing non-fee alternatives that districts have at their disposal to address increased student load in a school or district. The City acknowledges other programs to address increases in student enrollment brought up in the comment, including purchase or lease of portable classrooms, remodeling or construction of perma- nent facilities and transportation of students. However, because there are existing City adopted General Plan policies designed to mitigate growth impacts of new development and because there is no construction authorized by the proposed Amendment/Merger beyond that is identified in the General Plan and General Plan Update EIR, there is no need to implement additional mitigation measures as a part of the Amendment/Merger. HBU-3 As stated in Response HBU-2, there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger program beyond the development levels identified in the General Plan and analyzed and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. It is the conclusion of the City that, regardless of the potential secondary effects resulting from the minor increased student enrollment brought up in the comment, there is no physical impact on the environment associated with increased student enrollment that can be fairly argued to be caused by the proposed Amendment/Merger program. There is a limited amount of discussion of the secondary effects of increased student enrollment in the Draft EIR As stated above in HBU-2, a school district may employ a variety of responses to address additional students enrolling in a particular school or within a school district. Many of these activities involve changes to educational programs, schedules, utilization of existing space and the use of portable classrooms. Most of these actions involve no physical changes or are exempt from CEQA because they are judged to have minor or 9/26/'96«I:\RSG630\EIR\.RESPONSE.DOC» 2 no environmental impacts (e.g., placement of portable classrooms is generally considered exempt from CEQA). It is not the role of the City through this EIR process to choose a school dis- trict's response nor can the City guess which response the school Districts might make to house additional students. Because of the range of student placement options, class size alternatives, transportation alternatives, space utilization decisions, boundary changes and classroom construction options, any attempt by the City to formulate an appropriate educational program would be speculative. As pointed out in the comment, reliance on existing portable classrooms may not take into consideration refurbishment needs of a particular building at a particular school, and reliance on year-round schooling may not take into consideration the nuances brought up in the comment re- garding scheduling and additional miscellaneous costs. The comment, how- ever, does not provide the City with information or evidence that the HBUSD will take any one of the actions mentioned above to alleviate possible future school overcrowding. See HBU-4 and HBU-5, below, for additional response. HBU-4 The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom that the average employed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR uses an average of 30 to 33 students per classroom. This is not g meant to be an absolute number; rather, it is a conservative estimate based on input from the HBUSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant sur- veyed each school district, including HBUSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. In correspondence to the consultant, HBUSD directed the consultant to the District's 1995 Master Plan. The consul- tant used the range of student classroom capacity or loading factors recom- mended in the Master Plan, reported on page 14 of that document. The Draft EIR includes the range of 30 to 33 students per classroom to determine capac- ity. This range is also within the lower end of the range used by the District for calculating student loading for laboratories and shops, which is reported in the District's Master Plan to be between 28 and 36 students per classroom. It is also noted in this same HBUSD report that the District "staffs the schools at 31.8 students per teacher." The City has relied on the District's own report for the calculations presented in the Draft EIR, as recommended by HBUSD staff in correspondence from the District dated May 16, 1996, on file in the City's Community Planning Depart- ment. The City agrees that there are cases where classrooms have more than 30 students (e.g., band, physical education, choir) and that there are classrooms with fewer than 30 students, as is pointed out in the comment (e.g., physics labs, chemistry labs and industrial arts). The City's calculations do not assume 100 percent use of class space, only that the average is between 30 and 33 students per classroom. The use of this average is deemed to be conservative. 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIRWSPONSE.DOC» 3 The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated ac- avers a classroom capac- ity P ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity. Therefore, the City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by school district staff and in the District's 1995 Master Plan, because it contin- ues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrunity that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBU-S The City acknowledges the effect that cumulative development has on a school District's capacity, and agrees with the State Legislature that development impact fees should be collected to offset the effects of new development. It is the City's position also that cumulative effects from citywide development should be addressed by new development as it occurs, subject to the provisions of CEQA. The City's policies regarding new growth and school-impacts are included in the recently adopted General Plan. These policies are included in revised EIR Section 4.13,which has been updated with the policies as adopted by City Council. Attachment A is revised EIR Section 4.13. As development is proposed in the Redevelopment Project Area, it will be reviewed for specific impacts on the appropriate school and/or school district. HBU-6 The decision to refurbish existing portable classrooms or to replace existing structures is a matter for HBUSD to resolve. The City is not in a position to judge the useful life of classrooms, although it is the understanding of the City that these classrooms are being utilized, and that the classrooms mentioned in the comment are occupied by students. New students generated by develop- ment should not affect utilization of these older classroom spaces. Because of the extensive utilization of portable classrooms of the site, within the District and throughout the State, use of "Permanent Capacity" would significantly understate actual school capacity. 9126/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 4 HBU-7 As indicated in Response to Comment HBU-4, the City based school capacity on school district reports and input from each school district's facilities planning staff. The opinion of the commentor is noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration. See Response to Comment HBU-4 for more discussion. HBU-8 As indicated in Responses to Comments HBU-4 and HBU-7, school capacity calculations are based on input from each school district. The City has no authority over the year-round school decision, but only points out that school capacity can be increased by up to 25 percent if such a strategy is used. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4, which discuss this issue fur- ther. Regarding the use of older portable classrooms in calculating capacity, please see Response to Comment HBU-6. Regarding the cost of additional portable classrooms to house students gener- ated by growth resulting from new development, please see Responses to Comments HBU-3, -4, -6, -9, -12, and-13. As stated above, the City's General Plan policies and future environmental review required for each subsequent project subject to CEQA will be assessed to determine whether there is a significant environmental impact on schools. HBU-9 The statement in the Draft EIR is correct. State law enacted in 1986 (AB 2926) provided a comprehensive school facilities program. This legislation amended the School Facilities Act and consolidated the assessment of developer fees into a single body of law and authorized school districts themselves to impose school impact fees. The legislation set monetary limits on these fees. The legislation expressly stated that this was to be the exclusive method of raising local financing for permanent school facilities. Although these fees have been set by State legislation, other mitigation for environmental impacts can be required, as noted below. School districts in the State now operate under an amended version of the School Facilities Act and case law mentioned in the comment. This case law helps further define the School Facilities Act. • Mira (1988) held that a local agency could deny a zone change if signifi- cant impacts resulted from that action. 926/996«I:VRSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 5 • Hart (1991) held that legislative acts (General Plan Amendments, Spe- cific Plans, etc.) were excluded from the Schools Facilities Act, which applied only to administrative or quasi-judicial project approvals. • Murrieta (1991) held that the School Facilities Act did not prohibit CEQA mitigation measures for legislative land development approvals that caused school overcrowding. In consideration of the above and acknowledgment that new development may contribute to overcrowding in the future, the City's General Plan, adopted May 13, 1996, includes policies that mitigate the cumulative impacts identified in the General Plan Update EIR. The City will implement this mitigation for each new development within the Merged Project Area. See Response to Comment HBU-5 for additional discussion regarding General Plan policies to mitigate school impacts. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBU-10 The issues related to cumulative impacts are addressed in Responses to Com- ments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-9, and HBU-12. HBU-11 The Draft EIR did not include the final wording of the General Plan as adopted by the City Council. Revised EIR Section 4.13, included as Attachment A of this Response to Comments document, includes the policies as adopted. See also Response to Comment HBU-5. HBU-12 Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\F-M\,RESPONSE.DOC» 6 in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. As stated in Responses to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5 and HBU-11, citywide cumulative impacts have been acknowledged in the General Plan Update EIR, and General Plan policies have been adopted that offset those impacts. Note that all General Plan policies, including the policies applicable to schools, are applicable to individual private projects within the proposed Merged Project Area and any Redevelopment Agency sponsored development. These policies, applicable to all redevelopment projects, mitigate impacts to school Districts. Additional mitigation is not warranted in this EIR but may or may not be deter- mined necessary during the entitlement process. HBU-13 The City has responded to each comment, and has revised Draft EIR Section 4.13 to address the concerns brought up by the HBUSD comment letter. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. 9/26/'96«I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 7 OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH PR-1 Comment noted. No response necessary. 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 8 ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY TA-1 Comment noted. The recently adopted General Plan includes policy CE 3.2.1, which requires developers to include transit facilities, bus benches, shelters, pads and turnouts in development plans. The City's Transportation Demand Ordinance also includes these provisions. Any project carried out under the proposed Amendment/Merger must comply with the General Plan policy and the Transportation Demand Ordinance. 9126/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 9 0 t 1i OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT OV-1 The commentor requested extension of the comment period to September 6, 1996. The City denied the request due to the availability of the Draft EIR to the Ocean View School District for the full 45 day review period, as required by CEQA. OV-2 The statement is an introduction to the comment letter stating that legal coun- sel to the Ocean View School District has reviewed the Draft EIR, and finds that the Draft EIR fails to adequately address impacts on the Ocean View School District. The City respectfully disagrees with the comment. The Draft EIR thoroughly analyzes impacts to the District utilizing classroom loading charac- teristics and student generation factors provided by District staff to LSA in a letter dated May 16, 1996. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-4 through HBU-12 for a discussion of General Plan policies that mitigate future projects with the Redevelopment Project Area. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. OV--3 The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including OVSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. Through personal communication on June 18 and June 20, 1996, Mr. James Tarwater, Superintendent, provided the consultant with the District's classroom loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable class- rooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 34 students per classroom to determine capacity. The classroom capacity number provided via telephone was slightly higher than that indicated in Mr. Tarwater's written response of May 29, 1996. However, the City chose to use the lower classroom capacity figure to provide a more conservative approach. 9/26/96<<I:�RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 10 As stated in Response to Comment OV 2, Section 4.13 has been revised to include the District's statement that there will be an overburden of 55 students districtwide. Section 4.13 also indicates that there are General Plan policies in place that offset impacts on school districts. The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capacity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should uti- lize a lower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development autho- rized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments. I� Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. Therefore, the finding in the Draft EIR that there will be no significant impacts remains valid. See also Responses to Comments HBU-2; HBU-3, and HBU-5 for additional discussion of these points. OV--4 This comment raises the same issues as were raised in Responses to Comments HBU-2 and HBC-8. See Responses to Comments HBU-2 and HBC-8 for a re- sponse to these issues. OV-5 The City agrees with the points brought up in the comment that: 1) an EIR should consider enrollment capacity impacts of a project; 2) impacts can occur to both the "natural environment and man-made conditions;" 3) significant impacts to schools should be mitigated; and 4) socioeconomic effects of a project that lead to physical impacts should be considered in an EIR. The City believes that the Draft EIR addresses these issues to the extent applicable to the Amendment/Merger. Regardless of these issues, the comment does not provide a basis for the conclusion that the proposed Amendment/Merger will cause a significant impact on the environment, either natural or man-made, nor does it make the connection that the Amendment/Merger will"overcrowd the District's schools, which in turn is a negative impact on the ability of the District to provide a sound education for its students." Without providing a factual basis or supportive evidence, the District's assertion that the Amendment/Merger will create the level of impact claimed in the comment is not supported. There is no evidence or causative chain of events that can be tied to the proposed Amendment/Merger that would indicate that an environmental impact would occur to the extent that there will be a significant impact on the environment. For further discussion see Responses to Comments OV-1 and HBU-3. 9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EIRUtESPONSE.DOC>> 11 i i HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT HBC-1 The school capacity calculations for Dwyer Middle School have been revised to reflect use of the portable building for food service uses. Please see revised Draft EIR Section 4.13. The District's finding that there is no excess capacity is noted, and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth al- lowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBC-2 Current enrollment figures and the District's statement that there is no room for expansion are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projections proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. HBC 3 Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec- tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. HBC-4 Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec- tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the calculations of school impacts. HBC-S Shifts in educational programming being implemented in the 1996-1997, and the 1997-1998 school year may have an impact on school capacity, as indicated in the comment. This new State educational program, the Class Size Reduction Program, does not mandate that local school Districts lower class size. This optional program includes State funded incentives of$650 per pupil allocated 9/26/996<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 12 I for schools for classes that are reduced to no more than 20 students per teacher (kindergarten through third grade). The State also passed SB 1789 to fund facilities needed as a result of the Class Size Reduction Program. This $200 million fund allows local Districts, such as Huntington Beach City School Dis- trict, to obtain $25,000 per classroom formed as a result of class size reduction. This $25,000 is to be used for facilities at the school where the new class is formed. If any environmental or socioeconomic impacts result from this pro- gram, it is the responsibility of the District to assess those impacts in an envi- ronmental review, as required by CEQA. Because of the funding incentives offered by the State, the District may fund construction of new classrooms or convert other school space for classrooms on existing school sites, thereby increasing capacity. There is no CEQA require- ment for the City to be directly involved in issues related to the Class Size Reduction Program and the facilities needed in this evolving program. How- ever, because this program is in the process of being implemented over a two year period, and because of the facilities funding available through the State for this program, it is premature to determine how the program will affect school capacity in the future. Likewise, it would be speculative in this EIR to deter- mine whether, or to what extent, the proposed Amendment/Merger would affect schools in combination with the Class Size Reduction Program. Because of the uncertainties involved in implementing the Class Size Reduction Program and the absence of impacts identified in the Draft EIR related to the proposed AmendmentMerger, further environmental analysis is not practical or useful, and is not required by CEQA. HBC-G Comment OV 5 makes the same legal points as HBC-6. Please see Response to Comment OV-5, which addresses these issues. HBC-7 EIR Section 4.13 has been revised to include updated General Plan policies that apply to school facilities impacts and mitigation, as suggested in the comment. See Attachment A. HBC-8 The Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed Amcndment/Merger. The District has several considerations in its effort to optimize use of current facilities, including modification of education programs, cost considerations, and loss of playground space issues among many others. This is further compounded by the Class Size Reduction Program mentioned in Response to Comment HBC-5. It would be highly speculative to address the multiple combinations of District responses to increased demand on individual school facilities or districtwide. Please see Response to Comment HBU-3 for additional discussion. 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOC>> 13 HBC 9 The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR. As previously discussed in Response to Comments HBU-4 and OV 2, the classroom loading capacity used by the consultant was a conservative estimate, using average classroom sizes, based on input from each school district, including HBCSD. Responses to Comments HBU-4 and OV 2 address the classroom loading capac- ity for other districts. As with these other districts, the City obtained input from each district in,determining capacity, including HBCSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including HBCSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom space. Through personal communication on Jun 19, 1996, Mr.Jerry Buchanan,Assistant Super- intendent of Administrative Services, provided the consultant with the District's loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable classrooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 30 students per classroom to determine capacity based on this input. Regarding year-round school programs used to increase student capacity at schools, see Response to Comment HBU-3. Please see Response to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-8, and HBU-12 for a discussion on cumulative impacts. The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac- ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBC-10 Regarding issues of cumulative impacts, see Response to Comment HBC-9. Please see Response to Comment HBU-6 for a discussion on portable classroom refurbishment and replacement. 9,26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 14 i j Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBC-11 Section 4.13 of the DEIR has been revised to reflect a revised school capacity calculation for Kettler Elementary School to reflect use of the portable building for child care use. Regarding implementation of the State's incentive class reduction program, please see Response to Comment HBC-5. Regarding year-round education programs, see Response to Comment HBU-3- Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. HBC-12 Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be- yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/ Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo- rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the Response to Comments. Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will more specifically analyze project impacts. 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 15 HBC-13 The issues in this comment are the same as those brought up in Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4. HBC-14 The issues in the comment are the same as those brought up in HBU-9. Please see Response to Comment HBU-9. HBC-15 The statement that"the impact to each of the District's schools is significant" is a conclusion that appears to be without supporting evidence. Each of the issues in the comment letter preceding the statement is responded to in the numbered responses. As indicated in Responses to Comments HBC-8 through HBC-14, the City's recently updated General Plan acknowledges the citywide effects of additional students generated by new development and has provided mitigation, now in the form of General Plan policies. These policies are re- ported in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, included in Attachment A. The City acknowledges that new development will contribute to facilities bur- dens that must be faced by the school districts. The City has recently adopted the updated General Plan, which includes policies assuring cooperation with the school districts and providing mitigation to offset impacts. In this light, the City respectfully disagrees with the comment. HBC-16 This comment raises the concern of impacts resulting from cumulative develop- ment projects, and indicates that each project should mitigate these impacts. As stated in Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11, and HBU-12, there is acknowledgment of cumulative citywide school overcrowding impacts in the City's General Plan. This issue is addressed and mitigated in General Plan policies included in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, which are included in Attachment A. See Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11 and HBU-12 for a full discussion of this issue. HBC-17 Please see Attachment A and Responses to Comments HBU-12 and HBC-16 for further discussion. 9/26,96<<I:\RSG630�M\RESPONSE.DOC» 16 HBC-18 This comment reflects the same opinion included in Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discus- sion and response to the issue raised in the comment. HBC-19 This comment is a summary of previous comments HBC-13, HBC-15, and HBC- 16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-13, HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discussion and response to the issues raised in the comment. 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 17 COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY CO-1 Comment noted. CO-2 The Amendment/Merger of the existing projects will have no effect on existing trail facilities or on-road/off-road bicycle facilities. The Project Description found in Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR states that the primary purposes of the proposed Amendment/Merger are to amend tax increment revenue limits, amend the powers of the Redevelopment Agency to pursue property acquisi- tion, extend the timeframe for Agency indebtedness, expand the list of possible infrastructure projects, and merge the five existing redevelopment projects. Table 3 A in the Draft EIR, page 3-8, shows the expanded list of possible infra- structure projects that may be carried out by the Redevelopment Agency. Among the items on the list are housing programs, public facility projects, community development programs, and commercial rehabilitation/ redevelopment projects that would have no affect on trails or bikeways. Devel- opment within the proposed Amendment/Merger area will still be subject to policies of the General Plan, which promote the provision of safe and efficient bicycle circulation through implementation of the City's bicycle plan. The infrastructure projects to improve and maintain pedestrian, bicycle and vehicu- lar circulation include: 1) completion of improvement projects already under- way(various roadways in Oakview Project Area, Center Avenue completion), 2) completion or improvement of roadway connections (Gothard and Hoover and the 405 Interstate Highway (1-405) interchange at Huntington Center,widening of McFadden Avenue/I-405 overpass), and 3) Edinger Avenue alignment project. Review of each of these potential projects indicates that there will be no nega- tive effects from these projects on County designated trails or bikeways, and there would be improvements to citywide pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle facili- ties resulting from the project. CO-3 This EIR addresses the proposed Amendment/Merger of five existing redevelop- ment projects on a program level. This Program EIR does not include specific information or environmental analysis of the bikeway cited in the comment because the project is not specifically authorized or environmentally clear in this EIR. As indicated in EIR Figure 4.1.1, the railroad right-of-way is main- tained as a distinct land use from McFadden Avenue to Edinger Avenue within the Merged Project Area. General Plan policy CE 3.1.3 requires reservation of this right-of-way for future transportation uses such as a transit or bicycle facil- ity. In addition, bikeways are projects that are permitted in the Merged Plan and could be funded by the Agency at some time in the future. Should such a project be proposed, a separate environmental review may be required for that project, subject to the provisions of CEQA. 9/26/96«I:\RSG630TIRWSPONSE.DOC>> 18 CO-4 The Draft EIR prepared for the Amendment/Merger is an environmental review document prepared according to the regulations and guidelines of CEQA As such, the Draft EIR considers the Amendment/Merger and the probable envi- ronmental consequences of that project. The comment suggests that the City consider a linear recreation corridor along the north-south Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This comment does not bring up any environmental issue or new environmental impact related to the project. The comment sug- gests a new facility for consideration by the City. Because there is no environ- mental issue or concern raised by the comment, and the issue is a land use issue outside of the environmental issues required to be addressed in an EIR as described above, no further response is appropriate or necessary. The com- ment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration. CO-5 Comment noted. The proposed Amendment/Merger includes no provisions, plans or projects that will conflict with this planned bikeway. As with Com- ments CO-3 and CO-4, there are no environmental issues that are required by CEQA to be addressed in this response. Please see Responses to Comments CO-3 and CO-4 for further discussion. I 926/96«I:\RSG630\,EIIt\RESPONSE.DOC>> 19 I I i SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AG-1 The comment is an introduction to the comment letter. No response is re- quired. AG-2 The comment is a summary of the Draft EIR and introduction to SCAG review processes. No response is required. AG-3 The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro- posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend- ment/Merger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental concerns or impacts discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is re- quired AG-4 The comment restates the findings of the land use discussion in the Draft EIR. There is no comment regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is required. AG-5 The City agrees with the comment. No further response is required. AG-6 The City agrees with the comment that job creation resulting from the Amendment/Merger is within the projections included in the General Plan. The City agrees with the balance of the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-7 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. 926/96<<I:\RSG630\.EIR\,RESPONSE.DOC» 20 AG-8 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-9 The comment regarding Newport Beach is noted. There are no environmental i concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. i AG-10 Comment noted. The City agrees with the comment. There are no environ- mental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. I AG-11 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-12 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-13 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-14 The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required. AG-15 The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro- posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend- ment/Merger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental effect discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, there is no requirement to provide further response. 9r26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 21 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES DOG-1 Comment noted; no response necessary. i i i 9r26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR=-SPONSE.DOC» 22 ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL VC-1 Comment noted. The Project Area is heavily urbanized. The proposed Amendment/Merger will not affect large areas of open space typically associated with field mice and other small mammals. There are no specific development entitlements or approvals associated with the proposed Amendment/Merger. Therefore, landscaping is not being proposed as part of the project. The com- ment will be forwarded to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Agency, the City agency responsible for carrying out public sponsored landscaping projects. VC-2 Comment noted. The Project Area is already urbanized and drainage improve- ments are in place. However, one of the objectives of the Amendment/Merger is to maintain and/or upgrade existing drainage improvements. This will fur- ther the objectives of the Vector Control District to ensure proper drainage within the Project Area. 926/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 23 I THE GAS COMPANY Gs-r As reported in the Draft EIR, gas service can be provided from existing mains without significant impact to the environment. No response is necessary. 9/26/96«I:URSG630\EIlR\tESPONSE.DOC» 24 I d Board of Trustees: HUNTINGTONBEACH UNION Bonnie Bruce e Bonnie Castrey ILIHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT BarbaraCurt Jones * * Michael Simons = 0 10251 Yorktown Avenue •Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 o�yQ (714) 964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools Cy SCHOO RECEIVED August 26, 1996 AUG 2 8 1996 DEPARTMENT OF Stephen V. Kohler ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic Development Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Kohler: As you are aware, the Huntington Beach Union High School District has expressed its interest in the proposed merger of the five Redevelopment Project Areas, through our response to the Notice of Preparation, dated May 15, 1996, and our letter regarding the draft Environmental Impact Report, dated August 1, 1996. HBU-1 I am now requesting that my letter to Ms. Linda Niles, dated August 1, 1996, be incorporated into the official record of responses to the redevelopment project merger Draft Environmental Impact Report. I look forward to further discussions with City staff on this matter. Sincerely, y l Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Attachment The mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership. 2. Center Avenue (Gothard to Caltrans Project Report Complete-con- Beach) struction anticipated in 1996 3. Interstate I405 • McFadden Bridge Negative Declaration No. 95-1 Overcrossing Widening 4. Edinger Avenue Street Alignment • Construction of street Mitigated Negative Declaration No.92-8 improvements,includ- for Precise Plan of Street Alignment for ing unified signage and Edinger Avenue between Beach Boule- landscaping. vard and Gothard Street. 5. Gothard Street and Hoover Screencheck EIR completed in August, Street Connection 1991. Project pending. III. Public Facility Programs Status of Environmental Processing A. Branch Library Negative Declaration No.93-11 for con- struction of the Oakview Branch Library Negative Declaration No.90-52 and 91- 36 for the Central Library expansion and Talbert parking lot IV. Community Development Pro- Status of Environmental Processing grams A. Neighborhood Plan None required B. Community Services Police As- None required sistance C. Operation LOGOS None required V. Rehabilitation/Economic Status of Environmental Processing Development A. Huntington Beach Mall No specific proposal considered now B. Waterfront Supplemental EIR No.82-2 certified in 1988 C. Commercial Leasing None required D. Rehabilitation(Assistance in None required rehab of industrial/commercial properties) E. Planning Activities None required 1. Implementation of the Downtown Specific Plan, etc. 7/1&964cLARSG63 n;nSECT3-0-VPDN 3-11 (� 4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR DOCLUIENT TO BE INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE The City of Huntington Beach City Council adopted an Update to the General Plan on May 13, 1996,for all non-Coastal Zone portions of the City: The Califor- nia Coastal Commission will consider those areas in the Coastal Zone,and com- plete their review and give their approval by fall/winter, 1996. Accompanying the General Plan was an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 8, 1995, which was circulated for public review and comment, and certified by the City Council on May 13, 1996. The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, allows the use of existing environmental documents to assist in describing or evaluating impacts for a project for which an EIR or Negative Declaration is being prepared. Section (a) states that"An EIR or Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the public. where all or part of another document is incorporated by reference, the incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the text of the EIR or Negative Declaration." Information included in the General Plan Update EIR is particularly useful and relevant to this EIR analysis of the Amendment/Merger. As previously mentioned in Chapter 2.0,Introduction, the land use designations within each of the five Redevelopment Projects mirror the designations of the General Plan Update. In effect,the General Plan defines the land uses for the Merged Project Area. All land uses will be consistent with the City's General Plan, City Codes and ordinances, as reflected in the General Plan and analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Consequently, portions of the General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No. 94091018)are incorporated by reference in several of the sections of this document. The General Plan Update EIR includes a description of the General Plan Update as follows: "The General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term planning document which serves as the official statement of the City of Huntington Beach regarding policies, standards, and actions needed to achieve the short and long-term physical, economic, social, and environmental goals of the City." This Program EIR does not attempt to duplicate all of the discussions contained in the City's General Plan, but rather refers'the reader to those sections of the City's General Plan that contain the required information, where appropriate, and incorporates this information by reference. SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIIZ Two development scenarios were evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR: the Theoretical Scenario and the Policy Scenario. The Theoretical Scenario repre- 7/1"6«I..\RSG630iEnt\$ECT4.O.wPD» 4.1-1 l __ sents the amount of development that could occur if all the proposed land use 4 , designations were developed to their maximum potential, significantly higher than what realistically may be assumed given historical trends and current City policies. The Policy Scenario reduces the Theoretical Scenario build out through a set of Land Use Element Policies (Policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5, and 2.1.6) that correlate land use development with supporting infrastructure and services. The City Council selected the Policy Scenario for adoption. This scenario allows (in addition to existing conditions) a build out increase of 18,500 dwelling units; 4,737,500 square feet of commercial office and retail land uses; 2,505,000 square feet of industrial uses;and 2,200 hotel rooms. Environmental topics evaluated in the General Plan Update ELR include land use, housing/population, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, geology and soils, biological resources, water quality, aesthetics/visual resources, cul- tural/historical resources, human health/hazardous materials, infrastructure/ utilities and public services. Significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identified as follows: • Transportation/Circulation • Air Quality • Noise. Alternatives analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR included 1) No Project Alternative (build out under the then existing General Plan Update), 2) No Growth Alternative, and 3) Reduced Build out Alternative. The No Project w Alternative would generate more adverse environmental impacts than the Gen- eral Plan Update and the remaining alternatives because it would permit the greatest amount of development; also, it would not meet the objectives of the General Plan Update. The No Growth Alternative would result in the fewest environmental impacts as it is the lowest growth alternative. The City Council has adopted Resolutions 96-35 and 96-36, certifying the Gen- eral Plan Update EIR and approving the General Plan, respectively. The City,in certifying the EIR and adopting the General Plan, adopted overriding consider- ations for the significant unavoidable impacts mentioned above. CEQA GUIDELINES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE This Program EIR references the CEQA Guidelines throughout. The CEQA Guidelines are hereby incorporated in their entirety by reference. i 7/1"6<<I.\RSG630NEM\.$ECT".WPDb 4.1-2 Board of Trustees: HUNTINGTONBEACH UNION Bonnie Bruce eF Bonnie Castrey HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Barbara Johnson r i Curt Jones * * Michael Simons _ 10251 Yorktown Avenue •Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 (714) 964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools Ch SCH�� August 1, 1996 Ms. Linda Niles Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Linda: I I appreciate the opportunity City staff gave me to express my concerns about the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed merger of the redevelopment project areas. As you requested, I will try to summarize my concerns in writing so that you can review HBU-1 them with your consultant. My continents concern Section 4.13 - Schools and are keyed to the first pages in that section where an issue arises. I ask that you consider that comments made regarding the analysis of one school would be applicable to all of our schools. PROJECT IMPACTS Page 4.13-5: In the third full paragraph on this page, the statement is made that the DEIR "describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment". While the report describes some of the options, it does not exhaust the possibilities. For example, the purchase HBU-2 or lease of portable classrooms, remodeling or construction of permanent facilities, and transportation are all options that are not discussed. At the end of the same paragraph, there is a statement that the analysis considers "the potential adverse impacts that could result from those choices" that are offered, but there is no true discussion of such adverse impacts. For example, the continued reliance on very old portable classroom space is an implied option; yet there is no discussion of the cost of rehabilitating or HBU-3 replacing those classrooms. Nor is there any recognition of the various problems that arise in considering year-round operation as an option, although these are well documented. For example, ensuring that all courses are available on all tracks often results in extra cost for teachers of courses such as physics, trigonometry, calculus, and Advanced Placement offerings. HUNTINGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL Page 4-13.6: The DEIR ignores the capacity computations described in our facilities master plan and adopts a new, simplistic approach of multiplying classrooms by a loading figure. Such an approach assumes that students fit neatly into groups of 30 and that all classrooms will be used to house these neat units for 6 periods a day. This approach ignores problems such as physics HBU-4 or chemistry labs that don't have sufficient stations to hold 30 students, or industrial arts programs that don't attract 180 students a year. Our capacity analysis recognizes that we can never use 100% of the space. The mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership. i� In the second full paragraph on this page, there is reference to the new housing units in the Main-Pier area. Setting aside whether the correct student generation factor was employed, the DEIR at least acknowledges that some enrollment growth will result from the new housing. However, the impact of this growth is dismissed since the affected school is alleged to have capacity. This conclusion assumes that the capacity can and should be dedicated to this HBU-5 developments. The logical outcome of this argument is that, if a school has 100 seats, and 10 new development each generating 100 students are planned, none of them has an impact since the school's 100 seats can accommodate the students from any one of the developments. It is this fallacy that leads us to emphasize cumulative impacts when we request that every new development contribute to mitigation. OCEAN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL Our capacity analysis shows that OVHS enrollment currently exceeds the permanent capacity of the school. The DEIR ignores the need to replace the existing portable classrooms, which are HBU-s beyond their useful life. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS Page 4.13-14: In the first paragraph of this section, it is suggested that the school districts "may have inadvertently understated actual capacity" and that "[w]hen student capacity is calculated, HBU-7 the student capacity figure increases substantially". As I have already set out above, I think our method is more accurate than the one used by your consultant. In the second paragraph of this section the conclusion is drawn that "there appears to be adequate space available to serve additional students." The paragraph goes on to say "[w]hen a year-round school schedule and increased usage of portable classrooms are considered, adequate capacity is assured." These conclusions are not justified, given the flawed approach HBU-s to calculating capacity, the problems associated with year-round schedules, the age of the portables we currently use, and the cost of new portables. Page 4.13-15: In the first full paragraph on this page, it is asserted that "[w]ith the exception of community facility districts for specific developments, no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are possible, pursuant to State law". This assertion overlooks the HBU-9 Mira, Hart and Murrietta cases, as well as the various mitigation agreements in place in the City of Huntington Beach which have been sanctioned by the City Council. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS In one sentence, the DEIR recognizes that something called cumulative impacts exists and then denies that the students generated within the project will contribute to a cumulative impact. If HBU-10 cumulative impacts are to be addressed, then every project that generates students must mitigate its fair share of those impacts. GENERAL PLAN POLICIES I have not checked each of the policies noted here, but believe they are inaccurate based on the I HBU-11 last one which I am certain is not the finally approved language. MITIGATION MEASURES The conclusion that mitigation measures are not warranted ought to be revisited, based on the HBU-12 objections raised above. 2 I LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION We contend that the conclusions in this section are drawn from a faulty analysis and should be revisited after we address the objections outlined above. HBU-13 As I noted at the outset, I have attempted to summarize my concerns. I would be happy to discuss them further at your convenience. Sincerely, Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services I I c: Dr. Marc Ecker, Fountain Valley School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Huntington Beach City School District Dr. James Tarwater, Ocean View School District i Ms. Barbara Winars, Westminster School District I i ,I i i 3 lb#atE of Callfomia GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET PETE WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 LEE GRISSOM GOVERNOR DIRECTOR September 5 , 1996 STEPHEN KOHLER HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 Subject : KUNTINGTON BEACT: REDEVELOPMEIT PROJECT SCH 4 : 9604=07S Dear STEPHEN KOHLER: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document tc selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant Co the California Environmental Quality Act . PR-1 Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process . When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, ANTERO A. RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse ' -• 1rVl1C:C Vl l�V3il�liGLiV1r'^� .aa�-s.vss..r•..••. Mat!rv:Srarc Cknr xf--•7400 MN tSUOL5 4 LU'S Pwjees'l lllet�t!Frit�nmen!al Lmnaci H•y�!�"for r4,r iiu+rtatgn�t°!^-+ci!LG'dtrt 1y;•+Kn!PrrrM - IoIdAgency oitr td tj.,nnnSion(fetich•„ •'^^'•^'^r Ft,...,.�:r n.+rt,n.n.nt rumactFerson •;ts, b v.WIlIcr jtrr.t Addteis 'lrMxt Main Strcrt Phortc C:ItT.u_^:xlsraf A..�_'•.!'•GF.my rip•41�1Ls _ Carnt7 Stoldi-.. Ctsunry rsnna _ 'ra4 tst comm-way kwourima Desch, CS•rw SueeD,r`+..�nIN o-sr of reach H�[fK r�tTS r!hc n�*hem r�ar/y+u to the <,Fie:fin as rh.�rnrthcn,riry beundsrr At e.cn t n ip Asle3Aofl Parcel No. Nor ApplAy-h1i;,l" secuon MA _TWF INAI x+,o$t:J_NA) B-I.^-Of4:-- within:Miler :irate Ilwy 2,�AeacR Ht•d lira 4+Hutll�iy��+t 1•rlmtaj{Iof Vr te.wsyt.f.�1,.1 Asporb:fVA• Rf!hupye�•�r+Ahm,Pic,flc lGtl r?+atl SchMFs Hu i L,lty a•och t•n 4±+001 Vhn.-r.Hunyn`mn Nearh U.+inn}t!rn uk 1 f)s_ r Lirenn View[.d.nnl nnmcl WaL•�.nFxr'�rh.rc t 17,mia L!_u+ttmt Typei - CWA-- C h'dP D.$,,ppkT.y%I,ubmgxnI APA: ❑NOI OsL : Cl)x.n+Mum nt p F rty Cons ❑FIR(Prax t,Ut cn.) ❑PA ❑ Im,iJoctftf+rnr ❑* Dec ❑others_ D Dra(c Fib Cy other 131'in F.)R ❑iUNDI loeAl Act{cet Type: ❑(,eneml M.n Updaie ❑spcnfk han G iiezone ❑Arno-14 n (�cier,mt Plan Atn.ntlmcnt L C It-..— 7S P.cthve)opment ❑General Pt.n Elemenr El Planned Unit,),wtopment C Use Perm+= ❑Coneia]?—lit ❑Cp 07 Pl.n t7 5,s t 1.,+ a p WJ hbp+Tnet MaR.tr j Q rn other l Dev topm!mi Type: ❑Restdenti.t Unln_Am.__ ❑w.xr F+d4,,. Type lttGD 1 ❑oyr-,C: ov R Arras_r-wkl ! - 0 T7a-p--vtlx TTpc ❑Cotn"_%.Sq.h_Axte•.�_binpi-y"t ,., 0 MMnirte, mrWMI ----------- 0Industrul, Sq.k._AcreP ❑Power. Type aw D Es!uostmtal: 0 W."Tre.cmenc - t7 Ramntlonai. ❑Haasrd"W ie. Type !�CyditY Prvi,�'t h"WA tylt,xat.t.cal tr Dot-¢Dent , .thetaCVaVal 0 Flom Plair,,'FkaadLlR F3 S[fiooir/il;,,.Vrawes 0 aaai,r rZ..a7,n ❑A(tnculUMtI L,nd C F.,.,A Lsndnhm Ha LI ❑;.+puv sysxm7 t=W.Mf supplyR:na,ndwcrer N gt:.Cry t'21 Geol.-xieh+•+++w ❑Sewer C.pataty t']wed.rnLTupanan neclveolowcaVH..tnncal r�r�Mirferala nJod Fwo3tet,Cunpaak+•v,U,•Adtng fjro"h ;pawl 7nttcL.r ttCnse ❑Sa$d Waste �Grw,th iaalunrig C7 Lh.dtt AbsarpA Pop hlittr0ioumI g Helen¢ t7 TCMVNa.o+'ttni+s Land U`4 0 i!a'otiak7Ob+ E Pubiic 5ernc.w".-,u),ues O1Tr..Y..C'a Llnm 9 Cumulnti,FJiuss ❑FS..st D Kc—.uaat,Tarko ❑VeRetauan ❑Otf prcy.sxrt Lead L'Ae/Loal•t�r._-_a Pour I iwr. Yarida P"mcns Desertpl l m: The proposed rv-VV'E Is itt a1.3rot.1mcne and mcrg' of the JNm p Mously ad,,9.1 pedreebpr++ent Plantse"c" _,Lion the Ctt•of Hftnti[ytton p...h. Tne prr-;, .1y adopud Ra]eve enl Tn>lcets esobilahsd ttna the lnaptien of the Ii u�>b>rn Hescft i4developmene tfd tw-V irclvdn Kunu.tg.on c:ente*r:ua,tmxso.l biN++ec tiede.el�nment Proleci(19R41. n•Ptlie Yw� pml�lee Project c14H3). Otiimew 1Y.dc rbpment P'm;�: (19!Sd1, 74tN r Ue.ch Rtrd—Upmeres tmrect 1902) aettc.ekTafiecr:L"i*.l.ct(lPBY! Ibe prr.p ACUxs s UoA ean6loe the mil pmd fteda.eit,peferfc Protvo.tow a wards mmeet mlLed the Kunringinn Pt eh Red-,Aopmastt Pmeiect. Statc Ckannghmsa Gxllsct: Mr.Chas Bclsly Project Scut to the toltow•inC Stale Agencies (916)45-0e13 _,-Resource Statt/XAosumer Sytt $-.ate Review t eg= BostLng _L7antxal Services Comal Comm CAVEPA Dept Review to Abeney - _Cisutal Cotssv _ARB q 7 Caloradu PVT Bd _CA WmtC.Maim B3 Agency kev m SCH / - 3 _L;opiervation CWRCB: Uraiils t� _Fidh A(sWne 0 _SWt:(.A- Delta SCH COMPLLA.NCE _`,- � —Della Prtitettiou Forextry .. SWRCB- wurQ!wlity -- lsarks&Rec/014p —SWRCB: WIrRithls 1Tta3t Hate SC/H' a a]Number u ^ll COm lnmtx Reclaaistiop _�_Rq.WQCB B_� r/O Pkne forward latt comments diyectlytotht ^�UtS YthdAdhCorrsedonr LeadAgetsey SmTratup Motu _Corrections AerMaLMOS Wependeot Comm AQMIYAPCO-3 7(Rewu..21 21 _�(, Csltr=A r O`- NAIIC Trans Pltnning _- PI IC IWmAm!g&Devel Snnta Mn M:ns WesithAWeliarc __KSlnttLanckc`•nmm Dmdcfng 112D _Tahoe Rgi Plan mAkal Wacte Clther: ' :a: OUT^ BOARD�orac�>noc � Sriaem o�vrv+e. ISeptembw 5, 1996 I I Mr. Stephen V. Kohle±r, Prnlaet Mflnerler Mvmr { Huntirwton Seach Redleyel....;;.4- e.. --� ., .,yr w..�rldvilHi , 1 200n twin C/eYaei —Alert L�� "u�.•A. wa ui 1 w non e It_e_wabv.G-� I �••.• v„ actrto �uojecs: sira'a E R Tor me Huntington Beach Redev@lopment project Tom G.IV 09ectar ,ewes,t ate I Gear Mr. Kohier: Dog= � u,R.4,,►-Z x The orange County Transportation Authority (()r�7A1 Kne rg_.la aA,14 #4— r, AtLP � X I ._ � _! •vu .v I, At Environmental impact Repo f Report or the t-lunt;n" .�. s .cuci�lv}�+irGftt 1'IVEC'(iC Jditm w and has the follewinn nornrrwnt- I � n(ITA I - ......, t.l.,.IUC .,:,s —ivii:e irsrougn me proposed redevelopment -.e.+ chit... UfU ra.— •- nwrom W ,.s+ `yp •,.all wvulu utccs tV iGqueS[ LnaL OUS tUr[1QUi8 be placed 8S needed. The TA-1 ezaUlL rvc:auvns Of U* turnouts would have to be determined when more avaFo&- daunied pians are available. Please submit detailed maps to OCTA as they ca�.rk sti.nia�. Ibecome available. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this orniect_ Pie-gee. Lae! fte fo AVwR 5ft-A,, i call meat(714)560-5765 or Bill 6atory at 171AI!AD-5912_ all OMWYT n Slnoemly 1rrn,l_. Il I � v I i Vi—Se L uuian ' i ransporiation Analyst c: Bill Satory, OCTA I (I FII&L,%PCANMNGUMRAMEIRRWEW WJF#TEWACH10EIFtHBRP DOC I I?MVQCaaary*Tr,7-WmW nAu**My SGasw.mnu.nsreer1P.o.Ora 14164/C?/drig6/CAkmt4a MG13.75V (7141�%U TA(6 W BREON, V'DONNELL, MILLER, BROWN ek'DANNIS Ar-MNEYS N*, :ra! A FROFMIO AL COVOWION 7a.®n Twtv M4 a L O'bvand AYa tmd,Floc Dtn Q MAlt1 Sin N.—i+Gv.G 94101 :a D." Te- 4151541.4IlI 1 DAenl. Yu 41spQ4384 Iltda I A.F114*03 y > September 4, i996 :�5oti�=moo, KI&ra LnSe Palos vodo.CA 4Wi Uxam I.CxftW"d %. no(sn-6w, Isoci S.(YsM,s Far 320l37I.m kw i= A WCU -Ima V.Madt o I78i2�lsua?aa� Ft=W.SW78Uum Svine fi2t L 7t1:-4m( S.047i C� ntY:.pi floe cill Wtt= AUM ram, VYA T CSUULE ANC] U-S. JMATL, ul+qelf,.c• Sae Salmon 4t1. 310,642-Ilu h L MmAcr l c Aria Steven Kohler C=1 Ma: CA sw ,R, Project Manager � llsma City of Htmtington Beach 2000 Main 5tree:t Th Sat CA :6t9 j575.9:07 Hun-dngtdn Beach, CA 92648 Re: DEIR 96-2; Cur$lc 5400.1.001.6 Dear Mr. Kohler. We represent the Ocean View School District in regard to its dealings with the City's Redevelopment Agmey. Recently we received your letter stating that the DRIR oa the=Tger of redevelopment areas is available, and informing us that September 4, 1996 is the end of the comment period. Ov-1 This letter is to restate the request I left for you in my phone message of today, .for an extension of time to respond until September 6, 1996. The District hopes that this md1I not be an inconvenience for your office. Thm*you for your consideration, Very truly yours, BREORT, O'DONNILL, MTLLER, BROWN &DANNIS Priscilla Brown G:\W?C4-LP—NTS t} O0\100MKOh- E-RI-U6 k BREOi-4. O'DONNELI,. MILLER. BROWN D-A&NINIS AM;*11I[s AT t r w (I A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 71 5«wrnou SUM tiror.c :era. I7'1vW C.MJ)tt Sia pL1eG1o0.Cw 9i1Q5 PdKMI a"wo Sti a7315�3•�ll1 .:gwfT.-vaoa:+ P= a.cJt.a. °,,.�n e0K"- azsc Septe&oer 5, 1996 sssovhse;o, xak&r 1h4 smim 3n I.ereted sue=--" a7,; Lniic S.Itamgm ;&3101313.68I7 kL-,N PU. 3ZO1373.6408 Qtr1dA w07t CLAudu F.Maddp1 1%aGi MOM load r[4C W suu ga sane r2:9 Cur A.BU= id.iow,653Sr n M''me" VIA fiACSTlYF xAn U. S.MAIL . ,KM Ann SsJ== 1 310J6i2.1227 !=a L Mwllt- Steven V.Kohler PrQj i,x-,t MA.�er Qft�R.A,a IWL4-COvau Rrri�;rg n�►.q ♦ C.t City 77a(fe-e77 .%1Ue-v-uuciiSc:u ioy�u nt Agengf of-the City of Huntington Beach wiiiyaxagiari C?•Ok iiueuDgtoft reach tea Diw 0% 2000 IN''laid Street 'Tel 619J59s.= Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Response to D1 IR an A>T7endments—d P ferger of Exig-ting Itedevcloprne*+t P-.ojrct Qum to Create'die Ruutirigton Beach Redeve11gp--=1.r Project' Our file 5400.1.001.6 Dear Mir-Kobdez The Ocean View School District("District')has asked that our firm respond to the Draft Environmental impact Report("DI✓IR")prepared by LSA&Associates,dat—nd July ;9, 1996 for the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach(`.Ageney"). We have reviewed the report as well as the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Report prepared by Rosenow OV-2 Spevacek Group,Inc.,dated July 17, 1996 for the Agency. Our Ze-view of these documents discloses that the DEM moils to adequately address the 'impact ou the District both in terms of the factual L-iplications of th-.redevelopment merger and the legal obligations of the Agency. Facrual Myters The DEER asserts that"the number of additional students resulting from the AmendmendMerger does not exceed any affected school's existiatg f$cilitie~c and Capacities." (4.13.4.) It claims that if the District's capacity is recalculated using a Ioadint;factor of 34 per classroom, including portables,then adequate capacity is achieved. (4.13.4.) Nffo.`wver, it continues,"When a year round school schedule and increased usage of portable classrooms OV-3 are considered,adequate capacity is assr..--d." The DEIR's student capacity chart, Table 4.13.A shows that currently the schools in the District are at 88%to 100%capacity. These figures are based on the District's estimate, UA EA-Q MALE AND U.S.MAIL. Steven V.Kohler Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Reach City of Huntington Beach September 5, 1996 Page 2 and, as pointed our in the District's May 17, 1996 letter,the District calculates that its capacity will be overburdened by 55 students. The DEIR assumes that these figures are inflated,but gives no facts to demonstrate that is the case. It ignores the fact thatthe District cannot load every classroom at 34 due to programmatic reasons(special education O_V-3 classrooms,for example must be loaded at a much smaller rate)and contractual reasons. Average class sizes are negotiated with the teachers;the District cannot unilaterally change them. In addition,even if she District could address the capacity problem by adding portables,how are these to be paid for? The upon does not address this issue, and,even worse,speculates that all the District needs to do is go on a year round schedule to solve its capacity problems.This ignores the practical and financial cost of year round schooling. It is not a money saving device for most districts;it requires additional staff and operational costs. In addition,community support for the concept is critical_ The DEIR completely fails to OV-4 assess the feasibility of any of the measures it suggests. In short,the DEIR glosses over the factual realities of the redevelopment project and erroneously underestimates the impact on the District. Smi Cnt Overcrowding is&Environrn=gl Fact The DEIR's approach to the Agency's impact on the schools is fimdamezually flawed by its assumption that school overcrowding is not an environmental impact.(4.13.3) This is based on a Court of Appeal decision, Goleta Union School District v.Regents of the University of*Ca1 Sarnia(1995)37 Cal,App.4th 1025 ("Goleta"),which,we contend,would not withstand scrutiny if applied in this case. First,the case ignores CEQA Guidelines and case law.The euidclines state at section 1530 that"the `enviromnent'includes both natural and man-made conditions." In Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. Counry of Riverside (1991)228 Cal.App.3d 17-12,the court OV-5 held that a school district may properly state a CEQA cause of action where a lead agency fails to address or provide for adequate mitigation of impacts on schools_ El Dorado Union High School District v_Ciry of placFrville (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 123,the court held that an EIR should address school issues,and consider student enrollment and existing and fithWe eruvllmcnt capacity. In a related case,Fullerton Joint Union High School District v.State Board of Educarion(1982)Cal.3d 779,the court hold that a school district reorganization plaa which would require construction of new school facilities c,sated a possibility of significant a vi nmental impact and therefore had to be addressed in an EIR. f � VIA FACSFytME AND 31 S.MAIL Steven V.Kohler rRedevtlopment Agency of the City of Fv gton Beach City of Huntington Beach September 5, 1996 Page 3 In addition, the cozrt's ruling left in place the position that socio-economic impacts are relevant considtrations if they either result from physical impacts or contribute to such impacts.In this case,the construction of new housing will create a physic I c,'tauge which w*2 overcrowd foe District's schools, which in torn is a negative impact or,the ability of the Distict to provide a sound education for its students. The DELL igno-res this ronneetion. Finally,CEQA requires that all"rcasonably foreseeable"impacts be assessed,and OV-5 impacts on schools resulting fxonn new developmcnt are reasonably foreseeable. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.v.Regents of the University of California(1989)47 Cat. 3d 376) This basic premise cannot by ignored. Thus the District submits that the DEIR fails to adequately address the impact of the devclopment contemplated under the Agcacy's plan on the District_ Very truly yours, BREON,O'DONHELL,U L P, BROWN&DANtiTINIS (,(h�kA, 9v- V-- Priscilla Brown P]3:kmd cc: James R.T arwater,Ed.D_ G.�wfiCLlFMS13a09t106161ICOHL-ER�.L96 t 0 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT O 20451 Craimer Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964.8888 BOARD OF TRUSTEES RECEIVED September 3, 1996 BY L.S A rive Brian E.Rechsteiner SEP 0 4 1996 President Brian Garland Stephen P. Kohler Clerk Project Manager Shirley Carey HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Member 2000 Main Street Robert Mann,Ed.D Huntington Beach, California 92648 Member Catherine McGough SUBJECT: Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Member Redevelopment Project EIR Number 96-2 ADMINISTRATION Dear Mr. Kohler: Duane A.Dishno,Ed D. This letter is in response to the Draft EIR 96-2. The comments are limited to Section 4.13 Superintendent Schools. My comments are applicable to all district schools. Alan Rasmussen,Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent Table 4.13 A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area Personnel/Educational Services Jerry Buchanan Dwyer Middle School (Huntington Beach City School District "HBCSD") - Current Assistant Superintendent enrollment will be 950 at the start of school on September 4, 1996. The portable classroom Administrative Services listed is a Foci Service kitchen which cannot be used for classroom purposes. A new HBC-1 addition to the school was opened in 1995 to handle the enrollment from the Holly Seacliff Project. No excess capacity exists for new projects. Sowers Middle School (HBCSD) - Current enrollment will be 1,190 students at the start I HBC-2 of school on September 4, 1996. There is no room for expansion. Kettler Elementary School (HBCSD) - Current enrollment will be 700 on September 4, 1996. The school has 4 portable classrooms, not the 6 listed One of the portables is used HBC-3 for a YMCA Child Care Program. Smith Elementary School (HBCSD) - Current enrollment will be 800 on September 4, 1996. This school takes most of the new development in the City and will not be able to HBC-4 handle further development. The capacity at Smith and Kettler and the rest of the K-5 schools will also be further impacted because of a decision to implement the state program of class size reduction. District wide, there will be a need for 42 additional classrooms when fully implemented in the 1997-98 school year. On September 4, 1996, when school starts, the District will implement class size reduction for the first grade only, which will require an additional 3 HBC-5 classrooms at Smith and 3 classrooms at Kettler. The first grade implementation effectively reduces capacity at Smith School by 53 students and 48 students at Kettler. This pattern, when projected for full implementation effectively reduces the District's capacity at K-5 by 900 students. "We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer" Mr. Stephen Kohler September 3, 1996 Page 2 Project Impacts 4.13.3 - Pages 4 & 5 The analysis focuses on a flawed interpretation of Goleta Union School District v. the I HBC-6 Regents of the University of California. The analysis further fails to note the impact of Mira,Hart,Murrietta and several other decisions that address the issue of mitigation. The recently enacted General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach sanctions implementation of I HBC-7 higher fees. This section further fails to analyze the adverse impacts that could result from the options proposed. Year-Round Education has been studied at length by the District because of the HBC-8 cost among other issues. The loss of playground space on already impacted sites has been discussed at length. Project Impacts 4.13.3 - Pages 7, 8, 10 & 11 Dwyer Middle School - As addressed earlier, the capacity analysis is flawed. The consultant should leave the loading of schools to those who will be forced to put teachers and students in them. The portable cannot be used for a teaching station and the 45 classrooms include computer labs, home economics, drafting, wood shop and physical education stations. We cannot load every square foot of space every hour of the day. The District's capacity analysis has been carefully worked out and works for the District and the community. Dwyer is not on a year round track and community surveys at this time do not HBC-9 support the concept. Even if implemented, it is doubtful that a 25% increase in capacity can be reached. The school capacity was increased to house students from the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area. The expected enrollments from this project utilize the current unused capacity. The development within Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier, which Dwyer serves, will further stretch the ability of the District to serve this area and ignores the cumulative impacts that every project has on the District's ability to serve students. This project does have an impact from additional students. Sowers Middle School - Once again the flawed analysis assumes that the District can use 1000% of the space all of the time. Sowers also has portables over 20 years old and leased portables that must be removed at the end of this school year. The same issues raised in the HBC-1( Dwyer analysis apply to Sowers except for Holly Seacliff. There is an impact to Sowers School from the project. Kettler Elementary School - Once again the analysis is flawed. Kettler has 4 portables, one of which is used for child care. The new current enrollment plus class size reduction, wipes out any real or imaginary capacity. The design of the school and its core facilities HBC-11 further limit the capacity. Year Round Education has been discussed and rejected because of the high cost. The impact to Kettler is significant and the school cannot house students from the planned project. Smith Elementary School -Once again the analysis is flawed. Smith shares a 21 acre site with Dwyer and the District's Maintenance and Operations Facility. If the capacities were HBC-1,t as suggested, we could not physically handle the students, let alone find a classroom for them. Smith has taken the brunt of the new development west of Beach Blvd. and the Mr. Stephen Kohler September 3, 1996 Page 3 cumulative impacts are still being felt. Not counting the 3,000 plus units from the Holly Seacliff,there are over 300 units with approved tract maps yet to be built that will impact Smith. Development will continue to overload the school. The impact to Smith School is significant and the commutative impacts compound the issues. Other issues not considered by the consultant in doing an independent loading analysis include: 1. The impact of Special Education- We load these classes at 6-12 student per room 2. RSP Special Education Program- The middle schools each have 3 classrooms and the elementary schools, 1 classroom. These programs can not be housed in the parking lots. 3. Technology-Each school has 1 or more computer labs. Summary of Impacts 4.13 - Pages 14 & 15 HBC-1: The District did not inadvertently understate its actual capacity. The consultant used a flawed analysis that we have attempted to document. Students do not arrive in nice round numbers easily divisible by 20 or 30. They do not all show up on the first day of school and stay for the year. A well rounded program requires special education, GATE, computers, libraries and child care,none of which were utilized in the consultants analysis. We don't send students home when we get over 20 or 30, we put them in a classroom even if it means class sizes are smaller. While we load at 30, our averages are lower. Reducing to 29.5 adds 4 classrooms. No mention is made of the difficulty of implementing year round schedules or that most year round programs generate for less than a 25% facility increase. No mention is made of old portables, or the cost of new portables or the loss of playground and parking space. When they arrive, where will everyone park? As mentioned earlier, the report ignores a whole body of law which discusses the issues, most notably, Mira,Hart and Muirietta. It ignores the fact that the General Plan and three Huntington Beach Specific Plans sanction additional mitigation. It further ignores a whole HBC-1i series of mitigation agreements that were negotiated with both large and small developers and then blessed by the City Council. The impact to each of the District's schools is significant. I HBC-1! Cumulative Impacts 4.13.5 Page 15 This issue was addressed earlier. Every project must mitigate its share of student impacts and the discounting of the impact does not lessen its reality. Each school has significant impact. If 100 homes are added within the District it matters little if it is 1 project of 100 HBC-1E units, 2 projects of 50 units, 4 projects of 25 units, or 100 individual permits, they will generate the same number of students. Mr. Stephen Kohler September 3, 1996 Page 4 General Plan Policies 4.13.5 Page 16 The General Plan should speak for itself. This is an incomplete list of the policies and does I HBC-17 not appear to be accurate. Mitigation Measures 4.13.6 Page 16 There is significant impact and mitigation should be required. The impact of class size I HBC-1E reduction increases the lack of adequate facilities and should be addressed. Level of Impact 4.13.7 Page 16 Since the conclusions were drawn on faulty or inadequate data, the impact on all schools I HBC-1 c should be changed to significant. Please do not hesitate to call if you need additional information. Sincerely, Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent,Administrative Services cc: Julie A. Cho. Environmental Analyst,LSA Associates Linda Niles, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Dr. Mark Ecker, Superintendent, FVSD Dr. James Tarwater, Superintendent, OVSD Barbara Winars,Deputy Superintendent, Westminster I M. RUANE 4 U N_rY � � ?CTOR,E.'vtA � 1 MAT14EWS s a FLANGE =PLANNING LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGLNCY 300 N.FLOWER ST. PLANNING THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA,CA SEP 0 4 1996 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O.SOX 404 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-404,$ RECEIVED TELEPHONE: (714)834-4643 FAX*:834-2771 SEP - 5 1996 DPc:8V-4772 Stephen V. Kohler, Project ?Manager Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency pEpA,RTM ENT OF 2000 Main street ECONOMIC pEVELOPMEt NT Huntingtcn Beach, CA 32648 SUBSECT: DEIR to ,Amend & Marge Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Kohler: The above referenced item, is a draft Rnviro=mental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Huntington. Beach Redevelopment Agency. The proposed project would merge five existing non-contig-gous redevelopment projects (totaling 6:L9 acres) to more CO-1 comprehensively attain the ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The County of Orange kaas reviewed the DEIR and offerg the zollowing comments regarding recreation and open space: 1. Section XV. RECREATION should address recreational programs, includ-ing opportunities for riding and hiking trail facilities, and on-road and CO-2 off-road bikeways. 2. The Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) :.demtifies a regional Class I (paved off-road) bikeway along the railroad righlr-of-way easterly of Gothard Street_ The SIR should address Chia bikeway, which will connecC Golden West College, Huntington Center, Old 'World Center, and Park & Ride CO-3 facilities to residential areas. it will also link at least. three of the five redevelopment areas. 3. it is also suggested the City consider a green-way (linear recreation corridor) along Uie railroad right-of-way. Greenways typically include CO-4 bikeways and riding and hiking trails. Creenway Corridors are an important amenity for communities with redevelopment, areas. Mr. S. Kohler Page 2 4. the CESP aiso identifies a regional Class I bikeway along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway within the vier section of Redevelopment Area CO-5 ##5. Thank you for the o=port-unity to respond to the DEIR. If you have any questions or need to Contact us, please call Charlotte Harryman at (714) 834-2522. very truly yours, - George Britton, Manager environmental & Project Plann.ixag Division RECEIVED SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AUG 26 WS August 16, 1996 _ OF 4 C DEVELOP Mr. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 20W Main Street ASSOCIATION of Huntington Beach, CA 92507 GOVERNMENTS RE: Comments on Draft EIR for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project - SCAG No. 19600223 Mr. Kohler: Sib West Seventh Street Thank you for submitting the Draft EIR for Huntington Beach izth Floor Redevelopment Project to SCAG for review and comment. As Los Angeles,California areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG 90017-3435 assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. t(213)236-i800 f(213)236-1825 The attached staff comments are meant to provide guidance for considering the proposed development within the context of our www.scag.<a.gov regional goals and policies which are based in part upon state and AG-1 federal mandates, as noted herein. While neither the project sponsor Officers:•President Mayor Pro Tem Dick Kelly, nor the lead agency is required to undertake the specific actions - Palnr Desert to Vice President Stare County- recommended- by SCAG or other agencies through the Yvonne Bnthwarte Burke,Los Angles County sec°nd Vice President Mayor Bob Bartlett' Intergovernmental Review Process, there are requirements in state and C. of Mem— • Immediate Pas[ President ,tap'--Bob Buster,Riverside County of Imperial:Sam Sharp,Imperil Comity federal laws for consistency with regional goals and plans, as noted -David Dhillon,H Centro herein. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, County of Los Angeles-Yvonne Brathwaite Burke, Los Angeles County os hardAug lesAlarcon,Los Angeles please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960. •Richard Ala[orre.Los Angeles Eileen Ansan, Diamond Bar•Bob Bartlett,Monrovia•George Bass,Bell•Hal Bernson,Los Angeles•Sue Bauer, Glutdora-Marvin Braude,Los Angeles•Robert `r- Bruesch,Rosemead•Laura Chick,Los Angeles• Sineerel y�, John Crawley,Cerritos-Joe Dawtdaiak,Redondo 1 Beach•Doug Drummond.Long Beach•John Ferraro. Los Angeles•Michael Feucr,Los Angels- Karyn Foley,Calabasas•Act Galanter.Los Angeles •El—Givens,Glendale•Jackie Goldberg.Los Angeles-Garland Hardeman,Inglewood•Mike (J•/ Hernandez, Los Angeles • Nate Holden. Los Angeles•Abbe Land,Wes[Hollywood.Barbara VIVIANE DOCHE-BOULOS Mexsma,Alhambra - David Myers. Palmdale George Nakano,Torrance•Jenny a,Lang Intergovernmental Review Beach•Beatzsce Pros,Piru Rivera-Mirk Wdley- Thomas. Las Angeles • Richard Riordan, Los Angeles•Albert Robles.South Gire-Marcine Shaw,Compton•Ray Smith,Bellflowar•Rudy H:\HUNTBEAI.GP3 Svonmch,Los Angeles•1-1 Wachs,Los Angeles Rita Walters-Los Angeles•Judy Wright,Claremont •Paul Zee.South Pasadena County of Orange: Marian Bergeson, Orange County-Ron Bates.Los Ahnntos-Art Brown, Buena Park•Jan Debry-Newport Beach•Richard Dixon,Lake Pores,•Sandra Gems.Costa Mrs, Candace Haggard.San Clemente•Be,Pere,Brea County of Riverside: Bob Buster, Riverside County-Dennis Draeger.Caliniesa•Dick Kelly, Palo,Desen• Ron L—ridge,Rivcrade -Ron Rubens,Temccula County of San Bernardino: Larry Walker,San Bcnurdmo County-Jan,Bagley Tveu,ymne Palms • Deudre Benneu, Colton • David &hleman, kantana-To,,,Minor.San P—nardmo-G—im Norton-Perry Chino Hdb•Robert Nolan,Upland County of Ventura:Judy Mkcls,V nmra Cuunty Andrew Fox.Tiiousand Oaks•Stan Daily Camarillo •John Winn.Sane Panic 0 Pnm-d on R,ty,l,d Pal— a/96 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler COMMENTS ON DRAFT EH2 FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS RE: HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT E1R BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project is a Program EIR which represents a proposed amendment and merger of five previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects within the City of Huntington Beach. The five projects include: Huntington Center Commercial District, Main-Pier, Oakview, Talbert-Beach and Yorktown-Lake. The actions of combining the original projects into one is necessary to provide the Redevelopment Agency the ability to expand its financial and statutory authority. The five projects include a total of 619 acres or about 3.5 percent of the City acreage. The project will enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development activities, 2) infrastructure improvements, 3) commercial rehabilitation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation programs and elimination of blight. Redevelopment Acres Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses Project (Assisted by Merged Project) AG-2 Huntington Center 160 Retail, Office 530 Single Family Commercial Commercial (Huntington Homes Beach Mall) 80 Multiple Family Units Oakview 68 General Commercial, Huntington Beach Medium & High Density Mall Refurbishment Residential Talbert-Beach 25 Low, Medium & High 600 Hotel/Time Share Density Residential, Rooms General Industrial Yorktown-Lake 30 Medium Density 260,000 square feet of Residential, Public Commercial Use 2 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Main-Pier 336 Retail, Tourist, 3,000 square feet of Recreational, Public, Industrial Use Residential Under the Policy Scenario, which SCAG reviewed in 1995, the Huntington Beach Comprehensive General Plan Update (adopted May 13, 1996) has the potential to allow the following increases during the period 1990-2010: 18,500 Residential Dwelling Units 3,165,000 Commercial Retail Square Feet 1,570,000 Commercial Office Square Feet 2,505,000 Industrial Square Feet 2,200 Rooms for Overnight Accommodations II. INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories: AG-2 core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility (being a summary of the 1994 Regional Mobility Element), policies in the Air Quality chapter, along with the Hazardous Waste Management and Water Quality chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements'. The core chapters constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letter. Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services, Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste Management and portions of the Air Quality chapter. These chapters address important issues facing the region and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG. ' See Endnote. 3 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the project with those policies. M. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CORE CHAPTERS OF THE REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE A. The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) includes both core and ancillary policies that are particularly applicable to this project. The GMC policies relate to the three RCPG goals: to improve the regional standard of living, to maintain the regional quality of life, and to provide social, political, and cultural equity. To achieve these goals, SCAG encourages the development AG-2 of urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing, minimize public and private development costs, and that enable the private sector to be more competitive, thereby strengthening the regional economy. Attaining mobility and clean air goals is also critical in enhancing the quality of life in the region and can be achieved through the development of urban forms that accommodate a diversity of lifestyles, that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities. Lastly, SCAG encourages the development of urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the following policies is intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers. 1. Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. SCAG staff comments: The GMC contains forecasts of population, housing and employment growth at the subregional level that are currently anticipated by the public entities within each of the subregions. As SCAG has designated subregions, the City of Huntington Beach is located within the Orange County Subregion. In order to foster the AG-3 implementation of this policy, SCAG staff disaggregated the subregional growth projections to the City level for use by the City of Huntington Beach in the development of its General Plan, on which the Redevelopment Project is based. However, it should be noted that SCAG's projections were adopted by the Regional Council as policy at the regional, county and subregional levels only. The analysis of these projections in the Draft EIR for the Draft Comprehensive General Plan Update has revealed certain inconsistencies between the projections used in the General Plan and those obtained from 4 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler SCAG staff. The section of the Draft EIR that addresses population and housing contained the following discussion: "SCAG projects the City of Huntington Beach population to increase from 181,519 in 1990 to 205,699 by 2010, or an increase of 13.3 percent ('straight-line' average increase of 0.67 percent annually). The estimated population growth occurring as a result of full implementation of the Draft General Plan would represent a 27,771 resident increase above the SCAG population projected for the year 2010. However, it should be noted that the population growth figures submitted by Huntington Beach to SCAG have been revised and SCAG has not yet amended the Regional Comprehensive Plan to reflect the changes." Likewise, the Draft EIR addressed the differences between the City's housing projections and those of the regional plan in this way: "Both the Policy Plan and Theoretical Buildout of the Land Use Plan will increase the AG-3 housing stock within the City limits by 18,500 new units by the year 2010. The total number of units anticipated or buildout capacity (existing units + estimated future units) for the City is 92,679. The 92,679 anticipated units exceed SCAG's 2010 housing forecast of 75,872." With respect to employment, the Policy Scenario is estimated to generate 22,413 new jobs within the City, for a buildout capacity estimate of 82,282 jobs. This compares with SCAG's unofficial 1994 projection of 89,551 jobs within the City by 2010. From this analysis, it is apparent that the inconsistencies in growth projections that have developed during the plan formulation process are being addressed and that efforts are currently underway to resolve these inconsistencies. The combined redevelopment project does not propose any changes in land use or zoning designation, or policies that would result in any increase in population within the City of Huntington Beach. The project will primarily allow for increased funding AG-4 opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial rehabilitation, and assisted housing projects, which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and type (i.e. land use) will be consistent with that projected in the General Plan. 3.03 The timing,financing, and location ofpublicfacilities, utility systems, and transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. I AG-5 5 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler SCAG staff comments: The City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency have recognized the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades to meet the needs of the combined redevelopment project. These agencies have AG-5 programmed the construction of various infrastructure programs to correspond with the combined Programmed improvements include: storm drainage, street improvements, library construction, and waterfront improvements. 2. Ancillary Growth Management Policies 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. SCAG staff comments: The project does not address the matter of achieving a balance AG-6 between types of jobs and housing projects. Providing empolyment opportunities is a primary objective of the Amendment/Merger. Job creation will be within the employment projections outlined in the General Plan. Affordable replacement housing at all levels must be available within four years of displacement according to City and Agency policy. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. SCAG staff comments. The design of the Merged Project Area makes maximum utilization of existing infrastructure (streets, water, sewer and other utilities) and essential AG-7 public services (police, fire, emergency medical, libraries, public health care services, existing parks and recreational facilities). The City of Huntington Beach has plans to improve their utility services to the City, which in turn will benefit the Merged Project Area. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies. SCAG staff comments. The General Plan contains policies designed to provide for the economic needs of the City's residents including (1) retail shopping opportunities and AG-8 services, (2) local-serving office development, and (3) orderly and controlled industrial growth. The Project will enable the Redevelopment Agency to finish out the redevelopment programs begun by the agency by continuing the Agency's financial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect 6 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. These efforts will benefit both the City of AG-8 Huntington Beach and the Orange County Subregion. 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions. 2 SCAG staff comments. The City of Newport'Beach is housing rich jobs poor, while the AG-9 Subregion is jobs rich-housing poor. The Project would allow the jobs/housing ratio to improve at the City level, resulting in a more balanced community. 3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions'programs aimed at designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike. 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions'plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points AG-10 along the regional commuter rail, transit systems and activity centers. 3.15 Support local jurisdictions' strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. SCAG staff comments. The General Plan policies demonstrate that the land use policies of the Plan have been closely correlated with the transit and rail service policies in a manner that is consistent with the objectives of the GMC. 3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors, underutilized in systems and areas needing recycling and redevelopment. SCAG staff comments. The City's five redevelopment project areas have been merged AG-11 in this Project. The objectives of the Merged Project are fully consistent with this policy, where recycling and redevelopment activities are concerned. 3.17 Support and encourage settlement patterns which encourage a range of urban densities. AG-12 SCAG staff comments. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, on which the 7 - � l August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Merged Project is based, adequately provides for a range of urban densities for the City. 3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. AG-13 SCAG staff comments. Policies related to the equitable provision of services have been adequately reflected in the General Plan, which have been incorporated by reference into the Merged Project. B. The Regional Mobility Chapter (RMC) also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain to the proposed project. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption. promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant policies in this chapter are the following: 4.01 Promote Transportation Demand Management (TOM)programs along with transit and ridesharing facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overall mobility program while recognizing the particular needs of individual subregions. 4.03 Support the extension of TOM program implementation to non-commute trips for public and private sector activities. 4.04 Support the coordination of land-use and transportation decisions with land-use and AG-14 transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as a part of the entire package. 4.27 Urban form, land-use and site-design policies should include requirements for safe and convenient non-motorized transportation, including the development of bicycle and pedestrian friendly environments near transit. SCAG staff comments: The Merged Project incorporates several General Plan policies speak to the need for a Transportation Demand System. The policies highlight the various strategies which should be pursued including: provision of employee incentives for utilizing alternative transportation modes, encouragement of flex-time, staggered work hours, etc., use of multiple-occupancy vehicles for non-work trips, support and promotion of ridesharing, encouragement of TDM Plans for major new non-residential 8 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler development, and encouragement of technologies which optimize safe traffic flow and manage traffic congestion. These TDM measures appear to be adequate in view of the character of development that the Plan seeks to achieve within the City. The City has also adopted a Transportation Demand Management ordinance, established a Capital Improvement Program, and a Level of Service Deficiency Plan. The City's TDM AG-14 regulations apply to any discretionary permit for commercial, industrial, institutional, or other uses that are determined to employ 100 or more persons. The General Plan also calls for expanded bicycle routes which link with pedestrian trails and bus routes as well as other cities. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As described above the Draft EIR for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project appears to be generally consistent with the pertinent policies and objectives of the Regional Mobility and Growth Management Chapters of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. However, the AG-15 growth projections proposed by the General Plan differ to some degree with the projections that resulted from previous consultation efforts between the City and SCAG. Efforts have been underway to resolve these differences. 9 August 16, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, the Association is designated as a Council of Governments(COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency(RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO). Among its other mandated roles and responsibilities,the Association is: • Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative,and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(g)-(h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(f)-(g) et seq., 23 C.F.R. §450,and 49 C.F.R. §613. The Association is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency,and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. 0 Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use,housing,employment,and transportation programs,measures,and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.S.C. §7504(a)as a Co-Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. • Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7506. • Responsible,pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, for reviewing all Congestion Management Plans (CMPs)for consistency with regional transportation plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code.The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region. • The authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review). • Responsible for reviewing,pursuant to Sections 15125(b)and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines,Environmental Impact Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. 0 The authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency,pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2)(Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act) • Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). • Responsible(along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning Council)for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plain pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25135.3. P.vi-d J--y 18,1995 H:\EMPLOYMENT.GP3 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON,Governor DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, e AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES 245 WEST BROADWAY,SUITE 475 LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90802-4455 (310)590-5311 TELEFAX(310)590-5301 August 15, 1996 �9 Stephan V. Kohler Project Manager CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Department of -Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: DEIR for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange SCH #96041075 The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (Division) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the comments submitted in the subject DEIR. After reviewing the document's impact and mitigation measures, the Division does not have any additional comments to make at this time. DOG-1 Please contact R. K. Baker or Edward Santiago in the Long Beach office, if you have any questions regarding the Division's laws or regulations, or if any amendments to the existing document may require additional Division review. Our address and phone numbers are located in the letterhead above. Sincerely, ►r' : Richard K. Baker District Deputy Orange County Vector Coitur" ol District DISTRICT OFFICE•13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD., GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MAIUNG ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 87,SANTA ANA, CAUFORNIA 92702 PHONE (714)971-2421 • FAX(714)971-3940 BOARD OF TRUSTEES C August 5, 1996 RECEIVED PRESIDENT-FLORENCE CE AVILEER VICE-PRESIDENT -LARRY A.HERMAN SECRETARY-WILLIAM OLIVA ANAHEIM Mr. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager LEONARD J.LAWICKI Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency AUG - 8 1996 BREA KARL H.FANNING 2000 Main Street DEPARTMENT OF B PARK MICH b AEL DAVIS Huntington Beach, California 92648 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MICH COSTA MESA RE: Vector Control Evaluation for WILLIAM BANDARUK CYPRESS Draft EIR No. 96-2 Huntington Beach LINCOLN CASTRO DANA POINT Redevelopment Project ROBERT D CARR FOUNTAIN VALLEY Dear Mr. Kohler: LAURANN COOK FULLERTON FLORENCE CAVILEER GARDEN GROVE I have reviewed the above project site and do not anticipate any significant G THOMAS L.PETROSINE vector problems. HUNTINGTON BEACH ROBERT J.EGAN IRVINE ROSEMARY DUGARD Hantavirus associated illness has been confirmed in California and it has been LAGUNA BEACH GRANT MCCOMBS determined that most of the human cases have been linked to exposure to virus- LAGUNA HILLS DR.PHILIP D.HANF infected deer mice, Peromyscu.s maniculatus, a species found throughout the LAGUNA NIGUEL VACANT state. In Orange County, deer mice are common in canyons, foothills, and LA HABRA ACANT coastal bluffs. Hantavirus infected mice have been collected from several sites in LAKE FOREST JEAN D JAMBON the county. State and local agencies have developed protocol for dealing with LA PALMA rodents and Hantavirus. LARRY A.HERMAN LOS ALAMITOS VACANT MISSION VIEJO Risk of Hantavirus infection is low for persons who do not have direct rodent SYD GORDON NEWPORT BEACH contact or do not live in dwellings heavily contaminated with rodent droppings. PEGGY DUCEY Information on Hantavirus is enclosed. VC-1 ORANGE A FRED L.BARRERA PLACENTIA NORMAN Z ECKENRODE During the landscape phase of the project, plants such as Algerian ivy,CLEMENTE b GLENN EDWARD ROY bougainvillea, oleander, palm trees, etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO VACANT types of ground cover is enclosed. SANTA ANA WILLIAM L.BOYNTON SEAL RAH LLACSHZLO In addition, after the landscape phase is completed, an effort should be made to STANTON DON MARTINEZ eradicate rats or ground squirrels that may attempt to reestablish themselves in TTIN FAB I E KAY COMBS berms or slopes. These animals can cause erosion, >damage property, and carry FA VILLA PARK WILLIAM OLIVA disease a�,tbeia s such as those that cause plague. b WESTMINSTER FRANK FRY,JR. YORBA LINDA Also, all project sites should be graded for proper runoff to avoid standing water JAN HELF COUNTY F 9 ORANGE that could breed mosquitoes. Furthermore, off-street drains should be designedR.PAUL VC-2 DISTRICT MANAGER to carry runoff water into catch basins, retention basins, or directed toward GILBERT L.CHALLET existing natural drainage. -Q�GE CpIt/+ Thank you for allowing our comments on this project. If you have any questions o regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, n � �C'D�,T,RO�,9 Gary Reynolds Biologist GR/cs Enc. A vector is any insect or other arthropod,rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of causing human discomfort,injury,or capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease. HANTAVIRUS INFORMATION SHEET •elf.' .1. �1 •- � �1 a DEER MICE Peromyscus maniculatus Hantavirus associated illnesses have been confirmed in New Mexico,Arizona, Colorado, Texas, Nevada, California, Louisiana, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, and North Dakota. It has been determined that most of the human cases have been linked to exposure to a virus-infected deer mouse species (Peromyscus maniculatus)that is found throughout the State of California and has been collected frequently from numerous canyon and foothill localities in Orange County. Studies continuing since 1993 have shown that there is evidence that the virus currently exists in approximately 10 percent of the deer mice population in Orange County. The California Department of Health Services recommends that homes with heavy deer mice infestations be cleaned thoroughly where deer mice droppings have accumulated. As a precaution, the droppings should be misted from above with a mixture of one part household bleach to five parts water and wet to the point of just being damp but not soaked. They should then be cleaned up,placed in a double plastic bag, and then disposed of. Dry droppings should not be swept or otherwise handled because of the possibility of dust particles being inhaled; dust masks and rubber gloves are recommended. Deer mice should be controlled in cabins and other structures through exclusion,trapping, and use of approved rodenticides. House mice and rats and their droppings should also be treated with the same precautions. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 13001 Garden Grove Boulevard,Garden Grove,CA 92843-Mailing Address: P.O.Box 87,Santa Ana,CA 92702 (714)971-2421 - 1-800-734-2421 1996-N HANTAVIRUS ILLNESS AND HOW TO AVOID IT COMMON QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS The recent confirmation of eight fatal cases of Hantavirus infection in California has heightened interest in this disease and how its transmission may be prevented. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide available information and to answer common questions. Q: What is Hantavirus? A: Hantaviruses are a family of four previously identified viruses found in rodents. These viruses have caused serious health problems in other parts of the world(mainly the Far East and Scandinavia). The virus responsible for the recent U.S.deaths is a fifth Hantavirus strain that is apparently unique to North America. This new strain attacks the lungs,instead of the kidneys as the other strains did,resulting in the disease termed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome(ARDS). Q: How is this virus transmitted? A: The virus is believed to be principally carried by a common rodent, the deer mouse. This mouse is found throughout North America and in every California county. Infected rodents shed live virus in saliva,feces,and urine. Humans are infected when they encounter and inhale aerosolized microscopic particles that contain dried rodent urine or feces. In other parts of the world,rodent bites have caused human infection with related Hantaviruses. Insects and mites have not been studied extensively to determine their role in Hantavirus transmission. Q: How dangerous is this virus? A: This strain appears to be extremely dangerous to those who are infected with it. More than half of those known to be infected by the virus have died. While dangerous to individuals,its means of transmission is so unusual that most people are very unlikely to encounter the virus; it poses little threat to the general California population. Q: Can people infect each other? A: There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission of Hantaviruses. No one believes the virus will start an epidemic. No health care workers have been infected while caring for infected patients. Q: How long does it take to develop symptoms after exposure? A: Typically one to two weeks,but the range may be as wide as a few days up to six weeks. Q: What are the symptoms? A: Typical cases of ARDS initially seem similar to the flu: high fever,muscle aches,cough,and headache. After several days, respiratory problems worsen rapidly. The lungs fill with fluid and victims die of respiratory failure. Q: Is there any treatment? A: At the moment,it appears there is no generally effective treatment for this Hantavirus. Physicians have been administering ribavirin, an antiviral drug, experimentally to suspected victims. Too few people have been treated to draw any conclusions about its effectiveness. Q: Is Hantavirus disease (ARDS)present in California? A: Yes. Six Californians have died between 1984 and 1995 from Hantavirus ARDS. All of these people had close contact with rodents, including deer mice in California. Q: Are California deer mice and other rodents infected with Hantavirus? A: Yes. Twenty counties have records of Sin Nombre Virus(SNV)positive deer mice; 12.2 percent seropositive statewide. Harvest mice and meadow mice have been found positive for related Hantaviruses that have not been associated with human disease. Q: Do rodents in urban areas carry the Hantavirus? A: Again,very little is known about the extent and distribution of the virus at this time. However,all known cases of human Hantavirus infection have been acquired in rural locations. Q: Are deer mice the only anima.,.. ..aat carry the disease, and how do I tell k—dr mice from other mice? A: Deer mice are the most abundant,widely distributed, and probably the most common carrier of the virus. It is difficult to properly identify mice. All rodents should be avoided. Q: What do I do if I am going into a cabin or rural home with rodent droppings in it? A: Dwellings with evidence of severe infestation(e.g.,substantial collections of rodent droppings or dead animals present) should first be aired-out while unoccupied. Rodent debris should be thoroughly wetted with a household disinfectant or a 1 to 5 dilution of household bleach in water to reduce formation of dust aerosols. Debris should then be WIPED UP and placed in double plastic bags for disposal,together with any cleanup materials such as paper towels,etc. DO NOT use vacuum cleaners or sweep with brooms,which will create air-borne dust. Use of gloves,dust mist masks,long-sleeved clothing, and protective eyewear may help prevent personal exposure. Debris and dead animals should be soaked in disinfectant (e.g., the diluted bleach solution or phenol-based cleaning solution) and buried or disposed of as directed by local health officials. Rodent-proofing measures should be applied to dwellings to prevent animal entry. Keep children and pets away from the area until it has been disinfected and completely cleaned. Q: What do I do if I find a dead rodent in my house or cabin? A: Disinfect, remove, and discard it as described above. Q: Should I set out traps to catch the mice? A: Mice and rats should not be allowed in buildings. Snap traps (not cage traps)can be used,but direct contact with the animal and its droppings should be avoided. Follow the precautions described above. Traps should be disinfected following use or disposed of with the dead animal. After eliminating rodents from a building, the conditions that attracted them there (e.g.,food sources, overstuffed furniture, etc.) should be corrected. Q: Is it safe to go camping? A: Yes, but it is always important to avoid contact with animals, their burrows, nests, and especially their droppings. Q: Is it all right to take my pets along on my camping trip? A: It is always better to leave pets at home or in a kennel for their own safety and yours. If pets must be taken, they should always be confined or on a leash. Because of the danger of pets acquiring or transmitting other wildlife-associated diseases to their owners,pets should always be vaccinated for rabies and regularly treated for fleas (carriers of bubonic plague) and ticks (carriers of Lyme disease and relapsing fever). Q: What special measures should I take if I do go camping? A: Avoid areas with high rodent activity (e.g., burrows) or where rodent feces are evident. Store all food in containers sealed with lids. Do not feed chipmunks or other wild animals. Wear an insect repellent. With prudent precautions and behavior,undue worry can be avoided. Enjoy your trip. Q: Are children, pregnant women, and the elderly at higher risk than the general population? A: The ARDS Hantavirus illness is so rare that a greater susceptibility in these groups cannot be determined. Proximity to and contact with rodents and their urine and feces appears to be the most important factor in determining who becomes ill with Hantavirus. Q: Will the "fume bombs" sold over-the-counter kill the virus? A: Probably not. The virus is best inactivated by contact with a liquid disinfectant such as diluted household bleach, as previously described. Q: Whom should I contact for more information? A: Call your County Health Department listed in the Government Section at the front of your telephone directory. If you feel ill and are concerned, contact your personal physician, who will work with your County Health Department and the State Health Department. Please do not call the State Health Department directly. (Modified from California Department of Health Services Bulletin) ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 13001 Garden Grove Boulevard,Garden Grove,CA 92843-Mailing Address: P.O.Box 87,Santa Ana,CA 92702 (714)971-2421 • 1-800-734-2421 1996 PEST CONTROL BULLETIN NO. 49 ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER TO ALGERIAN IVY Algerian Ivy, a popular ground cover in Orange County, is known to harbor roof rats. For this reason the Orange County Vector Control District in cooperation with the California Department of Health, has developed a list of substitute ground covers not attractive to rats. The list is accompanied by a brief description of each species named. When purchasing these plants, check with your nurseryman for more specific information regarding your location. 1. Ajuga, Bronze (Ajuga reptans atropurpurea) This plant has bronze colored leaves with blue flowers, grows from 2 to 4 inches and is considered to be a hardy species. Good in sun or shade, planted 6 to 12 inches apart. 2. Giant Ajuga (Ajuga crispa) A large ajuga plant,this species is very hardy, has metallic colored leaves with blue flowers and will grow to 9 inches in height. May be planted in sun or shade, space 12 to 18 inches apart. 3. Camomile (Anthemis nobilis) A deep turf is produced by this plant and it can be mowed. Grows to a 6 inch height if not cut. Good around stepping stones and walkways. Produces a pleasant fragrance when leaves are crushed. Plant in sun, 6 to 12 inches apart. 4. Creeping Speedwell (Veronica repens) Dense green leaves with blue spring flowers. This hardy plant grows to a height of 6 inches. Prefers sun or light shade, plant 12 to 18 inches apart. 5. Creeping Thyme (Thymus serphyllum) Small, light green leaves with lavender,white or pink flowers. Reaches 4 inches in height, prefers sunny areas and should be planted at 10 inch intervals. 6. Dichondra (Dichondra repens) Familiar lawn plant can also be used as ground cover. Grows to 3 inches in height and with- stands moderate traffic. 7. Germander (Teucrium chamaedrys) Bright green foliage, resembling mint. Spreads well. Lavender flowers appear in spring. Prefers sun and warm climate, spreads rapidly. Reaches 10 inches in height and should be planted at 10 to 12 inch intervals. 8. Goldmoss Stonecrop This ground cover is a hardy, succulent evergreen which will do well in sun or shade. They will grow to 3 inches in height and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart. 9. Hahns Ivy (Hedera helix) Good ground cover for erosion control. Grows well in sun or shade to a height of 12 inches. Should be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart. 10. NeedIe Point Ivy This subspecies of Hahns Ivy has the same characteristics, except the leaves are pointed. Plant the same as Hahns Ivy. 11. Mondo Grass (Ophiopogon japonicum) Evergreen and grass-like, this plant will reach 10 inches in height. Plant's appearance improves with age, and is very hardy. Space 6 to 8 inches apart. 12. Sand Strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis) Popular ornamental plant in Orange County. Very hardy and rapid spreading. Reaches a height of 8 inches. Plant 12 to 14 inches apart. 13. Snow-in-Summer (Cerastium tomentosum) A low spreading perennial with grayish foliage. Does well in hot, dry areas. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced 18 to 24 inches apart. 14. Spring Cinquefoil (Potentilla verna) Has attractive palmate, strawberry-like foliage, dark green in color. Spreads rapidly and produces a bright yellow flower. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced a foot apart. Very hardy. 15. Trailing African Daisy (Osteospermum fruticosus) A good erosion control ground cover, this popular plant blooms through spring and summer. It will reach a height of 18 inches and is very hardy. Plant 12 to 18 inches apart. 16. Wooly Yarrow (Achillea tomentosa) Olive green foliage, spreads rapi"11Y and is good for erosion control. Produces yellow flowers in the spring and is hardy. Grows to 9 inches high and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart. ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT 13001 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 87, SANTA ANA, CA 92702 (714) 971-2421 - 1 (800) 734-2421 The Gas Compz?— Orange Coast Region RECEIVED July 31, 1996 AUG - 5 1996 DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 Southern California Gas Company Attention: Mr. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager Harting Addres;: Box 3334 Anaheim,CA Subject:— DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No. 96-2 FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 92803.3334 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as on information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served from existing mains without any signifiant impact on the environment. The service will be in accordonce with the company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements ore made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply qr the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Residential (System Area Average) Yearly GS-1 Single—family 750 therms/year/dwelling unit Multi—family units 475 therms/year/dwelling unit These overoges are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company during 1985 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract or homes will use these amounts of energy. We have developed several programs which ore available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further information on any of our energy programs, please contact this office at 1(800)427-2000. for assistance. Sincerely, ` A Robert S. Worth Technical Supervisor KRC attachment EIRRES.DOC �1 ATTACHMENT A REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13 926/96«I:\RSG630\BR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 4.13 SCHOOLS 4.13.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Merged Project Area is currently served by one high school district and three elementary school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) includes the entire City of Huntington Beach, as well as portions of the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, and Westminster, and portions of unincorporated territory in Orange County.' The Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD), Westminster School District (WSD), and Ocean View School District (OVSD) also provide educational services to the Merged Project Area. Figure 4.13.1 identifies the location of the schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Each site name in Figure 4.13.1 is followed by its school district designation. There are no schools located within the Merged Project Area; however, one elementary school (Oak View Elementary) is located directly adjacent to Oakview. High Schools The HBUHSD operates four high schools serving the Merged Project Area. They are the Huntington Beach High School, Westminster High School, Marina High School, and the Ocean View High School. Each facility serves grades 9-12. The District does not have any schools that are on a year-round schedule. Table 4.13.A provides information on the existing enrollments and capacities for each of the four high schools that serve the Merged Project Area. The number of portables indicated is in addition to the number of classrooms identified. Middle/Elementary Schools Huntington Beach City School District The HBCSD has 13 facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, four of which serve the Merged Project Area. Of the four schools, two are elementary schools (Kettler Elementary and Smith Elementary) and two are middle schools (Dwyer Middle and Sowers Middle). The grades served, capacities, and enrollment for the schools serving the Merged Project Area are listed in Table 4.13.A. ' The school district boundaries were set by the State Department of Edu- cation prior to the determination of the City boundaries, and were not changed to coincide with City boundaries. 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630WIR\SECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-1 Q z\o �- m LLJ ^� Westminster High Stacey Intermediate �2 (HBUHSD) •' (WSD) SEAL Clegg Elem.�• " WESTMINSTER BEACH (WSD) Ak■ BOLSA ^ _ 4 Schroeder Elem.� ! ,,, Y (WSD) �' o 8 a 8 MC o FADDEN c� EDI.NGEER Marina High (HBUHSD) Sun View Elem. ' (OVSD) —HEIL Spring View Middle Oak View Elem. I ,, (OVSD) ■ (Not u"Redevelop OVSDentAma) Golden View Elem. 2 WARNER FOUNTAIN },� VALLEY — Marine View Middle■ (OVSi f ,�— 1� (OVSD) . f SLATER �S 1 ®Ocean View High S,�✓ Hope View Elem. ■ (HBUHSD) ✓p e (OVSD) Mesa View Middle I TALBERT lrc0F ORANGE •�.• (OVSD) (EOLSA CHICA) � 3 � ql✓y N � � cc T ELLlS a o "Huntington Beach High f € ¢ (HBUHSD)®c YOR!;TO;"!N � � Dwt erMiddle: Smith Elem. AUkMS� (HBCSD) (HBCSD) Sowers Middle 1 \ (HBCSD) INDIANAPOLIS ■ LEGEND } $ I ATL.IJA r••'' City Boundary Kettler Elem. PIER (HBCSD) Sl HkMILTCN I® Redevelopment Areas High School BANNING ® Middle School i COSTA A Elementary School j 1:ESA 6/19/96(RSG630) Figure 4.13.1 41�- Scale in Miles LSAO Schools Serving the 0.5 1 4.13-2 Redevelopment Project Area P J Table 4.13.A-Schools Serving the Merged Project Area Number of Student Current Remaining Percentage Classrooms Name of School Capacity Enrollment Capacity of Capacity (Portables) High Schools(9-12) Huntington Beach High School 2,266 2,145 121 95% 80(0) (HBUHSD) Ocean View High School(HBUHSD) 1,989 1,640 349 82% 53(16) Marina High School(HBUHSD) 2,367 2,055 312 87% 75(7) Westminster High School (HBUHSD)) 2,563 2,322 241 91% 89(0) Total 9,185 8,162 1,023 89% Middle Schools(6-8) Mesa View Middle School(OVSD) 740 701 39 95% 24(4) Spring View Middle School (OVSD) 850 826 24 97% 26(3) Marine View Middle School(OVSD) 800 703 97 88% 25(7) Stacey Intermediate School(WSD) 764 709 55 93% 30(1) Dwyer Middle School(HBCSD) 1,080 870 210 81% 45(0) Sowers Middle School(HBCSD) 1,110 1,146 (36) 103% 31(10) Total 5,344 4,955 389 93% Elementary Schools(K-5) Oak View Elementary School(OVSD) 617 617 0 100% 19(6) Sun View Elementary School(OVSD) 470 440 30 94% 15(2) Hope View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 593 27 96% 23(3) Golden View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 561 59 90% 22(3) Clegg Elementary School(WSD) 420 481 (61) 115% 16(2) Schroeder Elementary School(WSD) 420 449 (29) 107% 15(2) Kettler Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 686 4 99% 22(3) Smith Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 770 (80) 112% 23(6) Total 4,547 4,597 (50) 101% Source:Huntington Beach City School District,Development Fee Findings Report,March 14, 1996.;Huntington Beach Union High School District,Development Fee Findings Report, February 27, 1996;personal communication with Ocean View School District and Westminster School District. Ocean View School District 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\'Em\,SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-3 There are approximately 641 residences within the Merged Project Area served by the OVSD. The District has six schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the six schools, four are elementary schools (Oak View Elementary, Sun View Elementary, Hope View Elementary, and Golden View Elementary) and two are middle schools (Mesa View Middle and Spring View Middle). Table 4.13.A iden- tifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers. Westminster School District There are no residences within the Merged Project Area served by the WSD. The District has three schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the three schools, two are elementary schools (Clegg Elementary and Schroeder Elemen- tary) and one is an intermediate school (Stacey Intermediate). Table 4.13.A identifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers. 4.13.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A significant impact to public schools would occur if the anticipated future student population generated by the Amendment/Merger exceeded the antici- pated capacity of school facilities located within the affected district, and the overcrowding resulted in some other related physical impact, that caused a significant effect on the environment. 4.13.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Based upon Section 15131(a) of CEQA and recent court interpretations, the analysis of environmental impacts resulting from a project must focus on the physical effects of the project. For schools, this means that potential classroom overcrowding and the potential cost of constructing new classrooms are not in themselves adverse environmental effects. CEQA applies only to activities that will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's social and eco- nomic effects can be relevant to an EIR's analysis if they are shown to lead to physical impacts on the environment. In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant envi- ronmental impact, the court in Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for construction of new schools, not increased enrollment or potential overcrowd- ing,that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding is not a change in the physical environment and, therefore, should not be treated as an impact on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmen- tal impact under CEQA where a change in physical conditions, such as classroom or new school construction,will occur. In other words, there must be a chain of events caused by a project or program that causes a physical change to the environment. Overcrowding by itself is not an environmental impact. Because increased enrollment is not an environmental impact, the court held the Regents had no duty under CEQA to commit additional funds to mitigate student enroll- ment increases. 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.wPD» 4.13-4 Recently passed SB1287 amended State law to limit a public agency's ability to levy fees, charges or dedication against a development project for the construc- tion or reconstruction of school facilities. Under this amended State law, only fees that can be established to help finance school facilities are the developer fee funding, described below, and community facilities district financing. The current State statutory development fees levied for residential development is$1.84 per square foot and$0.30 per square foot for commercial development. The elementary school districts (grades K 8), including HBCSD, OVSD, and WSD, receive 61 percent of the developer fees. The high school district, HBUHSD, receives the remaining 39 percent. This EIR describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment. This EIR analysis also recognizes that the school district will decide which solu- tion to implement. It is not the purpose of this document to dictate policy to the school districts to select a specific implementation program to address needs created by the students generated by the Amendment/Merger or to suggest that the districts employ a particular mitigation approach. As the Merged Project Area is developed and student numbers increase, it is anticipated that the school districts will make decisions regarding the placement of the students on the basis of policies then in effect on and current circumstances and options. Each subse- quent project within the Merged Project Area subject to CEQA will be assessed to determine whether there is a significant impact on schools. The analysis that follows concentrates on the predicted student population generated from pro- jected development within the Amendment/Merger, possible measures that could be implemented to provide adequate facilities for that population, and the potential adverse impacts that could result from those choices. High Schools Huntington Beach Union High School District HBUHSD uses a student generation factor of .1159 per dwelling unit. This is based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell- ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000 square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms. Huntington Beach High School According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), HBHS has a total capacity of 2,266 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,145 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 121 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at HBHS is 80, with no portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-5 academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,400 to 2,640 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 255 to 495 students. HBHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put HBHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier are within the attendance area of HBHS. There are no planned residential areas associated with redevelopment actions within Yorktown-Lake; however,based upon the anticipated redevelopment actions in Main-Pier, 563 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of approximately 65 students to HBHS. This addition to HBHS will not signifi- cantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capac- ity. Ocean View High School According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), Ocean View High School (OVHS) has a total capacity of 1,989 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 1,640 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 349 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent class- rooms at OVHS is 53,with 16 portable classrooms. When the number of perma- nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,070 to 2,277 students. There- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 81 to 288 students. OVHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put OVHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Oakview and Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of OVHS. There are no planned residential units associated with redevelopment actions within Oakview; however, based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert- Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of approxi- mately five students to OVHS. This addition to OVHS will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity. Marina High School According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Marina High School has a total capacity of 2,367 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,055 stu- dents,leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 312 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at MHS is 75,with 7 porta- 9/16/96<<I:\RSG630WHD5:CT4-13•WPD» 4.13-6 ble classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,460 to 2,706 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 93 to 339 students. Marina High School is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Marina High School on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center; therefore, no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Marina High School from additional students generated by the project. Westminster High School According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Westminster High School has a total capacity of 2,563 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,322 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 241 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at Westminster High School is 89, with no portable classrooms. When the number of perma- nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,670 to 2,937 students. There- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 107 to 374 students. The school is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put it on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center; therefore,no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Westminster High School from additional students generated by the project. Middle Schools Huntington Beach City School District The HBCSD uses a student generation factor of.3095 per dwelling unit. This is based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell- ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000 square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms. 9/26i96«I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-7 Dwyer Middle School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Dwyer Middle School (DMS) has a total capacity of 1,080 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 870 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 210 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of per- manent classrooms at DMS is 45, with no portable classrooms. When the num- ber of permanent classrooms is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students,the total school capacity increases to 1,350 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 270 students. DMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put DMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no planned residential areas within Yorktown-Lake; therefore, no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend- ment/Merger. There is no impact to DMS from additional students generated by the project. Sowers Middle School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Sowers Middle School (SMS) has a total capacity of 1,110 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 1,146 students, leaving an approximate capac- ity deficit of 36 students. As indicated by the District,the total number of perma- nent classrooms at SMS is 31,with 10 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 1,230 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students. SMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A small segment of Main-Pier is within the Sowers Middle School attendance area; however, this segment is composed of a neighborhood commercial strip. There are no residential projects included in this area; therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SMS from additional student generated by the project. Westminster School District Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of Stacey Intermedi- ate School (SIS), the area is not anticipated to generate additional students to SIS. Currently, the area does not have any residential areas nor does it propose any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\�EIR4SECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-8 SIS from additional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the total capacity at SIS is provided below. Stacey Intermediate School According to the District, total student capacity at Stacey Intermediate School (SIS) is 764 students. Currently, SIS has a student enrollment of 709 students, with a surplus capacity for 55 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SIS is 30,with 1 portable classroom. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class- room loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 930 students. There- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 166 students. SIS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SIS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated,Huntington Center neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Stacey Intermediate School. Ocean View School District OVSD uses a student generation factor of.30 for single family dwelling units and .04 for multifamily dwelling units. Mesa View Middle School According to the District, total student capacity at Mesa View Middle School (MVMS) is 740 students. Currently, MUMS has a student enrollment of 701 students,with a surplus capacity of 39 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at MVMS is 24, with 4 portable class- rooms. The District has indicated that new development in the School District would result in the addition of 55 students to the District's facilities,which they indicate are at capacity. However,when the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34 students, the total student capacity is increased to 952 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 212 students. MVMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put MVMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Oakview and all of Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of MUMS. As stated earlier, redevelopment actions within Oakview will not result in new housing units. However, based upon anticipated redevelopment in Talbert-Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.30 results in an increase of 9/26/96aI:\RSG630\EIR�SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-9 approximately 13 students to MUMS. The addition to MUMS will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the addi- tional students using either method of calculating the surplus capacity. There- fore, the number of students to MVMS resulting from projected development within Talbert-Beach is incremental and considered less than significant. Spring View Middle School According to the District: total student capacity at Spring View Middle School (SVMS) is 850 students. Currently, SUMS has a student enrollment of 826 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 24 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SVMS is 26, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 986 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 136 students. SUMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SVMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of SUMS, the area is not anticipated to generate any additional students to SUMS. There are no existing or planned residential areas within this area; therefore, no additional students will be generated by projected development within the Amend- ment/Merger. There is no impact to SUMS from additional students generated by the project. Elementary Schools Huntington Beach City School District As identified above, the HBCSD uses a student generation factor of .3095 per dwelling unit. Kettler Elementary School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Kettler Elementary School (KES) has a total capacity of 690 stu- dents. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 686 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity of four students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at KES is 22, with 3 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 750 students,with an available capacity of 64 student spaces. 9/26/96aI:VtsG630WIR4sECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-10 KES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put KES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Main-Pier(the area southeast of 1st Street) is within the attendance area of Kettler Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this part of the area, approximately 350 residential units are expected with the Waterfront Project. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.3095 results in an increase of approximately 77 students to KES. This addition to KES will not significantly affect the school's facilities since capacity exists to serve 64 of the additional 77 students when the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity District is used. At most, one additional portable would be needed at the school, or other arrangements as discussed earlier in this section would need to be implemented to provide additional capacity to handle the anticipated growth. Because the overage is a very small number, 13 students, the impact to KES is considered less than significant. Smith Elementary School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Smith Elementary School has a total capacity of 690 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 770 students, leaving an approximate surplus deficit of 80 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma- nent classrooms at Smith Elementary is 23, with 6 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class- room loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 870 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 180 students. Smith Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Smith Elementary on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Main-Pier(the area north west of 1st Street) is within the attendance area of Smith Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this part of the area, approximately 213 residential units are expected (150 with the Chevron Project and 63 with the Third Block West Project). Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.3095 results in an increase of 66 students to Smith Elementary. This addition to Smith Elementary will not significantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore, the impact to Smith Elemen- tary is considered less than significant. Westminster School District Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of both Clegg Ele- mentary School (CES) and Schroeder Elementary School (SES), Huntington Center will not generate any additional students to CES or SES. Currently, the 9/26i96<<I:WSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.WPD>> 4.13-11 area neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no addi- tional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementa- tion of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to CES or SES from addi- tional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the school's capacities is provided. Clegg Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Clegg Elementary School (CES) is 420 students. Currently, CES has a student enrollment of 481 students, with a surplus deficit for 61 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at CES is 16, with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 540 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students. CES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put CES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, Huntington Center includes no residential land uses. The Amendment/Merger proposes no change in land use for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Clegg Elementary School. Schroeder Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Schroeder Elementary School Schroeder Elementary is 420 students. Currently, Schroeder Elementary has a student enrollment of 449 students, with a surplus deficit for 29 students. As indicated by the District,the total number of permanent classrooms at Schroeder Elementary is 15, with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 510 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 90 students. Schroeder Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Schroeder Elementary on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, the Amendment/Merger proposes no residential land uses for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Schroeder Elementary School. Ocean View School District As identified above, OVSD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single family dwelling units and .04 for multifamily dwelling units. 9/26196«I:\RSG630\EIR\,SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-12 G I� Oak View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Oak View Elementary School (OVES) is 617 students. Currently, OVES has a student enrollment of 617 stu- dents, with no surplus student capacity available. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at OVES is 19,with 6 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 850 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 233 students, resulting in a surplus student capacity. OVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put OVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no planned residential uses within Oakview; therefore, no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to OVES from additional students generated by the project. Sun View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Sun View Elementary School (SVES) is 470 students. Currently, SVES has a student enrollment of 440 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 30 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SUES is 15,with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 578 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 108 students. SVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of SUES, the area is not anticipated to generate any additional students to SUES. Currently, the area does not have any residential land uses, nor does it propose any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon imple- mentation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVES from addi- tional students generated by the project. Hope View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Hope View Elementary School (HUES) is 620 students. Currently, HVES has a student enrollment of 593 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 27 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at HVES is 23, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-13 E 884. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 264 stu- dents. HVES is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the decision to put HVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Talbert-Beach is within the attendance area of HVES. Based upon the proposed redevelopment actions in this area, 43 new housing units are projected. Multi- plying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30 results in an increase of approximately 13 students to HUES. This addition to HVES will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity. Golden View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Golden View Elementary School (GVES)is 620 students. Currently, GVES has a student enrollment of 561 students,with a surplus capacity of 59 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at GVES is 22, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 850. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 230 stu- dents. I GVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put GVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated,residential land uses associated with redevelopment actions { are not proposed. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to GVES. Summary of Impacts In summary,the potential impacts to schools serving the Merged Project Area are considered less than significant. Table 4.13.A indicates student enrollment approaching and sometimes exceeding the student capacity at several schools, as stated by the school districts. However, the districts did not calculate their potential student capacity by multiplying the number of classrooms and portables by the classroom loading capacity, and may have inadvertently under- stated actual capacity. When student capacity is calculated, the student capacity figure increases substantially. Based upon this method of calculation, implementation of projected develop- ment within the Amendment/Merger will not generate students beyond the total student capacity at any school. Therefore, there appears to be adequate space available to serve additional students. When a year-round school schedule and 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-14 increased usage of portable classrooms are considered, adequate capacity is assured. In regard to potential project demands for school facilities, the districts collect school impacts fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. With the excep- tion of the establishment of community facility districts for specific develop- ments, no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are possible,pursuant to State law(SBA 1287). In addition, the districts will receive Average Daily Attendance financing to fund district teacher salary and other general education expenses. Furthermore, school districts will be entitled to a share of the tax increment revenue generated by the Merged Project. As discussed in the Project Descrip- tion, Section 3.0, the Amendment/Merger will amend the Merged Plan as such; therefore, statutory payments provided by Section 33607.7 will be remitted to any affected taxing agency with whom the agency has not entered into a pass through agreement prior to January 1, 1994; the Agency will continue to remit payments in accordance with such pass through agreement in lieu of statutory payments. Such statutory and pass through payments are designed to alleviate any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing agencies may incur as a result of the Amendment/Merger. Because there is no physical impact to any of the schools and because construc- tion of a new school is not justified, there are no physical consequences that result from the Amendment/Merger. Impacts to the schools serving the Merged Project Area are considered less than significant. 4.13.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Although the General Plan Update EIR identifies that a cumulative increase in the number of students generated would result in cumulative impacts to all of the school districts and their facilities that serve the City of Huntington Beach, the number of additional students resulting from projected development within the Amendment/Merger does not exceed any affected school's existing facilities and capacities. HBCSD will experience an increase of 143 students as result of the Amendment/Merger; however, this amount is only slightly higher than the student growth projections for HBCSDI. Using the maximum allowable class- room loading capacity specified by HBCSD, the number of students does not exceed HBCSD's capacity. Therefore, as previously stated, there are no physical consequences that result from the Amendment/Merger; therefore, there is no physical impact to any of the schools and construction of a new school or a portion of a school is not justified. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts resulting from the Amendment/Merger. 1 Community Systems Associates, Inc., Development Fee Findings Report, March 14, 1996. 9/26/96<<I.\RSG630\EIR\,SECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-15 II 4.13.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Land Use Element and the Public Facilities and Public Services Element of the General Plan Update that will lessen impacts to the affected school districts. The policies are listed below: • Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Ele- ments of the General Plan) (Policy LU2.1.1). • Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre- lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser- vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele- ments) (Policy LU2.1.2). • Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities (Policy LU2.1.7). • Require that the proposed annexation areas generate a sufficient tax base or other revenue base to pay for their required or necessary City services (Policy LU3.1.4). • Require that the infrastructure and service provision to the proposed annexation areas will not create a burden on existing City services and infrastructure (Policy LU3.1.5). • Accommodate the development of parks, sports facilities, schools, librar- ies, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies (Policy LU9.4.1). • Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in order to maximize the use of property, minimize the cost of develop- ment, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community (Policy LU 9.4.3). • Consider reinstating after-school and summer programs on school play- grounds and fields (Policy RCS 1.1.7). • Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts regarding the review of measures to alleviate school overcrowding in some areas and available capacity in schools in other areas (Policy PF 4.1.1). • Continue communication and cooperation efforts between City officials and the local school districts, especially in the areas of population pro- jections, funding sources, and through annual monitoring of develop- 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630`EIR\SECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-16 f ment activities, in order to promote a better quality of life for existing and future residents (Policy PF 4.2.1). • Require new development projects to pay appropriate school impact fees to the local school districts (Policy PF 4.2.2). • Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities (Policy PF 4.2.3). • Create, establish, and implement shared responsibility agreements be- tween the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts for the maintenance and operation of properties and facilities where public recreation activities occur at local school sites (Policy PF 4.3.3) • Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) and an interior Ldn of 45 dB(A), that all new development of "noise sensitive"land uses,such as housing, health care facilities, schools, librar- ies,religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits (Policy N 1.2.1). • Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance (Policy N 1.2.5). Implementation Programs Development Impacts on Educational Facilities • Develop a review process that would require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the school districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project approval by the permitting City authority (Program I-LU27). Improve and Upgrade Services and Facilities • The City will: j. cooperate with the school districts in formulating plans and programs to enhance and upgrade the school facili- ties used by the community for parks, recreation, and educational purposes; and, k. expand the communication and dialogue between the City and the school districts to better understand, coordi- nate, and effectively utilize limited financial and property 9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR�SECT4-13.WPD>> 4.13-17 resources of the City and school districts, in order to max- imize the improvement and upgrading of school facilities within the City (Program I-PF 2). Fees a. New development shall be required to contribute fees to cover the cost of additional facilities and capital improve- ments in accordance with State Nexus legislation (e.g. Governmental Code 65996) and with the needs of each applicable school district. b. Continue to require persons requesting building permits to pay the appropriate school fees to the local school districts prior to issuance (Program I-PF3). Development Review C. Through the development review process, review com- ments on development from the school districts (Pro- gram TPF 7). Interagency Coordination d. The City shall continue to establish meetings with the local school districts to discuss issues of mutual concern and interest. e. The City and the local school districts shall utilize consis- tent population projections based on existing, new and proposed development within the City. f. The City shall meet with local school districts to develop and implement a shared maintenance and operations agreement for the: a) use of school facilities for public recreational activities; and b) use of City parks for educa- tional purposes (Program I-PF 12). Feasibility Study • The City will conduct a study evaluating: d. the financial advantages and disadvantages to the City and the community of using closed school sites or operating school sites for public services (Program I-PF 13). 9/26/996«I:\RSG630\EIR\5ECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-18 �F Funding Sources • The City shall cooperate and coordinate with the school districts in iden- tifying and soliciting funding from additional sources to support the expansion and development of school facilities in order to enhance the educational opportunities, activities, and programs offered by the school districts, and to address issues facing the school district which affect the health,safety, and general welfare of the community(Program I-PF 14). Development Impacts on Educational Facilities • Develop a review process that would require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the school districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project approval by the permitting City authority (Program I-PF 15). Special Studies/Reviews j. Determine each school's recreational and sports field contribution and determine alternate recreational re- sources available to the neighborhood in the event of school closure. In addition, establish alternative recre- ational options including the leasing and/or acquisition of school facilities (Program I-RCS 7). Interagency Participation and Coordination C. The City will work with and coordinate its earthquake and other emergency response plans with each school district as the school districts prepare earthquake educa- tion programs and develop their own earthquake and other emergency response plans (Program PEH 2). Emergency Contingency Plans d. Coordinate with local school districts in the preparation of emergency contingency plans, including early warning procedures, evacuation plans, emergency facility and shelter utilization, and emergency services availability (Program I-EH 13). 4.13.6 MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation measures are not warranted. 9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13.WPD>> 4.13-19 4.13.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION In regard to potential project demands of projected development on school facilities, expected increases in students are consistent with the General Plan Update. In addition, pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et. seq, statutory and pass through payments to school districts are con- sidered adequate mitigation for financial burden and detriment incurred as a result of the Amendment/Merger.No unavoidable adverse impacts to schools are expected to result from the project. With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the addi- tional demands associated with projected development within the school dis- tricts that serve the City of Huntington Beach will be lessened to a level below significance. I� 9/26i96«I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-13•W]?D» 4.13-20 t ON FILE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ATTACHM-nixt #3 l DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT EIR NUMBER 96-2 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 96041075 PREPARED FOR-- City of Huntington Beach Department of Economic Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Stephen V.Kohler,Project Manager (714) 536-5582 or Linda Niles, Community Planning Department (714) 536-5271 i PREPARED BY LSA Associates,Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Contact: Robert W.Balen,Principal (714) 553-0666 LSA Project#RSG630 r July 19, 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.1 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 1.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED` . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12 2.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1 2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM EIR . . . . . . . . . . .2-1 2.3 DOCUMENT FORMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2 2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS/INTENDED USES OF THE PROGRAM EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 2.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5 2.6 LEAD AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-7 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . - - - • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-1 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION/GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . 3-1 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-5 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-7 3.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION/ STATUS OF PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 4.0 EXISTING SETTING,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . 4.1-1 4.1 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-3 4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1 4.3 EARTH RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1 4.4 WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-1,- 4.5 AIR QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-1- 4.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1- 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-1 4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH (HAZARDS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8-1 4.9 NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-1, 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-1- 4.11 AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11-L 4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12-1 4.13 SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13-1 5.0 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5-1 5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1-NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . .5-1 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 -ALTERNATIVE FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . . .5-7 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3-ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . ..5-9 5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4-INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 7/19/96«I:1RSG630\EII\TOC-VTD>> ii 5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 -REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10 5.6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 6.0 LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR. . . . . . . 6-1 6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED 'IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED . . . . . . 6-4 6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7-1 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-1 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9-1 10.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 10-1 APPENDICES A - NOPANPTIAL STUDY/COMMENT LETTERS B - CULTURAL RESOURCES C - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7/19/960L\RSG630\EMTOC.WPD>> iii LIST OF FIGURES PAGE 3.1 - Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-2 3.2 Redevelopment Project Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-3 4.1.1 - Existing Land Use: Huntington Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5 4.1.2 - Existing Land Use: Oakview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-6 4.1.3 - ;Existing Land Use: Talbert-Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-7 4.1.4 - Existing Land Use: Yorktown-Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-8 4.1.5 - Existing Land Use: Main-Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-9 4.3.1 - Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4 4.6.1 - Existing Network of Arterial Streets and Highways . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-2 4.6.2 - Existing Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-7 4.6.3 - Existing Intersections and Roadway Segments Operating Below LOS C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-11 4.6.4 - Intersections and Roadway Segments Operating Below LOS C-Post-General Plan Update Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-19 4.7.1 - Huntington Beach Natural Open Space with Biological Resource Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-2 4.9.1 - Land Use Compatibility with Community Noise Environments . . 4.9-4 4.10.1 - Flood Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-7 4.13.1 - Schools Serving the Redevelopment Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13-2 7/19N691AFtSG630\EMT0C.WPDk iv f LIST OF TABLES PAGE JA - Summary of Project Specific Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 2A - Future Discretionary Actions for the Amendment/Merger . . . . . . . 2-6 3A - Proposed Infrastructure Projects . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-8 4.1A - Existing Land Uses Within the Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-3 4.2A - Population Comparisons 1970-1990 • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • 4.2-1 4.2.B - Housing Trends: 1980-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-2 4.2.0 - Housing, Population,Employment and Jobs-Housing Ratio . . . 4.2-3 4.3.A - Active/Potentially Active Faults That May Affect the Merged Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-6 4.3.B - Liquefaction Susceptibility in Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-7 4.5 A - Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-3 4.5.B - Air Pollutant Descriptions and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-5 4.5-C - Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa Air Monitoring Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-7 4.5.1) - Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction Emissions . 4.5-11 4.5.E - Screening Table for Estimating the Construction Period for Various Land Uses That Will Remain Within the Significance Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-13 4.5.F - Number of Pieces of Construction Equipment That Can Be Operated on a Daily Basis and Will Not Exceed the SCAQMD Daily Significance Threshold by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-14 - 4.5.G Approximate Land Uses, Densities and Daily Trips from Estimated Projects within the Amendment/Merger . . . . . . . . . 4.5-17 4.5.H - Operational Emissions from Estimated Projects within the Amendment/Merger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-18 4.6A - City of Huntington Beach Design Criteria for Arterial Streets and Highways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1 4.6.B - Existing Merged Project Area Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . 4.6-4 4.6.0 - Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-8 4.6.D - Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-12 4.6.E - 2010 Merged Project Area Roadway Level of Service Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-15 4.6.F - Year 2010 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-18 4.6.G - Merged Project Area General Plan Roadway Segments Change in Roadway Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-20 4.9A - Sound Levels and Human Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-3 4.9.B - Exterior Noise Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 4.9-6 4.9.0 - Interior Noise Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 4.9-6 4.9.1) - Existing and Future Noise Levels (Ldn) at 50 Feet from Centerlines of Major Traffic Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4.9-7 4.10A - Fire Stations Servicing the Merged Project Area . . . . . . .. . . . . 4.10-2 4.10.B - Fire Operations Staffing Levels . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . ... . . . . . 4.10-2 4.10.0 - City of Huntington Beach Public Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-4 4.11A - Relevant Urban Forms in Merged Project Area . . . . . . .. . . . . . 4.11-2 4.13A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . 4.13-3 7A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements . . ... . . . . ...7-3 7/19/96«I:NRSG630\EMT0C.WP1)» v GLOSSARY Agency Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Amendment/Merger Proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices CAA Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971 CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEQA Guidelines The CEQA Guidelines is a document produced by the State of California to provide interpretation of CEQA and provide guidance regarding document preparation and procedures for implementing CEQA CERCI A Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 CIP Capital Improvement Program CMP Congestion Management Program DAMP Drainage Area Master Plan DIG California Department of Fish and Game EIR Environmental Impact Report EMA County of Orange Environmental Management Agency EAC Environmental Resources/Conservation Element FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FIN Federal Implementation Plans GNP County of Orange Growth Management Plan GTE General Telephone and Electric Hazmat Orange County Hazardous Materials HBCSD Huntington Beach City School District HBUHSD Huntington Beach Union High School District HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HHWE Household Hazardous Waste Element Huntington Center The Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (previously adopted) HWMP Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization 7/1"6«I-\RSG630WJR\T0c-VPD» vi i LOS Level of Service Main-Pier Main-Pier Redevelopment Project (previously adopted) Merged Plan Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan (combined previous redevelopment plans) Merged Project Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (combined previous redevelopment projects) Merged Project Area Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area (combined previous redevelopment project areas) MWD Metropolitan Water District NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NOP Notice of Preparation NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Oakview The Oakview Redevelopment Project(previously adopted) OCEMA Orange County Environmental Management Agency OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority ^. OVSD Ocean View School District f' RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SCE Southern California Edison SCG Southern California Gas SCHWMA Southern Hazardous Waste Management Authority SIPS State Implementation Plans SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board Talbert-Beach The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project(previously adopted) TDM Transportation Demand Management UBC Uniform Building Code UD Urban Design Element WQMP Water Quality Management Plan WSD Westminster School District Yorktown-Lake The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project (previously adopted) 7/18/96v1:\RSG63G\EIR T0C WPD» vii 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Executive Summary has been prepared for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger (Amendment/Merger) in accor- dance with Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. This Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been pre- pared by the City of Huntington Beach to analyze the Amendment/Merger's po- tential impacts on the environment, to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that will offset, lessen or:avoid significant environmental impacts. For a detailed description of the Amendment/Merger, its im- pacts/recommended mitigation, and alternatives,the reader is referred to Chap- ters 3.0,4.0,and 5.0,respectively. 1.1 SUMMARYPROJECT DESCRIPTION The project analyzed in this Program EIR is a proposed amendment and merger of the five previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects within the City of Huntington Beach (City). The five previously adopted Redevelopment Projects established since inception of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (Agency) on March 1, 1976,are as follows: • Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (Hun- (� tington Center) `. Main-Pier Redevelopment Project(Main-Pier) • Oakview Redevelopment Project(Gakview) • Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project (Talbert-Beach) • Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project(Yorktown-Lake) The proposed actions would combine the adopted Redevelopment Projects into a single Project called the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The Amendment/Merger is being initiated to provide the Agency the ability to expand the Agency's financial and statutory authority as follows: 1) Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the five Projects into a single Rede- velopment Plan (Merged Plan) to be designated as the merged Hunting- ton Beach Redevelopment Project (Merged Project) and Project Area (Merged Project Area). 2) Increase the dollar limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Merged Project and elimi- nate all preexisting annual limits. 3) Increase the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness that may be outstanding at any one time. 7/19/96«I..\RSG630\gnr%$ECn-O.WPD» 1-1 f � 4) Extend the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness on behalf of the Merged Project. 5) On a selective basis,extend the time frame within which the Agency may employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties on the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas. 6) Extend the time periods within which the Agency may undertake rede- velopment activities and receive tax increment. 7) Expand the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the Agency may undertake within the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger will allow the Agency to finish the redevelopment programs within the previously adopted Project Areas. No additional properties are added to the Redevelopment Project Area by the Amendment/Merger. 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION The project location is in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, Califor- nia. Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3.0,Project Description, illustrates the regional loca- tion of the City. The Merged Project is composed of five existing redevelopment project areas, totaling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the"City acreage. Each of the five areas of the Merged Project Area is non-contiguous within the City bound- aries,as shown in Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3.0. A profile of the Merged Project is provided in Chapter 3.0,Project Description. 1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Following is a list of project objectives: 1. Enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development activities,2)infrastructure improvement projects,3) commercial rehabil- itation activities,.4) provision of market rate and affordable housing opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation programs and elimination of blight. 2. Provide a redevelopment plan consistent with the City's General PIan Update to guide future redevelopment of the Merged Project Area. 1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 1.A summarizes potential.project impacts, mitigation measures, and the - level of impact after mitigation has been implemented. 7/19/964<I:\RSG630\E=ECT1-O.WPD>> 1-2 Table I A-Summary of Project Specific Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance 4.1 Land Use None. The proposed Amendment/ None. Less than significant. Merger implements the General Plan. - 4.2 Population and Housing May result in displacement of low 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low Less than significant. and moderate income families and moderate income displaced by a redevelopment pro- and/or loss of affordable housing ject. The Agency shall adopt and implement a relocation units within the Merged Project plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the Area. California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment pro- ject until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be avail- able at rents comparable to those at the time of displace- ment. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household,and must be decent,safe,sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship, 4.3 Earth Resources Future redevelopment within the None. Less than significant. Merged Project Area will be ex- posed to increased exposure to fault rupture/ground shaking, near surface water/liquefaction impacts. City codes and General Plan poli- cies will mitigate. 7/19/96«[:\RSG630\EIRI,SECTI-0.WPD» 1-3 Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance Future development and redevel- None. Less than significant. opment in areas of active oil fields experience increased exposure to the risk of ground subsidence. City codes and General Plan policies will mitigate. Future development and redevel- None. Less than significant. opment within Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier may experience expo- sure to methane gas. City and State codes,development review processes,and General Plan poli- cies will mitigate these potential impacts. 4.4 Water Resources Redevelopment within the Merged None. Less than significant. Project Area may increase the amount of urban runoff and water pollution, including siltation/ sedimentation. Existing regula- tions requiring water quality man- agement plans and NPDES permit- ting prior to construction reduce effects to less than significant. 4.5 Air Quality Future redevelopment within the 4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is Mitigated below a level of sig- Merged Project Area will result in limited. However,exhaust emissions from construction nificance. short-term construction and vehi- equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contrac- cle exhaust emission impacts. for in a manner that is consistent with standard mitiga- tion measures provided within the AQMP,to the extent feasible. The measures to be implemented are as fol- lows: 7/19/96 IARSG630\EIR\5ECT1.0.WPD» 1-4 Jj f� Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance • Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; • Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications; • Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment; • Use reformulated, low-emissions diesel fuel; } • Substitute electric and gasoline powered equip- ment for diesel powered equipment,where fea- sible; • Where applicable,do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods (i.e.,more than five min- utes);and • Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentra- tions (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). • The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. May result in an increase of fugitive 4.5-B The applicant shall implement standard mitigation mea- Mitigated below a level of sig- dust during construction within the sures in accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403,to nificance. Merged Project Area. control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction.These measures may include the following: • Spread soil binders on site,unpaved roads,and in parking areas; • Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; - 7/19/96«[;\RSG630\EIR%$ECT1.O.WPD)> 1-5 Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Signiflcance • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and watering; • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over extended periods of time; • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil during and after the end of work periods; • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accor- dance with local ordinances and use sound engi- neering practices; • Restore landscaping and irrigation removed dur- ing construction, in coordination with local pub- lic agencies; • Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; • Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; • Wash off trucks leaving site, __ - - C • Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks;and • Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. 4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt pav- Mitigated below a level of sig- ing material will raise significant quantities of VOC emis- niftcanee. sions during their application. 7/19/96«[:VLSG630\9[R\$ECT'1.0.WPD» 1-6 - \ ` Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance • Where feasible,emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided whenever possible. • Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers,and coatings,as well as precoated materials,shall be specified. l During grading within the Merged 4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamina- Mitigated below a level of sig- Project Area,an increase of con- tion,a site assessment will be conducted before any con- nificance. taminated soil,dust and other pol- struction takes place at that locale. At locations where lutants may result. spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred,the soils will be remediated using appro- priate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies,which would "sign oft"on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforseen areas of subsurface contamination are en- countered during excavation activities,these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate. 4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos will be re- moved and disposed in accordance with sound engineer- ing practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these measures will reduce potentially significant con- tamination issues to a level that is less than significant. 7119/96aLUtSG630\EIMECTI-O.WPD» 1-7 Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance 4.7 Biological Resources No significant impacts are identi- None. Less than significant. fied. Minor wetlands impacts of development of the waterfront site at PCH and Beach Boulevard could occur,and a minor increase in hu- man intrusion could occur, but are not considered significant. 4.8 Public Healtb (Hazards) Future development and redevel- None. Less than significant. opment within the Merged Project Area may incrementally increase exposure to hazardous materials, during construction or operation. However,existing City and State codes and General Plan policies will mitigate impacts. 4.9 Noise May result in increased construe- None. Less than significant. tion related noise in the Merged Project Area. Current City codes - - =and-General Plan_policies will miti- gate potential impacts. 4.10 Public Se"ices and Utilities Increased demand on existing pub- None. Less than significant. lic services and utilities that can be accommodated by existing facilities are mitigated by General Plan poli- cies limiting growth if infrastruc- ture is not available. 7/19/96«I:%RSG630\EIR�.SPC7'1-O.WPll» 1-8 Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance 4.11 Aesthetics Future redevelopment within the None. Less than significant. Merged Project Area will alter exist- ing views. IIowever,City develop- ment review processes,design guidelines and General Plan poli- cies reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant. 4.12 Cultural and Scientifc Resources Future projects within the Merged 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new construction that Mitigated below a level of sig- Project Area may disrupt or impact would displace or require demolition of potentially sig- nifcance, historical resources. nificant resources,a complete assessment shall be pre- pared for any of the potentially historic buildings identi- fied in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum,this assessment shall include the follow- ing documentation: A) A full description of each building including ar- chitectural style, roof design,window design, type of foundation,exterior wall treatments,spe- cial-architectural features,etc. -- - - B) Black and white photographs showing.one or more facades of each building. C) A determination of construction date from exist- ing records such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the City. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have rele- vant data to share. 7/19/'96«I:VLSG630\LIR1$EC1'I-0.WPD» 1-9 Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional measures may be im- plemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. Future projects within the Merged 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,archaeological resources or Less than significant. Project Area may encounter previ- paleontological resources be uncovered during grading ; ously unknown archaeological and or excavation,a County of Orange certified archaeologist paleontological resources. or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to pro- tect such resources;3) ascertain-the presence of addi- tional resources,and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. 4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment monitoring shall be on site during grading operations. 4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collec- tion of historic documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another suitable local archive. 7/19/96«I:\RSG630\EIR4$ECT1-0.WPD» 1-10 C, Potential Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance 4.13 schools The Amendment/Merger within the None. Less than significant. Merged Project Area may incrementally increase student en- rollment in affected school dis- tricts, However, this will not result in a physical impacts on the envi- ronment. In addition,develop- ment fees, State financing,and re- quirements for continued levels of tax funding for affected school dis- tricts lessen potential impacts. 7/19/96a1.\RSG630\E1R=CTIA.WPD» 1-11 For each of these potential impacts,mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the extent of,or to avoid,the environmental impact. These mitigation measures will reduce the extent of the impact to below a level of significance. There are no impacts considered to be significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the Amendment/Merger. 1.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a reasonable range of alterna- tives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and that could avoid or lessen project impacts. A No Project/No Build Alternative is also re- quired. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)sets the requirements for the Alter- natives discussion. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative is defined as build out of the land uses as specified in the City's existing General Plan. As a subset of the No Project Analysis, a No Build Alternative is provided. The No Project/No Build Altemative assumes that no additional development would occur within the Merged Project Area.areas. This alternative assumes no growth, development or change from the existing condition and reflects conditions essentially the same as the existing conditions. Alternative Financing Alternative This alternative addresses the other options the City might use to promote the basic objectives of the Amendment/Merger. Alternative Site This section discusses the fact that there are no alternative locations that could feasibly attain Amendment/Merger objectives. Higher Intensity Alternative This alternative discusses different Iand use intensities and development stan- dards that are higher intensity and would achieve basic Amendment/Merger objectives. Lower Intensity Alternative This alternative discusses lower intensity land use/development standards and associated environmental consequences. 7n9/9&1:\xsG630WMtIsEcn-o wpn)> 1-12 1'^1 1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Areas of Controversy Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the EIR Summary identify areas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the public. The areas of controversy are reported from the responses received from distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and all response letters are included in Appendix A. The following areas of controversy have been identified: • NOP response letter received by the City with a request by the Hunting- ton Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) to be recognized as a "Responsible Agency." • NOP response letter request by HBUHSD for detailed environmental analysis of specific issues that are not a part of the proposed Amend- ment/Merger. • NOP response letters from HBUHSD and Ocean View School District expressed concern regarding potential impacts to school facilities result- ing from the Amendment/Merger. • NOP response letter from the Resources Agency of California,Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources requested that abandoned oil wells in dose proximity to the boundaries of the Merged Project Area be iden- tified,and the City give the assurance that proper review of future build- ing projects and their relationship to abandoned and active oil wells be provided in future discretionary actions. • NOP request by the County of Orange Environmental Management Agency (EMA) that the Amendment/Merger consider a linear recreation corridor along the railroad right-of-way near the boundaries of the Merged Project Area. • NOP request by EMA that recreation facilities, including opportunities for riding and hiking trails and on-road and off-road bikeways, be ad- dressed in the environmental documentation. l 7n"6(<I.\xsG,63oNEHZ�SEcn-o.wPn)* 1-13 2.0 INTRODUCTION 2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (City Council) activated the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency(Agency) on March 1, 1976. In order to improve those areas within the City that were in need of redevelopment,the Agency created five separate Redevelopment Projects'within the City. These projects and their dates of establishment are as follows: Oakview Redevelop- ment Project (September 20, 1982); Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project (September 20, 1982);Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project (September 20, 1982) Main-Pier Redevelopment Project (November 1, 1982) and, Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (November 26, 1984). Several of these Redevelopment Projects have been amended since the original adoption dates. For further information on each project adoption and amend- ment, please see the Department of Economic Development, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, 92648, Attention: Stephen Kohler, (714) 536-5582. A de- tailed description of each of these preexisting Redevelopment Projects is pro- vided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description. Progress towards the achievement of the goals established for each of the Rede- velopment Projects has been hindered by various funding constraints and limits on redevelopment activities. In order to improve funding and to finish out the redevelopment programs initiated for the five existing Redevelopment Projects, the Amendment/Merger was proposed by the Agency. The City subsequently determined that,prior to approval of the Amendment/Merger,preparation of an EIR would be necessary. 2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM EIR The City has determined that an EIR is required: 1) to assess the environmental effects of the Amendment/Merger, and 2) to identify mitigation measures that will lessen or avoid potentially significant impacts. The Amendment/Merger is a program made up of various components that include policies,land use plans, public infrastructure improvements, construction of public facilities, develop- ment of affordable housing, and actions to promote commercial rehabilitation and economic development. The Amendment/Merger qualifies as a "Program" as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized above,and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168. This EIR prepared for the Amendment/Merger is a Program EIR,wherein all public and private activi- ties or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Amendment/Merger constitute a single project according to CEQA Statutes, Section 21090. A Pro- gram EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are: 1) logical parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically; 3) a plan, set of regulations, or a set of contemplated actions that are part of a continuing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the same authorizing authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168). (� On April 16, 1996, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to public l agencies soliciting comments on environmental subjects to be addressed in the 7/17/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\SEC 7-O.WPD» 2-1 EIR. The NOP, the NOP Distribution List and response letters from all agencies are included in Appendix A. An Environmental Checklist and Environmental Effects and Consequences Analysis included in the NOP describes the potential environmental effects of the Amendment/Merger. . The Environmental Effects and Consequences discussion was used to guide preparation of this EIR. The responses to the NOP were also used to assure that agency and public concerns are adequately addressed in this EIR. 2.3 DOCUMENT FORMAT I This Program EIR is organized as follows: i • Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of this document, listing all project related environmental impacts, mitigation measures that have been recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the Amendment/Merger, and the level of significance of each impact follow- ing mitigation. This chapter also discusses potential areas of controversy attached to the project. i • Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the EIR's purpose, project back- ground, an outline of the document's format and the intended purpose of the EIR. A summary discussion of the effects found not to be signifi- cant'and not further addressed in this EIR is also included. J • Chapter 3.0 contains the location and description of the proposed Amendment/Merger and the objectives of the Amendment/Merger. • Chapter 4.0 contains the environmental analysis of the Amendment/ Merger. Discussion of environmental setting,impacts, and mitigation by environmental topic(e.g.,biological resources, air quality, land use,etc.) is organized under the following framework: i The environmental setting provides the reader with the"base line"from which future impacts are analyzed,and provides a standard against which to m I easure these impacts. An analysis of potential significant impacts of implementation of the Amendment/Merger is presented in this section. As required by CEQA, potential impacts caused by additional growth within the Merged Project Area!and on a cumulative basis outside of the Merged Project Area are identified. Mitigation measures are proposed to lessen or avoid any potentially significant impact of the Amendment/Merger. References to their timing and the party(ies) responsible for their implementation are included. The level of significance of the potential impacts after mitigation is pro- vided.4 7/17,96KI:\r,SG63aXnZISECn-O.WPD» 2-2 I ' Chapter 5 0 contains a discussion-of alternatives to the Amendment/ Merger. As allowed by CEQA,the impacts of these alternatives are evalu- ated at a more general level than in Chapter 4. • Chapter 6.0 contains discussions of additional topics required by CEQA, including long-term implications of the Amendment/Merger, significant irreversible environmental changes,and growth inducing impacts. • Chapters 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 contain the Mitigation Monitoring Pro- gram, listings of organizations and persons consulted in preparation of the EIR, the EIR preparers, and reference documents used. • An Appendix document contains copies of the NOP and NOP comment letters, technical reports, and relevant correspondence received during the preparation of this Program EIR. 2.4 PROJECT APPROVAL. XUENDED USES OF THE PROGRAM EM The primary use of this Program EIR is to inform decision makers and the public of the environmental effects of implementing the Amendment/Merger. This Program EIR documents the impacts ofthe Amendment/Merger on an area-wide basis resulting from physical changes to the environment. This Program EIR will measure the potential effects of ongoing and future redevelopment activities and related discretionary actions as allowed under the Amendment/Merger. This Program EIR analyzes the effects of the project as defined in Chapter 3.0. A Program EIR is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as applying to related or sequential projects or programs that may be environmentally cleared in one EIR A Program EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are: 1) logical parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically;3)a plan,set of regulations,or a set of contemplated actions that are part of a continuing program; or 4) individual activities carded out under the same authorizing authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168). The Amend- ment/Merger is a program made up of various components which carry forth already established redevelopment programs included in the existing Redevelop- went Projects aimed at infrastructure, housing and commercial rehabilitation and promotion of economic development. The Amendment/Merger qualifies as a"Program"as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized above,and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168. CEQA recognizes that some proposed projects are specific (and that their im- pacts can be specifically addressed) and that some projects will require future actions to implement their provisions. The Amendment/Merger falls into the latter category. As defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, Program EM are intended to address macro-scale environmental impacts. One of the major advantages of a Program EIR is that it allows the Lead Agency to examine e the cumulative effects of a large-scale project such as the Amendment/Merger. Section 15168 states: 7mPX4<r txsc63o\�=ECi2-ov/rnrn> 2-3 "...Use of a Program EIR can...(1)provide an occasion for a more ex- baustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practi- cal in an EIR on an individual action, (2) ensure consideration of cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis, and (3) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives and program-wide mitigation measures at an early time when the Agency hasgreaterflezibility to deal with basicproblems or cumulative impacts." Recognizing that a Program EIR can adequately address macro-scale impacts, CEQA provides for its use in the environmental review of general policies or programs and the subsequent projects that result from the policy or program. In this way, this Program EIR would be consulted to determine whether a specific subsequent project is either of the following: • Within the general limits of the potential physical changes examined in this Program EIR. • Likely to create site specific impacts that are of a scale not examined in this Program EIR. Such impacts could include traffic impacts related to a specific intersection, or modification of a specific landform feature that may not be included in the Program EIR,thus requiring further environ- mental analysis. CEQA defines how a Program EIR relates to the preparation of environmental documents on individual projects in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, under the heading of"Use with Later Activities." Subsequent activities in the program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared according to the following criteria: • If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Pro- gram EM a new Initial Study would need to be prepared, leading to either an EIR or a Negative Declaration. • If an agency finds that,pursuant to Section 15162,no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required, the agency can approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by the Program EIR, and no new environmental documentation would be required. • An agency shall incorporate mitigation measures developed in the Pro- gram EIR into subsequent actions relying on the Program EIR. • Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environ- mental effects of the operation were covered in the Program EIR. Subsequent redevelopment projects will be subject to future review and approv- al by the City Council,Redevelopment Agency,Planning Commission and other 7/17i96«I:1RSG630\Ent'$EC77-0.WPD» 21 appropriate decision making bodies and may require additional environmental review if it is demonstrated that there are significant environmental impacts not fully documented in this EIR. Should additional environmental reviews be required for subsequent projects within the Merged Project Area, public input will be solicited and considered prior to action on the project, in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. In summary, this Program EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the area- wide impacts of implementing the Amendment/Merger and the physical changes that might result in changes in the environment. Review of future projects en- abled or undertaken as a result of adoption of the Amendment/Merger and the environmental effects of specific projects will receive independent determina- tions by City staff, consistent with CEQA requirements. It is also recognized that this Program EIR can serve as a basis for future environmental review of subse- quent projects and, therefore, future environmental reviews may be able to incorporate by reference applicable portions of the analysis presented in this document. Table 2A identifies the Lead Agency (City of Huntington Beach), Responsible Agencies,and Trustee Agencies that may use this EIR when making future discre- tionary decisions on projects within the Merged Project Area. Section 15381 of the CEQA Guidelines defines Responsible Agencies as public agencies other than the Lead Agency that will have discretionary approval power over the "project," as defined under CEQA. For purposes of this EIR, Responsible Agencies are defined as public agencies that will have discretionary approval of future actions implementing the Amendment/Merger. 2.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Based on the Initial Study conducted by the City in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, it was determined that the Amendment/Merger will not have signifi- cant effects on certain environmental issues/resources. Therefore,these topics are not addressed further in this EIR. The following summarizes the conclusions of the Initial Study(contained in Appendix A as part of the NOP) for the topics for which the proposed project will have no impact. • Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? The proposed Amendment/Merger conforms to the City's General Plan and by exten- sion to zoning that implements the General Plan. There are currently some areas where zoning is different from the General Plan Land Use designation due to the recent adoption of the General Plan. In addition, the Coastal Element of the General Plan for the areas within the Coastal Zone is planned for update by the Coastal Commission by late 1996. After Coastal Commission action, the General Plan Update for the Coastal Zone areas will be agendized for City Council action. A Citywide zoning code/map amendment process will be undertaken to make the changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the Gen- eral Plan, as updated. t 7/17i96«Ie\tSG630\EMEM-O.wPD» 2-5 Table 2.A-Future Discretionary Actions for the Amendment/Merger Agency Action Lead Agency City of Huntington Beach Public infrastructure,public facilities and private and public development project approvals within the Merged Project Area Trustee Agencies California Department of Fish and Discretionary Actions within DFG ar- Game (DFG) eas of responsibility Responsible Agencies California Regional Water Control Notice of Intent under Statewide Board General Construction Activity Permit Municipal Stormwater Permit South Coast Air Quality Management Stationary Source Permits District Orange County Sanitation District Industrial Wastewater Discharge i Permit ,/ Southern California Edison Relocation/replacement of facilities The Gas Company Relocation/replacement of facilities 7/17i96«I:\xsG630W.MSECT2-0.VPD» 2-6 The Amendment/Merger proposes land uses,streets,highways and pub- lic facilities consistent with the General Plan and has provisions that make it consistent with future General Plan amendments. Because the Amendment/Merger is consistent with the General Plan and, in turn,will comply with the underlying zoning, there are no speck environmental impacts associated with the project. • Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Some agricultural land uses are still active in Huntington Beach; however,to a large extent, they have been replaced by residential, commercial and industrial development and related infrastructure. None of the areas currently in agricultural production in the City of Huntington Beach are within or adjacent to the Merged Project Area. Therefore, the Amend- ment/Merger will not affect existing agricultural resources or operations, nor will it propose incompatible land uses in the existing agricultural production areas. • Rai4 waterborne or air traffic impacts? No impacts to rail,water or air traffic are foreseen by the Amendment/Merger in that it proposes to facilitate commercial rehabilitation, housing opportunities, street im- provements and public infrastructure projects within the Merged Project Area and, therefore, it will not create any physical effects on the subject transportation facilities. 2.6LEAD AGENCY Questions regarding the preparation of this report, its assumptions, or its con- clusions should be referred to the following persons: Lead Agency: g cy- City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention:Ms. Linda Niles (714) 536-5271 Amendment/Merger Proponent City of Huntington Beach Department of Economic Development 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 Attention:Mr. Stephen V.Kohler (714) 536-5582 7n7i96«I:vRsc630\EMEcrz-o.WPD» 2-7 tom' 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3.1 INTRODUCTION After initially identifying certain development goals and planning objectives for the downtown area as early as 1969 (see City Council Resolution 3082, Novem- ber 17, 1969), the City Council activated the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency on March 1, 1976. Since that time, the Agency created five Redevelop- ment Projects within the City: Huntington Center Commercial District Redevel- opment Project; Main-Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment Project; Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown-Lake Redevelop- ment Project. Certain limitations with each of the existing Redevelopment Projects hinder the Agency's ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development, and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The project analyzed in this EIR is a Redevelopment Plan/Project Amendment/Merger. The Amend- ment/Merger is proposed by the Agency to allow the Agency to finish out the redevelopment programs begun by the agency by continuing the Agency's finan- cial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight,revitalize commercial areas, protect residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. Each of the five existing Redevelopment Projects (described in more detail below) is included in the Amendment/Merger. 3.2 PROJECT LOCATION/GEOGRAPHICAL SE7771VG The project location is in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County,Califor- nia. Figure 3.1 illustrates the regional location of the Merged Project Area. The Merged Project Area is composed of five existing Redevelopment Project Areas, totaling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the five areas of the Merged Project Area is non-contiguous within the City bound- aries,as shown in Figure 3.2. The profile of each Redevelopment Project is provided below. Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project Established via Ordinance No. 2743 adopted by the City Council on November 26, 1984, the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project encompasses 160 acres of retail and office commercial uses,and is located in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue,Beach Boulevard,and the San Diego Freeway(1-405). The Huntington Center area includes the 960,000 square foot Huntington Beach Mall (Area 1 on Figure 3.2), but excludes an area surrounded by Huntington Village Way to the north and east, McFadden Avenue to the north, Southern Pacific Railroad to the west,and Center Avenue to the south. 7/18i9Cmt:%RSC,630\MIISEcr3-o.WPD» 3-1 Los Angeles County San Bernardino County so 57 Riverside 91 County 91 t I 5 55 1 1 39 �r 405 fit= 22 - i Orange ` wt t ao5 ♦ 55 73`�✓yTC � ♦ County l l 5 { 74 Pacific Ocean t San Diego LEGEND County City of Huntington Beach Source:ISA. 7116/96(RSG630) Figure 3.1 N L S—A Scale in Miles � r o —s 3-2 Regional Location \ \ OC¢ U ¢ O d O O to w 2 w CL WESTMINSTER SEAL BEACH BolsA _ o s } U p Mc g Z FAD pEN UJ j EDINGER ... : HEIL --- WARNER FOUNTAIN ------ i 2 I VALLEY SLATER 405 COOURN GOF I I TAL BERT 0F9 (BOLSA CHICA) 3 ~ yy '� r• '-ELLIS z s x GARfk"LD z f YORKTOWN ADAMS lINDIANAPOLIS LEGEND 5 ATLANTA City Boundary ®I Huntington Center Commercial District n sl I HAMIL70N Redevelopment Project yD Oakview Redevelopment Project BANNING Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project COSTA MESA 4® Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Source:City of Huntington Beacb.Department of Communiry Development 6//%MSG630) Figure 3.2 1 ? N LSDScale in Miles 0 o.s 1 3-3 Redevelopment Project Areas Oakview Redevelopment Project r The Oakview Redevelopment Project of 68 acres was initially established on November 1, 1982, by City Council Ordinance No. 2582. The Oakview area is generally located between Warner Avenue and Slater Avenue,'from Oak Lane to Beach Boulevard (Area 2 on Figure 3.2). On July 5, 1989, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 3002 to extend certain time and financial limits. The Oakview area includes existing general commercial, medium density and high density residential land uses. Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project was established via Ordinance No. 2577 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Talbert-Beach area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive,west of Beach Boule- vard. The Talbert-Beach area encompasses 25 acres of existing low, medium, and high density residential, and general industrial land uses (Area 3 on Figure 3.2). Yorktoum-Lake Redevelopment Project The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project was established by Ordinance No. 2576 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Yorktown-Lake area encompasses 30 acres of existing medium density residential and public land uses such as the Huntington Beach Civic Center and Police Department. The Yorktown-Lake area is located in the vicinity of Main Street,Yorktown Ave- nue,Lake Street,and Utica Avenue (Area 4 on Figure 3.2). Main Pier Redevelopment Project On September 20, 1982,the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578,which created the original five block Main-Pier Redevelopment Project. On September 6, 1983, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 2634, enlarging the Main-Pier area to 336 acres. The Main-Pier area is located along Main Street, between Palm Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along Pacific Coast Highway, be- tween Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Area 5 on Figure 3.2). The Main-Pier area includes existing retail, tourist, recreational,public,and residen- tial land uses. The Amendment/Merger does not propose to add property to or delete property from the Merged Project Area. 7/lSi96wI:\RSG630\EMNSECT3-0.WPD>> 3-4 3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS \ The Amendment/Merger will modify the existing Redevelopment Plans as fol- lows. Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Existing Projects into a Single Redevelopment Plan (Merged Plan) to be Designated as the Merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project(Merged Project) and Project Area The Agency's current Redevelopment Plans have been frustrated by an imbalance of resources and needs among the existing Redevelopment Projects. Redevelop- ment law generally prohibits redevelopment agencies from transferring tax increment revenues from one project to another. In order to move funding re- sources between the Redevelopment Projects, the Agency proposes to merge the five Redevelopment Projects into the single ?Merged Project. For example, de- clines in tax increment revenues in Huntington Center have resulted in a down- grading of the Agency's 1992 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds. By merging the existing Redevelopment Projects, resources from the Agency's other Redevelop- ment Projects could be made available to Huntington Center. Establish a New Dollar Limit on the Amount of Tax Increment Revenue the Agency May be Allocated from the Project ,^ Presently,Yorktown-Lake exceeds its annual$250,000 tax increment cap. Given r moderate growth projections, it is projected that Talbert-Beach will also exceed its tax increment limit prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan. With- out an increase in the tax increment limits,the additional tax increment revenue will not be available to the Agency to fund redevelopment projects and pro- grams. In conjunction with tax increment revenue limit amendments, bond indebt- edness limit increases are needed to permit the Agency to raise additional capital and invest in new redevelopment projects and programs. Extend the Time Frame Within Wbicb the Agency May Incur Indebtedness on Behalf of the Project and Establish New Time Periods Within Wbicb the Agency May Incur Debt, Undertake Redevelopment Activities, and Receive Tax Increment With the exception of Huntington Center, generally the Agency is prohibited from incurring debt after 2002; 2004 for Huntington Center. In the event that the Agency wishes to pursue new projects and/or incur debt after these time frames,an amendment is necessary. 7n8/96<<I:\RS"30WR\.sECT3-o.WD» 3-5 On a Selective Basis, Extend the Time Frame Within Which the Agency May Employ Eminent Domain Proceedings on Nonresidential Properties in the Main Pier and Huntington Center Areas In order for the Agency to implement redevelopment projects involving land acquisition, eminent domain authority may be a useful tool to acquire nonresi- dential property. Presently,the authority to use eminent domain has expired in all but Huntington Center and Oakview. The Huntington Center Redevelop- ment Plan's eminent domain provisions expire in November, 1996, and the Oakview Redevelopment Plan's provisions expire in July, 2001. Through the Amendment/Merger, the Agency proposes to establish a new 12 year time frame during which the Agency may employ eminent domain on nonresidential prop- erties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center areas. Expand the List of Infrastructure and Public Facility Projects That the Agency May Undertake Within the Merged Project Area When adopted, the Merged Plan will amend and merge all existing Redevelop- ment Plans for the five Redevelopment Projects, and will guide all future rede- velopment activities, infrastructure and public facility projects, and programs in the Merged Project Area, in furtherance of-the original objectives of the five Redevelopment Plans/Projects (please see discussion on page 2-1, Section 2.1, Background and History.) The Amendment/Merger will not affect the Agency's outstanding obligations or indebtedness. CONFORMANCE WITH THE CTIY'S GENERAL PLAN Redevelopment Land Uses The land uses permitted in the Merged Project Area are in conformance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any other State and local building codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended. Principal Streets The principal streets within the Merged Project Area include Beach Boulevard, EdingerAvenue,Talbert Avenue, Gothard Street,Main Street,Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street, Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update as currently adopted or as hereafter amended. Existing streets within the Merged Project Area may be closed,widened or other- wise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the General Plan. 4 7/18/96«I..\RSG630\EIRDSECT3-0.WPD» 3-6 Proposed Population Densities Permitted densities within the Merged Project Area shall conform to the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended,and shall conform to applica- ble City ordinances and local codes. Proposed Building Intensities Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: 1) the,percentage of the building site covered by the building (site coverage); 2) the ratio of the total floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area ratio); 3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site;and 4) the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances,as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The site coverage, sizes and location of the buildable areas will be limited, as is feasible and appropriate,to provide adequate open'space and parking. Proposed Building Standards Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive require- ments and may incorporate such requirements into the Merged Plan in the [, interest of the public health,safety and welfare. Potential Public Infrastructure,Facilities,Housing and Economic Development Projects The Agency is currently funding infrastructure improvements and public facili- ties projects, assisting with housing projects, and participating in economic development and commercial rehabilitation projects. These projects will con- tinue under the Amendment/Merger. Agency funding of these projects may include but are not limited to those in Table 3 A. The Agency has completed some projects under existing Projects/Plans,and the Amendment/Merger will enable the Agency to finish remaining tasks in further- ance of project objectives. 3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES Project objectives include: 1. Enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development activities,2)infrastructure improvement projects, 3) commercial rehabil- itation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing opportunities,and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation and protection programs and elimination of blight. 7n"6,(< \xsG63o\EUIIsECT3-o.WPn» 3-7 Table 3A-Proposed Infrastructure Projects Programs and Projects Proposed Possible Implementation Activities Housing Programs Increase and improve the community's supply of bousing affordable to very low, low and moderate income bousebolds Affordable Housing Assist development of single family,multifamily, Development Projects and senior housing inside and outside the Merged Project Area pursuant to housing requirements. Housing Code Enforcement Continue program throughout Merged Project Program Area. Housing Rehabilitation Continue program throughout Merged Project Program Area. Infrastructure Programs Improve pedestrian, bicycle and vebicular trafsc,flows, upgrade utilities and drainage systems, enhance public safety, and promote recreational opportunities. Orakview Complete improvements to streets,street lights, alleys,and Iandscape. Talbert Beach Monitor maintenance requirements of public infrastructure. Center Avenue Complete construction of Center Avenue street improvements and traffic signal,and improvements to signage and landscaping at the Huntington Beach Mall. Interstate 405 Improve I-405 off-ramp access to Huntington Center. Improve I-405 cloverleaf landscaping and widen McFadden/I-405 overpass. Edinger Avenue Street Seek adoption of the specific plan and Alignment construction of street improvements,including consolidation of ingress/egress points,unified signage and landscaping. Gothard Street and Hoover Construct street improvements to connect Street Connection Gothard and Hoover Streets to create another north-south arterial to alleviate traffic congestion on other north-south arterials. Public Facility Program Develop community facilities that meet the needs of the community's residents. Branch Library Complete construction of the Oakview branch library. 7/1"&I.\RSG630\EnZ�$ECT3-0.wPD» 3-8 Programs and Projects Proposed Possible Implementation Activities Community Development Protect residential neighborhoods to enhance Programs public safety and provide positive community development opportunities. Neighborhood Plan Review plan and update recommendations as appropriate. Community Services Police Continue assistance program for gang prevention Assistance in Merged Project Area. Operation LOGOS Continue youth employment neighborhood cleanup program in Merged Project Area. Commercial Rehabilitation/ Revitalize deteriorating and substandard Economic Development commercial facilities. Huntington Beach Mall Prepare a market and development strategy with the mall owner and facilitate repositioning of the Mall. The Waterfront Implement and monitor terms of development agreement, as they currently exist or may be subsequently amended. New Development/ Encourage?Merged Project Area private Construction development to recycle blighted properties,and t identify sites with the potential for consolidation for redevelopment. Commercial Leasing Cooperate and assist in leasing of commercial/ office space in Merged Project Area. Rehabilitation Assist property owners with renovations and other improvements to deteriorating commercial and industrial properties in the Merged Project Area. Planning Activities Prepare and implement downtown parking master plan,downtown specific plan,Pacific Coast Highway/1st Street property master plan,and other plans to coordinate development in Merged Project Area. 7/18/996«I:NRSG630\EM$EM-O.WPD» 3-9 2. Provide a Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City's General Plan to guide future redevelopment of the Merged Project Area. 3.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL D0CUMENTA770N/STATUS OF PROCESSING The Merged Project Area is primarily an area previously developed that is being served by an aging and sometimes inadequate infrastructure. In many instances, streets, water delivery pipelines, storm drainage systems and landscaping are ending their useful life or have demands upon them that exceed their capacity. The City and Agency,recognizing the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades, aging infi-astructure replacement and general infrastructure repair, have initiated public infrastructure improvement construction projects. In addition, the City and Agency have identified projects and programs deemed necessary to attain the redevelopment and affordable housing objectives included in Section 3.4 above. These projects are ongoing projects or projects initiated in the previously approved Redevelopment Project Areas that will be completed under the Amendment/Merger. Projects that have been approved or are ongoing programs within the Merged Project Area are included below. The status of their environ- mental processing (CEQA) clearances are included. I. Affordable Housing Programs Status of Environmental Processing A. Bowen Court Affordable Hous- Negative Declaration No.94-22 (project ing Development Project scheduled for public hearing) B. Housing Code Enforcement Ongoing City program } Program C. Housing Rehabilitation Program Ongoing City program II. Infrastructure Programs Status of Environmental Processing A. Public Infrastructure in Talbert- Ongoing monitoring and maintenance Beach Area B. Storm Drain Improvements in Negative Declaration No.95-7 for storm Oakview drain improvements on Warner between Oak and Nichols C. Street Improvements 1. Oakview Area • Improvements along Negative Declaration No.92-29 segments of Oak,Ash, Elm,Sycamore, Cy- press,and Keelson • Creation of a cul-de-sac Negative Declaration No.92-5 at Keelson and Elm • Improvements at the Negative Declaration No.91-45 intersection of Warner and Gothard,and Gothard south of Warner) 7/1"6<:\RSG630\E M\SEM-0.WM>) 3-10 t 4.1 LAND USE 4.1.1 FASTING ENVIRONMENTAL SE777NG The existing setting for Section 4.1, Land Use, describes the land uses that cur- rently occur in the Merged Project Area. Existing land uses have been deter- mined through aerial photo interpretation and a survey. BrisUng Land Uses There is a variety of land uses within the Merged Project Area. The primary land uses are commercial/residential, civic uses (public facilities) and industrial. These uses are described below for each location: Table 4.1A-Existing Land Uses within the Merged Project Area Acreage Location Existing Land Uses of Use Huntington Center(160 acres) Commercial 152 Right-Of--Way(Caltrans and Railroad) 8 Oakriew(68 acres) Commercial 11 Residential 54 Vacant 3 Talbert-Beacb(25 acres) Residential 14 Vacant 2.25 Civic(Park) 2.50 Industrial 6.25 Yorktown-Lake(30 acres) Residential 11.50 Vacant 0.50 Civic(Civic Center) 18 Main-Pier(336 acres) Commercial 45 Residential 113 Vacant 24.25 Industrial 2 Beach 145 Civic(Fire Station,Art Center, 6.75 Church) Total(629 acres) Commercial 208 Residential 192.50 Vacant 30 Civic 27.25 Industrial 8.25 Beach 145 Right-of-Way(Caltrans and Railroad) 8 Total Acreage 619 t 4 7a8y96KiutsG630\E RSECT".WPn» 4.1-3 Other land uses identified in the Merged Project Area include vacant parcels and roadways and railway corridors. Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.5 illustrate the land uses within the Merged Project Area. Under current conditions, several locations within the Redevelopment Projects include land uses that are incompatible with adjacent or surrounding land uses. These are noted as follows: 1) oil production and gas production next to urban uses (Main-Pier), 2) older deteriorated strip commercial adjacent to residential uses (Oakview), 3) residential uses among or adjacent to industrial uses (Main- Pier),and 4)residential uses among predominantly commercial uses (Oakview). The existing land use incompatibilities have occurred over many years due to the piecemeal transition within the Merged Project Area. These land use incompati- bilities contribute to the conditions originally responsible for establishing the five Redevelopment Projects. In addition to the existing land use incompatibilities, there are blighted and/or underutilized structures and vacant parcels. Some residential structures, as well as commercial and industrial uses, show signs of neglect, poor maintenance, structural deterioration, underutilization,and vacancy or abandonment. These conditions reflect incompatible land uses, or failure of sustained business or residential viability in these areas of transition. A survey by LSA Associates, Inc. (May, 1996) revealed that areas in transition from one use to another may be contributing to uncertain land use patterns, and possibly some of the visible deterioration. Some buildings that formerly housed one land use have transitioned into another (e.g., single family residential to commercial),which has prompted further transition. Similarly,as land uses and buildings have changed, some buildings have become obsolete and require significant maintenance or improvement to remain economically viable. As buildings are abandoned or vacated, the surroundings become devalued, pro- ducing a downward economic trend and further transition. City of Huntington Beacb General Plan The Merged Plan designates permitted land uses within the Merged Project Area consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Future projects within the Merged Project Area must be found to be consistent with the Merged Plan and, therefore,must be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. 7n8/96«i:vRSG630\EmNSEcr".wPn» 4.1-4 .•rrrri �iiiiii ► SHERLN rrrrrrri .irurrn_— NU ► /.iiiriiriiri_� • i •■r0rrormr%�f, ■rrrrrrrrrr= ► rrrrrrrrr— ■rrrrrrrrrrr= ► •irrrrrrrrrr■= ► �rrrrrrrrrrrr > .rrrrrrrrrrrrr ► �rrrrrrrrrrrrr ► on Even ■rrrrrrrrrrrrr■— ► iirrrrrrrrrrrrr� i / — •rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr / .irrrrrrrrrrrrrrr� ► �rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr GOTHARD ST LEGEND: ——- Project Boundary Commercial Uses: ® Commercial ® Office Commercial WARNER AVE ----- - -------- - - - - - - - Other Uses: Residential FIR DR Vacant SYCAlGIORE AVE BELSITO DR :CYPRESS AVE> O z 1 o� n 'IvIANDRELTr'DR _---------_i a r o; ;BARTON DR f-- — —� WAGON DR SLATER AVE Source: LSA. 7/16/%WG630) Figure 4.1.2 N Scale in Feet Existing Land Use T h �� Oakview 11 1 1 0 200 4W 4.I-6 Redevelopment Project . y W °z TALBERT AVE M I' O 7. .. .... ........ - - r 'o: 1= ?I ------------ = I a -4 'I b : ....:...... ... ..I + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + I LEGEND: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + I =Project Boundary TAYLOR DR Residential Industrial +++ Civic-Park Vacant Source:LSA. 7/16/96(RS0630) Figure 4.1.3 N Existing Land Use USA Scale in Feel Talbert-Beach 0 Redevelopment Project LEGEND: --- Project Boundary YORKTOWN AVE Residential LI ® civic Center E] Vacant =:1 :1 PS ARK= T z A y ':1 :€1 1 '1 .. .::•:::::::<.;::.:: `l :1 :1 :1 :1 1 :1 MICA AVE Y 7/1&%(RSG630) Figure 4.1.4 N Scale in Feet Existing Land Use e Yorktown-Lake LS-A 0 100 200 4.1$ Redevelopment Project LEGEND: ———Project Boundary Commercial Uses: Commercial Hotel Mixed Use-Residential w/1st Floor Retail (P Other Uses: Residential lGd O Beach Industrial Civic-Fire Station,Church,Art Center Vacant PALM AVE ........... ACACIA VE rr rr r, EF rr S. PECAN AVE H H A ORANGRAVE .... ........ ........ ... I'f:7 ..... OLIVE AVE .4 WALNUT AVE ... z ...... -Is P. -OAS:r. Y" Source:LSA. 7/17/96(RSC;630) Figure 4.1.5 Existing Land Use Scale in Feet Main-Pier LSA 0 600 1200 Redevelopment Project err✓ In the City's recently adopted General Plan, three policy references are specifi- cally relevant to the evaluation of the Merged Plan's land use plans: • Limit the total additional new development citywide (above that existing in 1990) that can be accommodated in the City to the following, or an equivalent number of trips that can be generated ("trip budget"), pro- vided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Ele- ment are implemented- Residential Units (single family, multifamily and 18,500 mixed use) Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000 Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000 Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000 Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500 The permitted development, or"trip budget,"shall be allocated to spe- cific subareas of the City, as determined by the City's traffic model used in the preparation of the General PIan. The mix of uses that are permit- ted may be varied provided that the total "trip budget" is not exceeded (Policy 2.1.4). • Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and densities on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy 7.1.1, when it can be demonstrated that additional transportation improvements have been implemented or are funded,or demands have been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Policy 2.1.5). • Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water, sewer, and other) and services, and establish appropriate limits on development should their utilization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of service (Policy 2.1.6). The policies above establish general growth and development parameters for the entire City of Huntington Beach, including the Merged Project Area. Growth and development were projected, and appropriate policies have been adopted to guide this growth, including the development projected within the Merged Project Area, as long as such growth is consistent with the guiding principles established by the above policies. Pursuant to Section 33000 of the California Redevelopment Law(CRL),a jurisdic- tion's Redevelopment Plan must be consistent with its General Plan. To ensure such conformity,the Merged Plan adopts by reference the General Plan and any subsequent amendments thereto. The Merged Plan, therefore,proposes only actions, improvements and land uses that would be permitted under the Gen- eral Plan. 1 The trip budget incorporates development projects approved prior to the adoption of the 1996 General Plan. 7/1"6<<I.\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-0.WPD» 11.1-10 Because the Merged Plan references and relies upon the City's General Plan for t all allowable uses, and requires that any subsequent project must be consistent with the General Plan, it is appropriate to judge Merged Plan land use issues within the context of the City s adopted policies as reflected in the General Plan. Special Development Areas There have been several special development areas designated throughout the City since the late 1960s. Two of the Redevelopment Projects include areas that are affected by Specific Plans. Main-Pier is overlapped by the Downtown Specific Plan,adopted in 1982. (This area has received a substantial amount of land use planning attention and economic development activity sponsored by the City and the Redevelopment Agency over the years,beginning in 1969 with adoption of Resolution 3082 by the City Council,approving the"Top of the Pier"develop- ment plan for downtown). The "Top of the Pier" Plan has been incorporated in, and superseded by, the Downtown Specific Plan and the Main-Pier Redevelop- ment Plan has been approved for implementation by the California Coastal Commission. The second area included in a Specific Plan is the northerly portion of Hunting- ton Beach Mall (north of Center Drive). The North Huntington Center Specific Plan has been implemented. (� 4.Z.2 77nWSHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Tbresbolds of Significance This EIR establishes thresholds of significance to determine potentially signifi- cant land use impacts. A significant impact would result if the threshold limits are exceeded due to the implementation of the Amendment/Merger. The pro- posed Amendment/Merger could generate a significant impact on the environ- ment if one of the following conditions results: • Creation of substantial (noticeable) alteration to Huntington Beach's or the Merged Project Area's community character. • Creation of land uses that are incompatible (in terms of density and type of use)with surrounding uses. • Creation of unbalanced land use mix. In addition to the above thresholds of significance, the 1996 CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G) provide other criteria by which to measure potentially significant impacts that are applicable to the project analyzed in this EIR. As stated in the CEQA Guidelines,a project will normally have a significant effect on the environ- ment if it will: • Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community where it is located; or 7n8/96Hi:\.RSG63ovtm\sEcr4-o.wern> 4.1-11 • Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. 4.1.3 PROJECT IMPACTS The Amendment/Merger allows redevelopment activities and financing incen- tives to continue in areas that are demonstrated to be in need of these efforts. As mentioned in Section 4.1.1, Existing Environmental Setting, incompatible land uses and blight exist within the Merged Project Area. It is the intent of the Amendment/Merger to provide a vehicle for the Agency to assist the City in eliminating incompatible land uses and/or blight, and to promote economic development. Other possible implementation activities may include efforts to assemble parcels for redevelopment and to encourage new development that is compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the City's General Plan. Additionally, a substantial effort will be directed towards maintaining and up- grading infrastructure that supports economic development and investment in private property maintenance within the Merged Project Area. It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger does not include authoriza- tion of any specific project, and is limited to the objectives detailed in Chapter 3.0,Project Description. Current revenue projections for the Merged Project indicate that there are lim- ited opportunities to assist in development projects within the Merged Project Area. The following is an estimate of development that could be assisted by redevelopment activities associated with the-Amendment/Merger. • 530 Single Family Homes • 80 Multiple Family Units • Huntington Beach Mall Refurbishment • 600 Hotel/Time Share Rooms • 260,000 square feet of Commercial Uses • 3,000 square feet of Industrial Uses Because there are no specific land use changes identified by the Merged Plan, and there are no specific development projects included within the Merged Project Area, there is no land use conflict or incompatible use that would occur with approval of the Amendment/Merger. As future projects, both public and private,are submitted to the City for approval,each project will be reviewed for consistency with the Merged Plan and General Plan land Use Element and other General Plan policies, as well as the City's zoning ordinance and development codes which further restrict new development density and type. In addition, the City will conduct the appropriate environmental review of each project in com- pliance with CEQA to determine whether further environmental documentation will be required beyond this EIR. If, during their review, City staff determines that a project could have a significant impact that has not been identified in this EIR, the City will require subsequent environmental documentation to fully evaluate any potential impacts. 7/1"&,,cI..\SSG630\EMt SECT4-0.WPD» 4.1-12 � ! i Community Cbaracter and Land Use Compatibility There will be no change in the redevelopment boundary areas with the Amend- ment,/Merger. The Amendment/Merger is a reorganization of redevelopment processes and extensions of time for incurring indebtedness and condemnation proceedings. This reorganization does not amend the land use designations within the Merged Project Area. Land uses will continue to reflect the designations in the General Plan, as required in the Merged Plan, in the same manner as with the previously adopted Redevelopment Projects. A time extension for incurring indebtedness and raising the limit on tax incre- ment revenues will not directly affect land use; rather, it will enhance the Agency's ability to fully utilize financial resources that would otherwise not be available for redevelopment, infrastructure improvements and economic devel- opment purposes. With additional financial resources and an extension of time available, the Agency could conduct additional redevelopment activity in accor- dance with the Merged Plan. This is considered a beneficial impact, in view of current signs of deferred maintenance,structural deterioration,underutilization, and vacancy or abandonment. The adopted General Plan identifies development districts, along with specific development guidelines for all areas of the City and for specific subareas within the City. Specific Plans for several districts have been adopted,as explained in the Special Development Areas subsection, above. The Specific Plans that are relevant to the Merged Project Area are: 1) the Downtown Specific Plan,and 2) North Huntington Center. The Merged Project is consistent with both Specific Plans. These Specific Plans further ensure that new development,infrastructure improvements and refurbishment of businesses occurring through Agency assis- tance will be compatible with the community character expressed in these Specific Plans. The Specific Plans established for these areas within the Merged Project Area ensure that environmental protection is enforced, that land development is carried out consistent with adopted objectives; and that design guidelines are implemented in a cohesive and interrelated fashion. The General Plan includes pedestrian, historic and design overlays for certain subareas of the City, all of which include some portions of the Merged Project Area. Taken together,the General Plan Land Use Element policies for permitted uses, overlay district requirements and development guidelines for specific subareas,substantially avoid the potential to impact community character within the Merged Project Area. Specific projects will be subject to individual review for consistency with General Plan and Zoning Code provisions through the entitle- ment process. The General Plan Update EIR (pages 5.1-16 and 5.1-17)discusses land use com- patibility relevant within the Merged Project Area. 7/18,96(<I.\RSG630NEMt SECT4-0.WPD>> 4.1-13 The General Plan Update EIR includes the following specific analysis in land use compatibility that is relevant to Main-Pier, Huntington Center, Oakview and Talbert-Beach "With regard to localized incompatibilities along Beach Boulevard there are several policies which reduce the potential impact. Policy LU 10.1..5 requires that buildings, parking and vehicular access be sited and jdesigned to prevent impacts on adjacent residential neighbor- hoods. Policy LU 10.1.6 requires that commercial projects abutting residential properties adequately protect the residential use from exces- sive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual character and operational hazards. Policy 10.1.7 requires that parking structures located on commercial parcels abutting residential uses be designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission impacts and incor- porate architectural design elements to provide;interest. Finally, Policy LU 10.1.8 requires that entertainment, drinking establishments and other uses characterized by high patronage provide adequate physical and safety measures to prevent negative impacts on adjacent proper- ties. I Incompatibilities that may occur in mixed use developments are minimized through Policy LU 11.1.5 (which requires that mixed use developments mitigate potential conflicts between the residential and commercial components) and Policy LU 11.1.6 (which requires that housing be placed on-upper floors, or at the'rear en4 of mixed use structures). Consequently, existing and potential land use incompati- bilities created by the juxtaposition of residential and commercial uses along Beach Boulevard are considered to be reduced to less than signif- icant levels with inclusion of these policies." Given the requirement that the Merged Plan mirror and fully implement the General Plan;any subsequent development within the Merged Project Area must be consistent with the policies included in the analysis above, which fully ad- dresses land use compatibility issues. Land Use Balance The land use mix proposed in the Merged Plan is the same as in the General Plan Land Use Element. The land use mix and distribution of land uses included in the General Plan for the Merged Project Area are not proposed to be changed by the Amendment/Merger. Potential impacts from an inappropriate land use mix would be avoided through implementation of General Plan land uses, as pro- posed in the Merged Plan. Effects on Open Space The Amendment/Merger does not involve changes or redesignations of any lands designated as"open space"to other land use categories. Therefore,with imple- mentation of the Amendment/Merger, the amount of designated open space acreage will not diminish from that adopted on the General Plan land use map. 7/1896«I.\RSG6301FMC-,SECT".WPD>> 4.1-14 A limited number of vacant parcels exist throughout portions of the Merged Project Area, encompassing approximately 30 gross acres (or 4.7 percent of the entire Merged Project Area). Existing land uses, including vacant parcels, are shown on Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.5. The General Plan land use map desig- nates these vacant parcels for future development. It is reasonably expected that these vacant parcels will be developed with permitted uses, with or without P P redevelopment assistance, consistent with the Merged Plan and General Plan. Potential impacts due to development of currently vacant parcels will be miti- gated to a level of insignificance through implementation of the General Plan policies. Subsequent development within the Merged Project Area is required to be consistent with General Plan policies to preserve and protect open space. Consistency uritb Adopted Plans and Established Community The CEQA criteria cited above state that a project will normally have a significant impact if it will"conflict with adopted plans and goals." The Merged Plan con- forms to the existing policies and environmental plans in the recently adopted General Plan and in the applicable Specific Plans,as explained in the preceding analysis. The second CEQA criterion, "disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community,"is addressed in the analysis below. Amendment/Merger does not include any large-scale infrastructure improvements or major reconfig- uration of streets or roadways that are typically associated with division of com- munities. In addition, the land uses and infrastructure improvements will be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, and would not disrupt the arrangement of established communities as defined by the General Plan. 4.1.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS For purposes of this EIR, the appropriate potential cumulative land use impact area is the entire City. Because the the Merged Project Area extends from the City's southern boundary to the northern boundary, and because these areas make up a significant amount (15.7 percent)of the commercial areas of the City, the cumulative study area has been determined to be the entire City. The General Plan Update EIR contains citywide growth projections for the 20 year period 1990-2010. Residential dwelling units are anticipated to increase by 18,500, or 10.46 percent,' during this 20 year time frame, with commercial/ industrial square footage increasing by 15,867,540 square feet,or 21.9 percent, over the same 20 year time frame. The land uses and anticipated projects within the Merged Project Area are included in these General Plan projections. Given that the City has recently adopted the General Plan (May 13, 1996), and that the land use designations and intensities proposed under the Amendment/ Merger are identical to those analyzed in the General Plan Update EM this analysis can rely data and analysis included in the General Plan Update EIR. The City's General Plan Update EIR addresses the potential land use impacts from 7/1"6xt.vRSG63OxEM\SECT".WPD» 4.1-15 implementing the General Plan program, and found that there were no signifi- cant environmental impacts related to 1) land use compaiibility,2) alteration of community character,3)resultant land use imbalance,and 4) substantial loss of open space. The General Plan correlates land use development with supporting infrastruc- ture and services. The General Plan sets a cap on development that cannot be removed unless public infrastructure is upgraded or expanded and service improvements are implemented,particularly with to transportation. The P P �P Y regard P practical development potential of the City is identified in Policy LU 2.1.4, in- cluded in the Setting Section on page 4.1-10. The Amendment/Merger is consis- tent with the General Plan and thereby provides policies and development guidelines that lessen and avoid cumulative land use impacts. Because the Amendment/Merger does not include specific development projects and does not change land use designations assigned by the General Plan Land Use Ele- ment,there are no cumulative impacts. 4.1.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan includes several policies contained in the Land Use Element of the General Plan that serve to minimize potential land use impacts. The policies applicable to the Amendment/Merger that reduce or avoid project related im- pacts are identified below. • Require that new and recycled industrial projects be designed and devel- oped to achieve a high level of quality, distinctive character, and be com- patible with existing uses (Policy LU12.1.4). • Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adja- cent uses,considering the (Policy LU 12.1.5): Use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass; Architectural design treatment of all building elevations; Use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets; Enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls; Location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent resi- dential neighborhoods; and Mitigation of noise, odor,lighting,and other impacts. • Require that heavy industrial uses incorporate landscape setbacks, screening walls, berms, and/or other appropriate elements thai mitigate 7/18/96«I:\RSG630\EWECT4-0 WM)* 4.1-16 �^. visual and operational impacts with adjacent land uses (Policy LU • Require that heavy truck and vehicle access be controlled to nninimize potential impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial districts(Policy LU 12.1.9). • Require that buildings, parking, and vehicular access be sited and de- signed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods (Policy LU10.1.5). • Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties ade- quately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of noise,light,vehicular traffic,visual character,and operational hazards(Policy LU10.I.6). • Require that parking structures located on commercial parcels abutting residential uses a) be designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission impacts and b) incorporate architectural design elements,such as facade articulation, offset planes,and landscape,to provide visual interest and compatibility with the residences (Policy LU10.1.7). • Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other uses provide adequate physical and safety measures to prevent negative im- pacts on adjacent properties (Policy LU 10.1.8). 1, • Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses,considering such issues as noise,lighting,security, and truck and automobile access (Pol- icy LU11.1.5). • Require that the ground floor of structures that horizontally integrate housing with commercial uses locate commercial uses along the street frontage (housing may be located to the rear and/or on upper floors) (Policy LU 11.1.6). • Accommodate the development of public parks, coastal and water re- lated recreational uses,and the conservation of environmental resources in areas designated for Open Space on the Land Use Plan Map and in accordance with Policy 7.1.1(Policy LU 14.1.1). • Permit the acquisition and/or dedication of lands for new open space purposes in any land use zone where they complement and are compati- ble with adjacent land uses and development,contingent on City review and approval(Policy LU14.1.2). 4.1.6MITIGA7IONMEASURES Mitigation measures are not warranted. 7/3LS/96<Q:VLSG630\EM\$ECr 0 WPDH 4.1-17 4.1.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT.SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION { Implementation of the General Plan policies will reduce the potential land use ' impacts resulting from the Amendment/Merger to a level below significance. 7n8�9 I-\RSG630NEMnSECT4-0 wen» 4.I-18 4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING 4.2.1 KUSTING ENVLRONMENTAL SE777NG Population From 1980 to 1992, the population of Huntington Beach increased by almost nine percent, as shown in Table 4.2A. In 1980, the City had a population of 181,519,while the population in 1992 was 185,000. For the past 20 years, the City has consistently experienced a higher rate of growth than either Orange County or the State of California. While the average annual population increase in California was 2.1 percent from 1970 to 1980,and 2.3 percent from 1980 to 1990, Huntington Beach experienced average annual increases of 4.05 percent and 6.27 percent respectively, during these two periods. As a comparison, Orange County experienced annual growth rates of 3.1 percent and 2.3 percent, respectively, during the 1970s and 1980s. Table 4.2A-Population Comparisons 1970-1990 Compound Annual Growth Rate 1970- 1980- 1970 1980 1990 1980 1990 1996" t California 19,241,000 23,668,145 29,760,021 2.09% 2.31% 32,231,000 Orange County 1,421,000 1,932,709 2,410,556 3.12% 2.23% 2,624,300 Huntington Beach 114,593 170,505 181,519 4.05% 6.27/6 187,200 Source: 1970, 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census; and Department of Finance 1996 Estimates. Housing Housing Growth The City of Huntington Beach's housing stock experienced substantial growth during the 1980s, but significantly,slowed in the 1990s due to diminishing supply of available land and'the economic recession. In 1980, Huntington Beach had a housing stock of 63,686 units, and by January, 1988, the number had increased to 70,179, an increase of more than ten percent. By 1994, the number of housing units reached 74,179,a 16 percent increase over the 63,686 units. The California Department of Finance. 7/19P96«I:\RSG6307J R\SECT4-2.WPDb 4.2-1 Housing Type and Tenure Although Huntington Beach experienced significant growth in its housing stock during the 1980s, the composition of the housing stock (single versus multiple family) has experienced little change. Single family dwelling units make up three-fifths of the housing type in the City (42,326 units in 1988). Multifamily units, however, experienced a greater rate of growth during the 1980-1988 period, increasing by 13 percent (to 25,170 in 1988), as compared to the 9 percent increase for single family units. Construction of condominium units declined in the mid-1980s; however, condominium activity has increased since then. Condominium units comprise over half of the City's multiple family hous- ing stock,with two-thirds of the units in the southeast and Downtown/Old Town neighborhoods (13,151 units in 1988). The tenure of a community's housing stock (owner versus renter) influences several aspects of the local housing market. Tenure preferences are primarily related to household income,composition,and age of the householder. For the past several decades,Huntington Beach has been a predominantly owner occu- pied community;however,the ratio of owner occupied to renter occupied units has steadily declined since 1970,when 70 percent of the City's households were owner occupied. In 1980,owner occupied housing comprised 58 percent of the City's households,decreasing to 53 percent by 1988. Existing housing in the Merged Project Area consists of the following: Subarea #Units ) Oakview 641 ' Main-Pier 915 Yorktown-Lake 81 Talbert-Beach 336 Huntington Center 0 Total (Approximately) 1,973 Housing Element Objectives The City of Huntington Beach Housing Element outlines the existing housing needs within the City,based on SCAG projections, and identifies strategies that the City will employ to achieve its housing objectives. The City is currently in the process of updating its Housing Element'; however,the update is still in the preliminary draft phase and is not complete. Therefore,for the purposes of this ' The Housing Element Update will address the projected housing needs for the next cycle (1996-1998). SLAG staff has not prepared an RHNA for the 1996-1998 Housing Element period. Given the absence of re- gional estimates,the State has directed all cities to utilize the 1989 RHNA figures. Following a review of historical growth trends,regional growth forecasts, and lands that are or could reasonably be made available for new housing development,the Housing Element revision will determine } the housing needs for the City during the 1996-1998 period. `+�■' 7/19/96<<I.\RSG630\EM\SECT4-2.WPD» 4.2-2 review, the analysis of consistency with Housing Element Objectives will be based upon the 1989 Housing Element. As indicated on page 2-20 of the Hous- ing Element, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by SCAG identified a future housing need for Huntington Beach of 6,228 units to be developed over the five-year period from 1989 to 1994. This span was ex- tended by recent legislation adopted by the State to extend the valid date of the RHNA figures,as well as postpone the mandatory deadline for Housing Element Updates (for Cities within the SCAG Region) to June, 1998. Of these 6,228 units, housing needs for the very low income group total 984 units, 1,264 for the low income group, 1,370 for the moderate income group, and 2,610 for the upper income group. The Housing Element identifies that through a combination of residential devel- opment potential on vacant, underutilized, redeveloped, non-residential and surplus sites in the City,an estimated 7,527 additional units could be developed in the City. Of the 7,527 units identified, 904 of these units were to be con- structed within Main-Pier. Previously, the Agency has assisted in the construc- tion of 724 dwelling units within the five Redevelopment Projects since 1982. Employment According to the City's General Plan Technical Background Report, there were 60,869 jobs in Huntington Beach in 1992. Of the 60,869 jobs, 25 percent were in the retail trade, 24 percent in manufacturing,and 17 percent in business and personal services. General Plan The General Plan build out will provide for additional new housing build out,as shown in Table 4.2.B. Table 4.2.B-Housing,Population, Employment and Jobs-Housing Ratio (Policy Plan Adopted by City Council May 13, 1996) Existing Additional New Build %Increase Units Housing out Above Existing Dwelling Units 74,179' 18,500 92,679 24.94% Population 181,5192 48,470 233,4703 28.62% Employment 60,869' 22,413 83,282 36.82% Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.82 1.21 0.90 9.51% Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update FH4 July, 1995. 1 City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 1994. 2 General Plan Technical Background Report(OR), Chapter 2, 1992. (� 3 Assumes 1990 persons per household ratio of 2.62 (Table SD-2 of the TBR) a Table ED-1,TBR 7/19t96<(I:\RSG630\EUDSECT4-2.WM>> 4.2-3 4.2.2 771RESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds of significance criteria are used in evaluating the effects of the Amendment/Merger on population and housing. Population • Increases in population in excess of that projected in the General Plan and by SCAG. • Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population in an area. Housing • Development that reduces the ability of the City to meet housing objec- tives set forth in the City's Housing EIement (1989) for all income levels. Employment • Displacement of more than 500 employees. 4.2.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Population The project does not propose any changes in land use or zoning designation,or policies that would result in any increases in population within the Merged Project Area of the City. The General Plan EIR concluded that,with implementa- tion of General Plan Policies ensuring that development is coordinated with provision of adequate public facilities and services, potential impacts were re- duced to less than significant. The Amendment/Merger will primarily allow for increased funding opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial rehabilitation, and assisted housing projects,which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and type (i.e., land use)will be consistent with that projected in the General Plan. The potential number of housing units assisted would be 610. Using the General Plan figure of 2.7 persons per house- hold,this would add only 1,647 people to the City's population of 187,200 (less than one percent). Impacts associated with this level of population will be minimized to a level of insignificance through implementation of General Plan policies ensuring that development is coordinated with the provision of ade- quate public services and facilities. Future development proposals within the Merged Project Area will require analysis of consistency with the General Plan and, where proposed development is greater than the planned growth in the General Plan,additional project specific analysis will be required. 7/19/96«I:1RSG630\EMSECT4-2.wPD» 4.2-4 Housing As indicated in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan will provide 18,500 new dwelling units by the year 2010. The corresponding annual increase of 1,156 units will exceed the annual housing growth rate of 1,038 units per year, identified in the 1988 RHNA. Implementation of the policies and programs contained in the Housing Element will assist the City in providing affordable housing to meet the City's identified regional share and will have a beneficial effect on housing. Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will facilitate implementation of housing programs in the Merged Project Area,through various financing mecha- nisms, and will promote the City's housing goals. It is estimated that the Agency's activities will facilitate 610 dwelling units, which is 0.6 percent of the General Plan build out. In addition, the Agency is required to set aside a portion of its tax increment revenue to provide for additional affordable housing units anywhere within the City. The City must also replace affordable housing units affected by redevelop- ment activities. Each of these requirements is outlined below. Housing Set Aside A portion of the Agency's tax increment revenue is required by the State to be set aside into a special fund of the Agency to meet affordable housing needs within the City. Section 33334.2 of the California Health and Safety Code re- quires that not less than 20 percent of all tax increment revenues allocated to a redevelopment agency shall be used for the purposes of increasing, improving and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing. Such housing is to be affordable to very low, low,and moderate income house- holds. Redevelopment Project Housing Relocation The Agency adopted a relocation plan in conjunction with the preparation of the five existing Redevelopment Plans. As an agency formed under the provisions of State Law,the Agency is required to adhere to the State Relocation law(Govern- ment Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines as established in the Califor- nia Code of Regulations,;Title 25, Chapter 6. The Agency's existing relocation plan incorporates the State Relocation Law and Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines. For the Amendment/Merger, the Agency will reaffirm its relocation plan for the Merged Project. Replacement Housing The Agency is required to replace affordable housing destroyed or removed as a consequence of a redevelopment project. Section 33413 of the California 7/19)96«I:\RSG630�EM SECT4-2.WPD» 4.2-5 Health and Safety Code provides that,whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the affordable housing market as a part of a redevelopment project that is subject to a written agreement with the agency, or where financial assistance has been provided by the agency, the agency shall provide, or cause to be provided, an equal number of replacement dwelling units. The replacement dwelling units must have an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those destroyed or re- moved and shall be affordable to persons and families of low or moderate in- come. Further, replacement dwelling units must be available for occupancy within four years of the destruction or removal of any affordable dwelling units. By assisting in the achievement of planned housing growth in the General Plan through tax increment financing, replacement housing and other mechanisms, implementation of the Amendment/Merger will assist in meeting the City's housing objectives for all income levels and will have a beneficial effect on hous- ing within the City, consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR. Employment Enhancement of existing employment opportunities and economic develop- ment within the City is a primary objective of the Amendment/Merger. By estab- lishing an increased tax increment limit, extending the time frames for incurring indebtedness and employing eminent domain proceedings, the Amend- ment/Merger will assist implementation of the planned employment growth outlined in the City's General Plan. The employment generation identified in �l the General Plan Update EIR would not be exceeded with implementation of the Amendment/Merger. Future development proposals within the Merged Project Area will require analysis of consistency with the General Plan and where pro- posed development is greater than the planned growth in the General Plan, additional project specific analysis will be required. Job creation within the Merged Project will be within the employment projections outlined in the EIR for the General Plan. The Amendment/Merger will benefit the City of Hunting- ton Beach, facilitating achievement of General Plan goals by providing funding opportunities. 4.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Increases in population,housing and employment associated with implementa- tion of the Amendment/Merger will be consistent with the growth projections for the Merged Project Area, as identified in the General Plan Update EIR, and will not result in greater cumulative impacts than identified for implementation of the General Plan on a citywide basis. Opportunities encouraging planned development and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will be pro- vided as part of the Amendment/Merger;however,provision for additional land use intensity is not permitted. 7n9/96«I:\RSG630WJR\SEcr4-2.WPn» 4.2-6 (� 4.2.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICLES l Impacts associated with the project are not considered significant,as they will be offset by implementation of policies of the General Plan,which require develop- ment to provide for,adequate public services, and facilities to meet forecast demands. These policies are provided in the Public Services and Utilities Section of this EIR. Relevant policies are included below to relate to population, em- ployment and housing. • Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Ele- ments of the General Plan) (Policy LU2.1.1). • Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre- lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser- vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele- ments (Policy LU2.1.2). • Limit the type, location, and/or timing of development where there is inadequate public infiwtructure and/or services to support land use development(Policy LU2.1.3). • Limit the total additional new development citywide (above that existing in 1990) that can be accommodated in the City to the following, or an equivalent number of trips that can be generated ("trip budget'), pro- vided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Ele- ment are implemented(Policy LU2.1.4):1 Residential Units (single,multifam- 18,500 ily, and muted use) Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000 Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000 Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000 Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500 The permitted development, or"trip budget,"shall be allocated to spe- cific sub-areas of the City as determined by the City's traffic model used in the preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses that are permit- ted may be varied provided that the total"trip budget"is not exceeded. t The trip budget incorporates development projects approved previous to the adoption of the General Plan. 7n9)96«i:\Rsc630\YMLI$Ecr4-2 VM)> 4.2-7 (ar' • Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and ) densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy �w✓ 7.1.1, when it can be'demonstrated that additional transportation im- provements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Pol- icy LU2.1.5). • Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water, sewer, and other) and services and establish appropriate limits on development should their utilization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of service (Policy LU2.1.6). • Accommodate the development of parks,sports facilities,schools,librar- ies,community meeting facilities, religious facilities,and similar commu- nity-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are compati- ble with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by the City and other appropriate agencies(Policy LU9.41). • Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasi- ble (Policy CE2.3.1). • Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets,includ- ing but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to maintain adequate levels of service(Policy CE2.3.4). • Monitor the demands on the water system,manage the development to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water supply and distribution system,and maintain and expand water supply and distribu- tion facilities(Policy U1.1.1). • Approve and implement development in accordance with the standards identified in the Growth Management Element(Policy U2.1.1). • Monitor the demands and manage development to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the storm drainage system (Policy U 3.1.3). • Limit new development, when necessary, until adequate flood control facilities are constructed to protect existing development and accommo- date the new development runoff, or until mitigation is provided in accordance with the Growth Management Element(Policy U3.1.5). • Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial,industrial,and residential developments in accordance with State law(Policy U4.1.1). • Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of service and facilitate improved levels of service(Policy U5.1.1). 7/1"6KI:\3tSG630\=k\$ECT4-2 VM>> 4.2-8 Enhance and maintain personnel and facilities in,the City's Police De- partment necessary to provide response times at standards determined by the Growth Management Element(Policy PF 1.1.1). • Ensure that adequate Police services are maintained through a periodic conditions and needs assessment of department services, facilities and personnel(Policy PF 1.1.2).' • Locate fire stations in a manner which will enable emergency fire re- sponse time to meet a five minute standard, SO percent of the time (Pol- icy PF 2.1.1). • Maintain adequate facilities and personnel by periodically evaluating population growth, response time and fire hazards(Policy PF2.1.3). • Maintain phasing and funding standards based on population,response time projections, and build out in accordance with the Growth Manage- ment Element(Policy PF 2.1.4). • Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts to review measures alleviating some school's over- crowding while other school's have available capacity(Policy PF 4 1.1). • Ensure adequate government facilities and services are being provided to meet the needs of the City's population(Policy PF 61.1). Maintain or improve the governmental facilities and services in order to • meet the adopted levels of service and standards established in the Growth Management Element(Policy PF 6.1.3)• Housing Element Policy 2 To ensure adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the community,the City of Huntington Beach shall: • Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing types throughout the community,with variety in the number of rooms and level of amenities. • Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the production of housing with particular emphasis on housing affordable to lower income households,as well as the needs of the handicapped, the elderly,large family and female-headed households. • Facilitate the development of mixed use projects containing residential and non residential uses which can take advantage of shared land costs to reduce the costs of land for residential uses through General Plan designation and the Specific Plan process. 7/l9/96<<I.\RSG630\MMECT4-2 WPD» 4.2-9 • Encourage alternative forms of home ownership, such as shared equity ownership, Shared living Units, and other housing arrangements to encourage affordability. Explore the feasibility of implementing a mort- gage credit certification program (refer to Section 3.6 beginning on page 3-36 for program descriptions). • Promote adoption of development standards which reduce housing costs,while ensuring that any adverse impacts are minimized when in- creasing densities or relaxing standards. • Continue and expand utilization of federal and State housing assistance programs. • Promote the availability of sufficient rental housing to afford maximum choice of housing type for all economic segments of the community. • Encourage the retention of adequate numbers of mobile homes and investigate areas for potential new mobile home zoning. • Encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement housing and/or relocation for low or moderate income households dis- placed by public or private developments. Housing Element Policy 3 To assure the adequate provision of sites for housing, the City of Huntington Beach shall: • Utilize the following general criteria for identifying and evaluating poten- tial sites for low and moderate cost housing and sites for the elderly and/or handicapped. While compliance with the following criteria is preferable,no site shall be dismissed for failure to meet this criteria and shall be judged on its own merit. Sites should be: Located with convenient access to arterial highways and public transportation, schools, parks and recreational facilities, shop- ping areas,employment opportunities. Adequately served by public facilities,services,and utilities. Minimally impacted by seismic and flood hazards. Where such hazards cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the design of all proposed development. Minimally impacted by noise and blighted conditions. - Compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses. Located outside areas of predominantly lower income concentra- tions. 7n9/964d-.Wc63ov =Ecr4-2 VM>> 4.2-10 i Plan for residential land uses ,which accommodate anticipated growth from new employment opportunities. • Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and transportation routes to provide convenient access to employment centers. • Permit the development of manufactured housing in single family zones, and accommodate the development of mobile home parks through the City's Manufactured Housing Overlay Zone. Housing Element Policy 4 In order to preserve housing and neighborhoods, the City of Huntington Beach shall: • Encourage the maintenance and repair of existing owner-occupied and rental housing to prevent deterioration of housing in the City. • Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing where feasible. • Where possible,take action to promote the removal and replacement of those substandard units which cannot be rehabilitated. • Provide and maintain an adequate level of community facilities and mu- nicipal services in all community areas. • Improve and upgrade community facilities and services where necessary. • Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse of residential land on existing residential development. • Encourage preservation of the existing low density residential character in established single family neighborhoods. • Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors (Policy LU 1.1.1). • Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy 7.1.1, when it can be demonstrated that additional transportation im- provements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Pol- icy LU2.1.5). • Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with the Land Use and Density Schedules (Table LU-4 in the General Plan) (Policy LU 7.1.1). 7/i9A6<<I:utsc,63oW-UD$Ecr4-2 wM>> 4.2-11 • Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns t and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map (Figure LU-5 in the General Plan),and in accordance with the principles discussed below(Policy LU8.1.1). a. Enhance a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors by their distinct functional role,activity,and/or form and scale of development. b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial corridors,such as Beach Boulevard. C. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. d. Intensify residential uses in proximity to key commercial or mixed-use districts to promote accessibility and reduce vehicular use. e. Improve industrial districts to accommodate the changing charac- teristics and needs of manufacturing and other industrial sectors. f. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. g. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. h. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other streetscape elements, open space, transitions in form,scale,and density of development,and other elements. • Accommodate the development of single family and multifamily residen- tial units in areas designated by the Land Use Plan Map,as stipulated by the Land Use and Density Schedules (Policy LU9.1.1). • Require that special needs housing is designed to be compatible with adjacent residential structures and other areas designated for other cate- gories of use provided that no adverse impacts will occur (Policy LU 9.5.2). • Accommodate the development of neighborhood,community,regional, office, and visitor-serving commercial uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy 7.1.1 (Policy LU 10.1.1). • Accommodate the development of structures and sites that integrate housing units with retail and office commercial uses in areas designated for "mixed use" on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy 7.1.1 (Policy LU 11.1.1). 7/19/96KI.\RSG630\gUDSEC74-2.WPD)�, 4.2-12 • Accommodate the continuation of existing and development of new manufacturing,research and development,professional offices,support- ing retail commercial(including,but not limited to,sales areas for manu- facturers and photocopy'stores), restaurants, and financial institutions, and similar uses in areas designated on*the Land Use Plan Map in accor- dance with Policy 7.1.1 (Policy'LU 12.1.1). ' • Maintain and expand economic and business development programs that encourage and stimulate business opportunities within the City (Policy ED 1.2.1). • Create an Economic Development Strategy that: a) is based on the most recent growth and economic forecasts,b) reflects both the City perspec- tive and the business community perspective for economic develop- ment, and c) is updated and reviewed tri-annually(Policy ED 1.1.3). • Seek to capture "new growth" industries such as, but not limited to (Policy ED 2.5.2): "Knowledge"based industries such as research and development firms (higher technology communications and information in- dustries); Communication industry service providers and equipment manu- factures which are creating the next series of consumer and util- ity company equipment and services; t - Biotechnical industries; - Environmental technology; - "Shop for value"or"big box"stores; - Entertainment-commercial developments; - High sales tax producing businesses;and - Point of sale industries. 4.2.6 MITI GAT ION.MEASURES 4.2 A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate income displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable hous- ing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Fur- ther, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and must be decent,safe,sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. 7/19/96KI:VISC,630\EII?,SECT4-2.wPD» 4.2-13 4.2.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will result in beneficial impacts on the provision of housing and employment opportunities. Potentially significant increases in population are reduced with implementation of the policies out- lined in the General Plan,and are considered less than significant. 7/l9/96KI:\RSG630\EIMECT4-2 WPD» 4.2-14 �^ 4.3 EARTH RESOURCES 4.3.1 EXISTING ENVIIZONMENTAL SETTING This section incorporates information from the General Plan Update EIR by reference,and analyzes effects of the Amendment/Merger. This section summa- rizes the geologic and soil conditions within the Merged Project Area and the City of Huntington Beach that may have an effect on project components. Geologic Units and Geotecbnical Properties Geologic conditions within the City of Huntington Beach are characterized as lacking bedrock exposure, and as including the surface traces of the active New- port-Inglewood fault zone. Geologic units consist of Quaternary deposits (Pleis- tocenel and Holocene 2) as shown on Figure GS-1 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.6-2). The older Quaternary deposits are exposed on the mesas (Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach) and in the perimeter bluffs; these are termed older alluvium or terrace materials of the Lakewood and San Pedro Formations 3 The mesas (topographically high flat areas) are surrounded and separated by younger alluvium, which (from north to south) fills the gaps (topographically low areas)at Seal Beach,Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River. Younger alluvium is divided into river floodplain deposits (washed in from the northeast as sand, gravel and silt);tidal flat/lagoonal type deposits lie in the gaps (finer grained silts and clays). Peat and organic soils are found within the younger alluvium up to about 25 feet(averaging five to ten feet thick).4 These fine grained deposits are expansive,3 compressible,and generally have fair to poor geotechnical engineer- ing properties. Floodplain sands and silts are largely unconsolidated, and con- tain the peat layers. On the whole, these deposits are subject to liquefaction (fine sand and peat),settlement,and expansion, and have good to fair engineer- ing properties,except for peat,which has poor to very poor engineering proper- ties.3 The oldest terrace deposits consist of sand with interbeds of silty clay and clay, overlain by interlayered sand-gravel and silt-clay beds. All older alluvium is unconsolidated to semi-consolidated, contains "aquifers" in the thicker sand 1 11,000-1,700,000 years before present. 2 0-11,000 years before present. 3 City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element, 1974. 4 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs, 1974. 5 Loosely arranged or unstratified; not cemented together. 4 7/18)9&1.\r,SG630\E=ECT43 WPD» 4.3-1 units, has low-moderate expansive soil qualities,has a moderate to high erosion potential,'and is susceptible to landslide/slope instability/erosion at the edge of the bluffs and in canyons. Within the Merged Project Area, the Huntington Beach mesas in Main-Pier and Yorktown-Lake and along drainages where slopes are oversteepened are areas of unstable slopes. Near Surface Water Deptb The City is underlain by shallow near surface water,' which is of interest with regard to liquefaction potential (within depths of 0-50 feet) and as a hazard for construction (within depths of 0-30 feet). Figure GS-3 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.6-4) identifies near surface water depths for the City. Near surface water is found in the alluvial valley and mesa areas as perched water,and in shallow aquifers. In the gap areas between the mesas, the City appears to be entirely underlain by water at less than 50 feet deep. These alluvial floodplain (gap) areas have the greatest concentration of shallow water, with depths less than 30 feet and most often less than 5 feet deep. The mesa areas (because of their higher elevations) have water depths of 10 feet to greater than 30 feet within the older alluvium. In the northeastern and eastern City areas, water depths are 5-30 feet beneath the floodplain deposits. Narrow strips along the immediate coastline have water depths of less than 10 feet. The Huntington Center has a near surface water depth of 10-30 feet. A portion of Oakview has a near surface water depth of 10-30 feet; however the remainder of the area has a depth of greater than 30 feet. Talbert Beach and Yorktown-Lake have near surface water depths of greater than 30 feet. A portion of Main-Pier has a near surface water depth of greater than 30 feet. However, the areas along PCH in Main-Pier have a near surface water depth of less than 3 feet. Faults All of Southern California geology and seismicity is affected by plate tectonics.' Faults are formed at the plate boundaries and within the plates. Faults that cause the plates to slip horizontally past one another are strike slip faults;verti- cal movement is mainly along normal, reverse or thrust' faults. These fault ' City of Huntington Beach,Seismic Safety Element, 1974. 2 Sprotte and others, 1980• a A theory of global tectonics in which the earth is divided into a number of plates that interact with one another at their boundaries,causing seismic activity along these boundaries. ' A fault with a dip of 45 degrees or less with horizontal compression rather verti- cal displacement. 7/rSi96<<I.\RSG630\EIR�SECT4-3 WPD» 4.3-2 movements cause earthquakes deep in the crust, and may cause surface fault t, rupture or deformation along buried (blind) thrust faults. This seismotectonic setting has been a part of the evolution of the Los Angeles/Orange County land- scape for the past five million years or so. The most important fault to the City is the Newport—Inglewood Fault. Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone The Newport—Inglewood Fault Zone is an Active Right-lateral Fault System consisting of a series of echelon'fault segments and anticlinal folds ' that are believed to be the expression of a deep seated fault within the basement rock.' The fault zone is visible on the surface as a series of northwest trending elon- gated hills,including Signal Hill and the Dominguez Hills, extending from New- port Beach to Beverly Hills. The total fault length is about 44 miles. The surface and subsurface segments of the fault in the City, and the relationships of the fault segments to the Merged Project Area,are shown on Figure 4.3.1. The estimated maximum earthquake assigned to the fault zone is magnitude (M) 7, based on its estimated rupture length versus magnitude relationship, by Slemmons (1982), and its slip rate. The expected (average) amount of surface fault rupture on any given fault trace for the maximum probable or maximum credible earthquake ranges from zero to approximately one foot for magnitudes under M6.0, and from one foot to ten feet or more for magnitudes between M6.0 to 7.5. t Other Fault Segments,Activity Criteria, and Zoning Faults adjacent to,within,and beneath the Merged Project Area may be classified as inactive, potentially active, or active. Faults classified as inactive (no demon- strated movement in the past two million years) are of no present concern as earthquake sources,and are not discussed further. Potentially active faults show evidence of movement and may be possible earthquake sources,but no data are known to conclusively demonstrate Holocene fault movement(within the past 10,000-12,000 years). Active faults are the most concern for earthquake genera- tion and fault rupture potential,,since they have documented Holocene fault movement or are clearly associated with historic seismicity. Alquist-Priolo Earth- quake Fault (formerly Special Studies) Zone Maps delineate active faults and potentially active faults considered by the State to be"sufficiently active"and 1 Faults that are in an overlapping or staggered arrangement. 2 Convex upward folds with cores containing the stratigraphically older rocks. 3 Bryant, 1988;Barrows, 1974. 7/1"6«I_\RSG630\EMSECT4-3.WPD�> 4.3-3 U a o 4 Sd C� O 2 Z C ~ C7 C. w cmg• 3 SEAL WESTMINSTER BEACH BOLSAi U Y z a Mc{S p ! FADDENUJ 3 t7 EDLNGER ♦ f HEIL 2 •-- WARNER FOUNTAIN ,• __ __ �♦ � VALLEY '� ♦ 4 SLATER 40' CO o I Fr O' 3 TALBERT �c9 •`� (BO GA3l y Lry !� cc =Eats z s x UAR FIELD \� f Legend SE _ ` _ YORKTOWN City Boundary �r_4 ♦ •ADAMS Category A ?� Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zone.. . 1♦ INDIANAPOLIS Category B Special Studies,including subsurface investigation,; }' - for critical and Important land uses and special 5 / ATLANTA evaluation of faults for all habitable structures. � y '�P1ER; ♦ � ♦� ♦ � Category C S • HAMILION Special Studies,including subsurface investigation, for critical and Important land uses. BANNING Category D f Inactive or non-existant:subsurface investigation COSTA may be required by City '; . ': , MESA ?? Fault Uncertain a• �� ® Redevelopment Project Areas k Source:City of Huntington Beach,I974 Seismic Safety Element,Figure 3-1: modified using Leighton&'Associates.1986,Figures 2 and 3. 6/13/%=G630) Figure 4.3.1 , N Scale in NEles L S--A 0 0.5 4.34 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone "well-defined." The City Seismic Safety Element (1974) delineates fault zones of concern in the City; these are fault segments within the Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone (NIFZ) that were deemed active or potentially active at the time the City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element was adopted. The California Division of Mines and Geology(1992)has delineated Alquist-Priolo study zones along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. These zones are shown as Category A, B and C on Figure 4.31. Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier lie within the NIFZ, with Talbert-Beach located just to the north of the NIFZ. Oakview and Huntington Center are located approximately one mile or more to the north of the NIFZ. Buried(Blind) Tbrusts The aforementioned strike-slip fault types have surface expressions (fault traces) that allow zoning in order to reduce the potential effects of fault rupture on structures. The blind or buried thrusts have been the focus of more study since the 1987 Whittier Narrows magnitude (M) 5.9 earthquake and the 1994 M 6.7 Northridge earthquake. Table 4.3A lists the following: 1) active or potentially active faults that may affect the Merged Project Area, including segments of the Newport-Inglewood fault zone that are deemed capable of producing fault rupture;and 2) the blind thrusts that are discussed below as earthquake sources. Eartbquake Ground Shaking Table 4.3Aalso identifies other active and potentially active faults that may affect the Merged Project Area. The General Plan Update EIR(pages 5.6-8 and 5.6-10) includes a discussion on the frequency of occurrence and magnitude and the intensity and acceleration of earthquake ground shaking. In addition,a listing of near City significant earthquakes is also identified in the General Plan Update EIR. Liquefaction The liquefaction susceptibility for the Merged Project Area is shown on Table 4.3.B. The rating ranges from very high, high, medium to low, primarily depend- ing on two factors: 1) depth to groundwater,and 2) competency of soils. Liquefaction is the condition in relatively loose, saturated sandy sediments where support strength' is lost due to repeated vibrations'from earthquake shaking. Settlement during and after an earthquake can occur where sediments are only partially saturated. The internal resistance of a body to shear stress, typically including a frictional part and a part independent of friction called cohesion. 7/18/96<<I.\RSG630\EIR�SECT4-3.WPD» 4.3-5 Table 4.3A-Active/Potentially Active Faults That May Affect the Merged Project Maximum Earthquake Project Comments Fault Name Impacted Orientation (Acceleration (Distance to City)' By Offset (Compass) Probable Credible in"g") Faults with Mapped Surface Traces Elsinore (28) No NW-SE 6.75 7.5 0.11-0.18g Newport-Inglewood Yes NW-SE 5.75 7.0 0.55-1.0g (<2) Palos Verdes- No NW-SE 6.75 7.5 0.34-0.53g Coronado Bank (10) Raymond (30) No E-W 4.0 7.5 0.02-0.21g San Andreas (51) No NW-SE 8.0 8.3 0.11-0.14g (long period motions impt.) Sierra Madre-San No E-W 6.0 7.5 0.07-0.30g Fernando (32) Whittier-North No NW-SE 6.0 7.5 0.11-0.30g Elsinore (19) Blind or Buried Thrust Faults Elysian Park (25) No E-W,WNW 5.75 7.0+ Whittier 5.9 ESE Compton-Los An- No NW-SE 5.6?? 7.0+ Little known; gles (<10) possible asso- ciation w/ NIFZ Torrance- No NW-SE 5.6?? 7.0+ Little known; Wilmington (<10) apparent asso- ciation with PVFZ Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995. NIFZ = Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone PVFZ = Palo Verde Fault Zone ' Distance to City Center in miles is shown in parentheses. 7/1"6«Ie\RSG630\EUt\$ECT4-3.wPD» 4.3-6 Table 4.3-B-Liquefaction Susceptibility in Merged Project Area Location Liquefaction Susceptibility Huntington Center High Very High Oakview High-Medium;Low Talbert-Beach Low Yorktown-Lake Low Main-Pier Very High,High Very High, High-Me- dium, Low Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995. Subsidence The oil fields in Huntington Beach are areas with subsidence potential; the pattern and rate of subsidence (one to ten inches during 1976-1986) has been documented in an area corresponding roughly to the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field (Figure GS-8 in the General Plan Update EIR,page 5.6-15) with the maximum of approximately five feet located roughly at the corner of Golden West Street and Pacific Coast Highway (Morton and others, 1976). Water flood- ing injection has been used to stabilize this subsidence. As identified earlier, the rate of subsidence was documented in an area corre- sponding to the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field. Within the ?Merged Project Area,Huntington Center and Oakview are'not within the Oil Field limits. Subsidence of one to two inches has been documented in Talbert-Beach, three to four inches in Yorktown-Lake and zero to three inches in Main-Pier. Methane As indicated in the General Plan Update EIR, Figure GS-9 (page 5.6-16), Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier are within an area designated as a Methane Overlay District.' All oil fields are considered high risk areas for methane seepage; there- fore,all areas that he above or in the immediate vicinity of one of the identified major oil field areas or drilling areas in the City are potentially areas of con- cern. Methane may also be trapped beneath impervious surfaces (e.g., parking lots) or in enclosed underground areas (e.g., basements,subterranean garages, tunnels),where concentrations may cause an explosion or hazardous breathing conditions. ' 1 City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, Environmental Hazards Ele- ment, 1996. 7/18/96«I.-\RS"3OWMZSECT4-3.WPD» 4.3-7 i Otber Geologic and Soils Engineering Hazards Expansive Soils/Peat As identified in Figure GS-10 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.6-17), expansive soils exist throughout the City. The?Merged Project Area is within the low to moderate (6 percent-27 percent) and moderate to high (20 percent-42 percent) and variable expansive areas. Landslides As identified in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.6-14), potential landslide areas are limited to those areas near the mesa bluffs. None of the Merged Project Area is located in proximity to the mesa bluffs. Erosion Soil erosion in Huntington Beach ranges from a slight to a high hazard. With proper ground,cover and drainage controls, the erosion is minimized. The seaward facing bluffs of Huntington Beach are subject to erosion during periods of extremely high tides. If beach sand replenishment has not maintained an adequately wide beach and the beach has narrowed,due to the net loss of sand, the bluffs would be susceptible to ocean flooding and wave erosion. J The potential for soil erosion in the Merged Project Area varies because the perched (shallow) water table is high throughout the entire City. In addition, most of the soils also cause water to percolate slowly downward into deeper layers so any water entering the soil tends to remain fairly near the surface,or in local ponds. Overall, each of these other geologic and soils engineering hazards represents a potential hazard that is routinely evaluated by standard soils and foundation engineering and testing required by City of Huntington Beach grading and building codes. These hazards are to be considered on a site specific basis as projects within the various areas of the City are initiated. 4.3.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The General Plan Update EIR(page 5.6-19) identified the following threshold of significance to determine the potential impacts to earth resources that will be used in this EIR as well. This threshold limit has been exceeded when: • Proposed land uses and development occur within areas directly associ- ated with one or more major hazards identified in the General Plan. These major hazards are identified above,are summarized from the General Plan Update EIR,and are herein incorporated by reference. 7/18/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-3.WPDp 4.3-8 4.3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS l Direct Impacts Direct impacts are discussed for geotechnical properties of geologic units, near surface water depth/liquefaction, faults/groundshaking,subsidence and methane gas- Geotecbnical, Properties of Geologic Units Expansive clays,weak and compressible peat and organic soils, and minor slope instability are the main geotechnical issues relating to natural deposits within the City. landslides (including mudslides) in natural alluvial deposits occur on slopes; these areas are subject to lateral and vertical ground displacement with, or without, future development or disturbance. Such displacements may be a few inches to several feet; any structure overlying or in the path of such a dis- placement would be severely damaged or destroyed,with resultant loss of prop- erty or of personal injury. Future construction of cut and fill slope, and place- ment of structures, must be particularly careful of potential problems in these areas. Within the Merged Project.Area, this is a prime hazard of concern only along the edges of the Huntington Beach mesas in the Main-Pier and Yorktown- Lake and along drainages where slopes are oversteepened. Due to the distance of the Merged Project Area from the Bolsa Chica and Hun- tington Beach mesas and lack of proximity to drainages where slopes are oversteepened, the Merged Project Area is identified as not being in an area of concern. Only a small part of the northern tip of Main-Pier is in an area of high slope instability. However, building codes, grading codes, and engineering investigation report requirements are in place as safeguards to prevent unsafe design and construction practices related to slope stability, and unsatisfactory foundation conditions. Near Surface Water Depth/Liquefaction Within the Merged Project Area, only Huntington Center and Main-Pier are within potential liquefaction zones. Near surface water can be a liquefaction and a construction hazard. Excavations from the surface (open cuts and pits) or underground (tunnels, vertical large diameter borings) can experience inflows of near surface water that may be perched, and local or widespread in extent. The presence of this water can affect excavation stability and, therefore, short-term and long-term safety for workers,and post-construction stability of structures associated with the excava- tion areas. Liquefaction can lead to severe settlement, lateral dislocation, uplift(heaving) of buried structures and possible overturning of buildings. Although liquefaction is one of the more widespread hazards affecting the City and the Merged Project 7/I8/96«I:\RSG630\EIR`SECT4-3•'WPDO 4.3-9 r Area,methods exist for safely designing and constructing facilities in liquefaction prone areas. Existing building codes, engineering investigation report requirements, and generally accepted building and foundation engineering criteria for building in liquefaction areas are in place to allow proper design and construction practices. Although Huntington Center and Main-Pier are Iocated in areas of high liquefac- tion susceptibility, implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the General Plan Update EIR and incorporated in the Environmental Hazardous Element of the General Plan will reduce the effects of near surface wa- ter/liquefaction to a level below significance. Fault Rupture/Ground Shaking The General Plan Update EIR reports that the Newport-Inglewood fault zone may have the capability to break the ground surface during a major earthquake associated with the zone. Other faults not exposed at the surface or not yet propagated through the shallowest earth materials are at a lower risk for fault rupture; however, localized uplift may still occur. The fault segment with ground rupture potential may be expected to generate movements at the surface ranging from a few inches to about six feet, most of which should be horizontal offset; however, the vertical component may be several feet. More than several inches of differential lateral or horizontal movement could cause severe, some- times irreparable, damage to most structures (e.g.,buildings,pipelines,bridges, cables). The likely areas for fault rupture lie within about one-eighth mile of the mapped fault segments; the most likely are within the more restricted Alquist- Priolo zones. Although the Newport-Inglewood fault underlies the City of Hun- tington Beach,the General Plan Update EIR reports that the fault rupture zones recommended by Leighton & Associates (1986) should be used as the best available basis for evaluating potential rupture hazard. Yorktown-Lake is suscep- tible to ground rupture impacts since a Fault Hazard Zone passes,through the project boundaries. The remainder of the Merged Project Area is not within Fault Hazard Zones, but all of the Merged Project Area will be susceptible to potential ground shaking effects associated with an earthquake. Engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation report require- ments are in place to mandate special site specific studies as a means of mitigat- ing for construction (usually avoidance). Implementation of policies incorpo- rated into the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan policies will reduce effects of fault rupture/ground shaking to a level below significance. Subsidence Subsidence can cause settlement of engineered structures built above oil fields, potentially leading to distress to foundations and other structural elements.Also, in these oil field areas the deeper materials may be conduits for methane gas (or other gas) to seep into shallow deposits leading to accumulation of layers or pockets within the construction zone, and potentially underground structures (e.g., transit stations,•basements, parking garages). The greatest concern for 7/18/96<<I:\RSG630N.Ent'SECT43.WPDN 4.3-10 subsidence is in the area of active oil fields. Although Yorktown-Lake and Main- Pier contain oil fields, the State Division of Oil, Gras, & Geothermal Resources requirements,municipal and building codes,grading standards,and engineering investigation report requirements are in place to mitigate against unsafe condi- tions and promote sound construction practices. In addition, policies in the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan will reduce effects of subsi- dence to a level below significance. Methane Gas Earth materials may become conduits for methane gas (or other gas) seeping upward from these deep, petroleum rich formations or from shallow, organic rich alluvial deposits. Methane may accumulate in layers or pockets within the construction zone. Due to the location of Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier within a Methane Overlay district, the likelihood of methane gas exposure during con- struction is prominent. The General Plan Update EIR reports that City, State, and federal regulations are in place to provide for,safety in the presence of methane and gas related gases during construction. Current City standards, criteria, codes and policies provide a framework within which such assessments can take place; however, they are not specified in the General Plan. These policies provide for avoidance of the defined hazard areas. In addition, policies in the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan will reduce effects of methane gas exposure to a level below significance. 4.3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The cumulative study area for this issue is the entire City and all foreseeable projects contemplated by the City's recently adopted General Plan. As the Merged Project Area is developed, the cumulative increase in the number of persons exposed to geologic hazards increases. However, the increase in popu- lation within the Merged Project Area and within the City as a whole does not necessarily add people to a situation with any more risk than any other area in Southern California. The Amendment/Merger will not directly result in increased development in the Merged Project Area (as addressed in the General Plan.) Future development in Main-Pier and Yorktown-Lake is the most sensitive in terms of geologic impacts, and thus contributes to cumulative impacts. Although there is geologic hazards exposure to the existing population and any future development occurring in the Merged Project Area (as addressed in the General Plan),and the incorpora- tion implementation of the policies in the General Plan will mitigate the cumula- tive impacts resulting from geologic hazards to a level below significance. With implementation of the policies contained in the Hazards Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from geologic hazards will be substantially reduced. The following General Plan policies are relevant to the project. 7/1"6«I:UtSG630�EEWECT4-3.WPDp 4.3-11 I 4.3.5 GFN-RAL PLAN POLICIES With implementation of the policies contained in the Hazards Element and the Land Use Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from geologic hazards will be substantially reduced. The following General Plan policies are,relevant to the project: • Maintain a complete database of the location and distribution of seismic and geologic hazards related to ground shaking, liquefaction, subsi- dence, soil stability, slope stability and water table levels (Policy EH • Require seismic/geologic assessment prior to construction in Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Policy EH 1.1.3). • Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new struc- tures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction, as stated in the Uni- form Building Code (UBC) (Policy EH 1.2.1). • During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific measures to be taken by developers, builders or property owners in flood prone areas to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and the risks upon human safety(Policy EH 41.1). • Identify tsunami and seiche susceptible areas, and require that specific M measures be taken by the developer,builder or property owner, during major redevelopment or initial construction, to prevent or reduce dam- age from these hazards and the risks upon human safety (Policy EH 5.1.1). • Support land use patterns,zoning ordinances,and locational criteria that prohibit development in hazard areas, or which significantly reduce risk from seismic hazards (Policy EH 1.1.2). • Evaluate the levels of risk based on the nature of the hazards and assess acceptable risk based on the human,property,and social structure dam- age compared to the cost of corrective measures to mitigate or prevent damage (Policy F.H 1.1.4). • Establish specific priorities for improvement of existing structures based on hazard to life, type of occupancy, method of construction, physical condition,and location (Policy EH 1.2.2). • Require that earthquake survival and efficient post disaster functioning be a primary concern in the siting, design,construction,operations,and retrofitting standards for critical, essential,and high occupancy facilities, including public safety facilities. Define critical essential,high occupancy facilities,and public safety facilities elsewhere in the Draft General Plan (Policy EH 1.3.4). 7/1&964cI:\RSSG630\EMSECT4-3•WM>> 4.3-12 Encourage property owners to take adequate steps to protect their prop- ` erry against economic risks of seismic and geologic hazards (Policy EH 1.3.5). • Minimize bluff and mesa edge erosion (Policy EH2.1.1). • Maintain and revise as necessary standards of construction within identi- fied Methane Zones (PolicyEH3.2.1). • Establish,enforce,and periodically update testing requirements for sites proposed for new construction within the identified Methane Overlay District(Policy EH3.2.2). • Provide mitigation measures and other assistance intended to reduce the potential for the buildup of methane with existing buildings (residences and businesses) (Policy EH3.2.3). • Remain current on new technologies, policies and procedures to further protect against a major methane-related catastrophe (Policy EH3.2.4). • Conduct periodic training of Fire Department and other appropriate emergency personnel on procedures in the Methane Hazards Mitigation Plan (Policy EH 3.3.3) • Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the School Districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project ap- proval by the permitting City authority. Appropriate mitigation may include, but not be limited to, use of existing facilities or surplus sites, expansion of capacity at existing sites, construction of new facilities, payment of fees,and reduction of densities (Policy ZU2.1.7). General Plan Implementation Programs • Implement the fault classification system suggested by Leighton&Associ- ates (April 17, 1986) with regard to faults in the City susceptible to fault rupture, and establish a study requirement based on risk and structure importance (Program I-FH3,B). • Use the EHE and the data from items a) and b) above to prepare and submit a formal update of the seismic safety components of the Safety Element requirement(Program I-EHI,C). • That proposed critical,essential,and high occupancy facilities be subject to seismic review,including detailed site investigations for faulting,lique- faction, ground motion characteristics, and slope stability, and applica- 7/18/' l.\RSG630�1SEC'r4-3.WPD» 4.3-13 I tion of the most current professional standards for seismic design (Pro- k gram I-EH4). Conduct,prepare,and/or update the following as funding permits: • A Methane Hazards Guidance manual, which will be available to emer- gency personnel, developers and consultants in order to ensure the minimum proper guidance for all occurrences. Topics shall include,but not necessarily be limited to, methane overlay districts, standards of construction, definition of additional hazards areas, and hazard mitiga- tion. This manual shall be available at the permit stage prior to initial feasibility and design studies in order to enhance (streamline) the devel- opment review and environmental review processes (Program I-EFI1,A). • Request that the Orange County Surveyor update its Subsidence Book report through 1993 for the Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach Pump station, and Huntington Beach. The City shall perform an evalua- tion of the data to assess possible subsidence at the oil field and drilling areas underlying the City. Based on the results of this evaluation, a miti- gation program for reducing the potential hazards shall be prepared for use by the City(Program I-EHZ,A). 4.3.6 MITIGAT 70N MEASURES Mitigation measures are not required. ;? 4.3.7 LEVEL OFLUPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above,the effects of geologic hazards within the Merged Project Area are reduced to the greatest extent feasible and impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. 7/18/96KI:\RSG630\En;VSECT4-3 VM>> 4.3-14 4.4 WATER QUALITY This section provides an overview of the water resources identified within the City of Huntington Beach in general, and as conditions apply to the Merged Project Area. This section discusses potential impacts to those resources result- ing from the Amendment/Merger. The information presented here is taken primarily from the General Plan Update EIR and from reference documents provided by LSA. 4.4.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Water resources relevant to the Merged Project Area include flood control chan- nels, wetlands and the Pacific Ocean. These water resources serve a variety of functions, including navigation,recreation, commercial and sport fishing,shell- fish harvesting, and habitat for fish and wildlife. There are no water resources within the Merged Project Area that are subject to any change resulting from the Amendment/Merger, with the exception of flood control channels. The Pacific Ocean and the Newland Street wetlands adjacent to Main-Pier will not be af- fected. The greatest threat of impact to water resources and of primary concern to water quality within the City is pollution from urban areas. These substances enter water bodies primarily through storm drains as a result of runoff and illegal dumping. Because the Merged Project Area is nearly built out,and is of the same urban character as the balance of the City, it already contributes to the urban runoff pollution in the City of Huntington Beach, as reported in the General Plan Update EIR. Criteria for the protection of water quality of the various waters within the City are established by the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and the California Ocean Plan, both of which are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). These plans provide both qualitative and quantitative objectives and standards for protection of water quality throughout the region. In addition to these water quality plans, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)program,implemented pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act,estab- lishes strict limitations on point discharges of pollutants into the nations'waters. The NPDES permit focuses on the elimination of illegal municipal and industrial stormwater discharges into the County's stormwater drainage system and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The SWRCB adopted a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Gen- eral Permit) pursuant to NPDES requirements. This permit applies to all con- struction activities resulting in a land disturbance of five acres or more. The General Permit does not apply to those areas of land disturbance of less than five acres. The general permit establishes criteria for protection of receiving waters during project construction. The General Permit requires all owners of land where construction activity r' occurs (dischargers)to: I 7/19/96q.-\RSG630EMEC r4-4 VM) 4.4-1 i I I I 1. Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and otherwaters of the nation(as identified on U.S.Army Corps of Engi- neers maps), 2. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),and 3. Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures (con- trol practices). The General Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater associated with construction activity from construction sites. However,it prohibits the discharge of materials other than stormwater. Within the Merged Project Area,NPDES permits are administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB relies on water quality testing information from a number of County agencies that monitor water and impacts of various water quality conditions. These permits and testing results are required and are reviewed for all relevant projects in the Merged Project Area. 4.4.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Implementation of the Amendment/Merger would result in a significant impact to water quality if development results in either or both of the following: • Non-conformance with NPDES permitting regulations. • Production of significant sedimentation and siltation pollutant discharge from construction projects. • Substantially degrade water quality. 4.4.3 PROJECT IMPACTS There are L a number of water quality issues that are concerns within the City of Huntington Beach. The most significant of these concerns affects the coastal waters, bays, estuaries and wetlands, as well as the man-made lake features located in the City's Central Park. The Merged Project Area is not expected to have Iand uses or activities that will contribute to the decline in water quality of these resources. There are no plans to change land uses on the beach area, which is the primary resource in the Merged Project Area. Because the Merged Project Area is primarily built out and there is no new devel- opment proposed with the Amendment/Merger,the Amendment/Merger is not expected to significantly impact water quality. Future redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will be subject to project specific water quality mitigation, including compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan prepared by the County of Orange for compliance with municipal stormwater NPDES require- 7/1"6(IARSG630VMNSECT4-4.VM) 4.4-2 ments. In addition, compliance with General Plan policies enumerated in Sec- tion 4.4.5, below, will ensure that there will be no significant impact on the environment. General Plan policies and current City practices ensure compli- ance with NPDES permitting regulations. Sedimentation and siltation pollution discharge from construction impacts are controlled through the NPDES permit- ting process. In conclusion, there are no significant impacts to water quality from the Amendment/Merger. 4.4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Because of the citywide nature of these resources and the urban nature of the City and the Merged Project Area,the cumulative study area is considered to be the City itself. As stated above, the Merged Project Area is primarily built out with urban uses. The relatively small amount of infill projected for the Merged Project Area (see Section 4.1, Land Use) and required compliance with NPDES and other existing mitigation (see Section 4.4.5, below) reduces impacts to a level that is less than significant. No cumulative impacts to water resources within the City of Huntington Beach or surrounding areas are expected to occur as a result of the Amendment/Merger. Several policies included in the General Plan will assist in minimizing the poten- tial impact on water resources. 4.4.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan includes several policies contained in the Environmental Resources/Conservation Element and Utilities Element of the General Plan to reduce water quality impacts that are relevant to the Amendment/Merger. The applicable policies are as follows: • Improve infrastructure that would prevent sewage system failures that may result in the discharge of untreated sewage and, consequently, in the closure of beaches and Huntington Harbour(Policy F.RC 2.1.24). • Require that permits for mineral/oil reclamation projects specify compli- ance with State, federal and local standards and attainment programs with respect to air quality,protection of rare,threatened or endangered species, conservation of water quality, watersheds and basins, and ero- sion protection (Policy ERC3.2.2). • Continually monitor the implementation and enforcement of water quality regulations by appropriate County, State and federal agencies to prevent additional pollution of the City's aquatic and intertidal environ- ments (Policy ERC5.1.1). • Continue to evaluate and mitigate the effects of domestic and industrial wastes on living marine resources, through the conduct of objective biological studies performed by appropriate regulatory agencies and t implementation of recommended mitigation measures by property own- 7/1"6(i:JtSG63ME NSECT4-4 VM) 4.4-3 ers or facility operators, to ensure the protection and viability of these , } biological communities (Policy BRC5.1.2). • Continue to work with the Orange County Environmental Management Agency on the draft countywide ordinance,which will require (Policy U 2.3.2): a. All applicable industries and businesses to obtain sewer discharge permits; b. Elimination of illegal and illicit stormwater discharges; C. A reduction of point source pollutants; d. The use of Best Management Practices by businesses in the City; and e. The implementation of all NPDES and SCAQMD regulations. Until such ordinance is adopted, the City will ensure appropriate en- forcement procedures are taken against pollution as set forth in the draft countywide ordinance. • Require efforts which reduce urban storm water, including the (Policy ERC2.1.15): a. Use of the best available runoff control management techniques in new development,including the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Standards (NPDES); b. Adoption of guidelines to reduce runoff from construction sites; these implementation guidelines will be developed with the guidance and approval of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board;' C. Establishment of runoff controls for soils removed in restoration and/or remediation of oil sites;and d. Development of plans to modify flood control channels that empty into the Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach Wetlands and beach areas; these modifications should enhance the upstream ability to remove harmful constituents from runoff before enter- ing the wetlands,while not altering their flood control ability. IMPLementation Programs Continue to expand the following programs (Program I-UI,B): • The NPDES,as appropriate,which includes: 7l1"6(1:\RSG63U\EIMECT44 WPD) 4.4-4 Adopting an ordinance patterned after the countywide ordinance requiring industries and businesses, and construction activities larger than five acres to;obtain regulatory permits for pollution runoff control; Adopting a drainage area management plan for the City to con- trol pollution runoff;and Performing a reconnaissance survey of the discharges to elimi- nate illegal and illicit surface water and groundwater discharges; • Public education promoting water conservation; • Water use audits for all City owned buildings. The audit program shall identify levels of existing water use and potential conservation measures; • The Green Acres,and other reclaimed water programs;and • Local,State,and federal requirements mandated by SCAQMD. Consider assessing fees,where appropriate,to offset implementation costs. 4.4.6 MITIGATION MEASURES None required. 4.4.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Implementation of applicable General Plan policies will minimize Amendment/ Merger impacts on water quality, resulting in impacts that are less than signifi- cant. 7/19/96q.\RSG630\M5ECT44 WM) 4.4-5 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.5.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Meteorology/Climate The Merged Project Area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, which is within the South Coast Air Basin. The local climate is dominated by the strength and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean near Hawaii. This high pressure center results in cool summers, mild winters, and infrequent rainfall. It also drives the cool, daytime breezes, maintaining comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. These same atmospheric processes that create a desirable living climate restrict the dispersion of air pollution. Coastal areas (such as Huntington Beach), however, typically experience very little unhealthy air quality often found in other parts of the air basin. Based on data obtained through the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis- trict (SCAQMD) (1980), temperatures in the coastal portions of Orange County average 61°F, with average summer temperatures of approximately 68 to 71°F and average winter temperatures of approximately 51 to 53°F. Rainfall averages around 12 inches per year in the coastal areas. In contrast to a very steady pat- tern of temperature,rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable,with most rain falling from November through April. On-shore winds across the south coastal region are from a westerly and south- westerly direction during the day; easterly or northeasterly breezes predominate j at night. Wind speed tends to be somewhat greater during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter season. Periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours between the periods of dominant air flow. These periods of stagnation are one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. Surface high pressure systems over the Great Basin, combined with other meteorological conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds during the winter and fall months. These winds normally last for a few days before predom- inant meteorological conditions are reestablished. Within the South Coast Air Basin, two types of inversions occur. Radiational inversions are produced by offshore descending air flows and nighttime radiational cooling. For the most part, these inversions are dry because of the continental origin of the air masses involved. However,with high surface hu- midity, there can be patchy late night and early morning fog or widespread dense fog lasting several days. Marine/subsidence inversions serve to cap the surface marine layer and serve as a barrier to vertical mixing because air that pushes through the inversion base is heavier than the air in the inversion and returns to equilibrium by sinking below the base. The combination of winds and inversions, coupled with their seasonality, lead to the degraded air quality in summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the air basin. 7/19i96KI.WG6307.MI SECT4-5 VM>> 4.5-1 Regulatory Background Federal Regulations/Standards The passage of the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967, subsequently known as the Clean Air Act (or CAA), provided the first national program to control pollution from automobiles and stationary sources. National Ambient Air Quality Stan- dards (NAAQS) were subsequently established under the Clean Air Act Amend- ment(CAAA)of 1971. These air quality standards are classified as either primary, which seek to protect human health, or secondary,which are designed to pro- tect not only human health but property, the appearance of the air, and re- sources such as crops,wildlife,and vegetation. States could adopt the federal standards as promulgated,but retained the option to adopt more stringent standards and/or include other pollutants. California began setting air quality standards in 1969 with the passage of the Mulford- Carrell Act,before NAAQS were established; California standards are more strin- gent than federal standards. The State and federal standards are listed in Table 4.5 A. Note that,in addition to its more stringent ambient air quality standards, California uses more stringent regulations than the federal government for vehicle emissions, under a program administered by the CARB. In addition to the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS,there are California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and visibility reducing particles. These standards are shown in Table 4.5A. t These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe,with an adequate margin of safety,to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those "sensitive receptors"most susceptible to respiratory distress,such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. A description of each pollutant type and its effects is included in Table 4.5.B. Congress amended the CAA in 1977 to require the identification of areas that did not meet the NAAQS. A"nonattainment"plan showing how the standards would be met by 1982 was required for each area failing to meet the standard. Because some areas in California could not attain the standards by 1982, the State was granted an extension to 1987. In November, 1990, Congress again enacted a series of amendments to the CAA intended to intensify air pollution control efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 amendments was to overhaul the planning provisions for those areas that did not meet NAAQS. Not satisfied with the progress of the local actions, public interest groups suc- cessfully challenged EPA's decision not to disapprove respective 1982 State plans, and sought orders requiring EPA to promulgate Federal Implementation Plans(FIPs). Pursuant to the amendments of 1990,EPA argued that it no longer had an obligation to issue FIPs because Congress had established comprehensive new State planning requirements and attainment deadlines. Subsequently,the U.S.District Court for the Central District of California agreed with the EPA,and effectively vacated the orders for both the South Coast and Ventura FIPs. How- ever,the District Court for the Eastern District concluded that the FIP obligation t remained,as did the U.S. Court of Appeals. 7/19/'96uI:\RSG630\EMECT4-5 WM>> 4.5-2 I Table 4.5.A-Ambient Air Quality Standards California Standards) Federal Standards2. Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration Method4 Primary3.5 Secondary3'6 Method4'7 0.09 pm (180 Ultraviolet Pho- 0.12 pm (235 Same as Primary Ethylene Chemilumines- Ozone 1 Hour µg/m�) tometry pg/m�) std. cence 8 Hour 94 ppm (10 mg/- Non-dis ersive m� ppm (10 mg/- Carbon Mon- ) InfraredpSppectros- ) Same as Primary Non-dispersive Infrared oxide 2gppm (23 mg/- copy(NDIR) 35 ppm (40 mg/m 1 flour 3) Stds. Spectroscopy(NDIR) Annual Average --- Gas Phase 0.05334 ppm (100 Nitrogen Di- Chemiluminescen ug/m ) Same as Primary Gas Phase Chemilumi- oxide 1 Hour 0.2 ppm (470 Ce --- Std. nescence m Annual Average --- 0.9, ppm (80 mg/- Sulfur Diox- Ultraviolet Fluo- m ide 24 Hour O V)pms (131 rescence 0.14 ppm (365 -_" Pararosandine m Annual Geomet- 30 pg/m3 Size Selective Inlet ric Mean High Volume --- Suspended """ -"" Sampler and Particulate 24 Hour 50 ug/m3 s svimetric Anal- 150 Mg/m3 Matter(PM10) y Same as Primary Inertial Separation and Annual Arithme- 3 Stds. Gravimetrlc Analysis tic Mean -"" --- 50 pg/m Sulfates 24 Hour 25 ug/m3 Turbidimetric Bar- ium Sulfate 30 Day Average 1.5 Mg/m3 Atomic Absorp- Lead tion 3 Same as Primary Atomic Absorption Calendar Quarter --- 1.5 µg/m Std. ty Re- In sufficient a unt to reduce the pre- Visiblli vailing visibili pto less than 10 mires ucing Re- 1 Observation _-_ cles when the relative humidity Is less than 70 percent Source: California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data for 1994. 7/19/96 RRSG630\EM\SECT4-5.WPD» 4.5-3 California Standards) Federal Standards Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method4,7 Note: Table prepared in accordance with CARB Fact Sheet 38 (revised 7/88). 1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 hour and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 suspended particulate matter are values that are not to be exceeded. 2 National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means,are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year withmaximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25° C and a reference concentration of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to parts per million by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. 4 Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used. 5 National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Each state must attain the primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a "reasonable time"after the implementation plan is approved by the EPA. 7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method"and must be approved by the EPA. 8 At locations where the State standards for ozone and/or suspended particulate matter are violated. National standards apply elsewhere. 9 Prevailing visibility is defined as the greatest visibility attained or surpassed around at least half of the horizon circle, but not necessarily in continuous sectors. 7/1"6«L•NRSG630\EIRISECT4.5.WPD» 4.5-4 Table 4.5.13-Air Pollutant Descriptions and Effects Pollutant Definition Source Associated Damage Suspended Particu. Solid and liquid particulates of Combustion sources, cars, industry Aggravates chronic lung disease, lates soot,dust,aerosols,and fumes process losses,fugitive dust,field heart and lung disease symptoms ranging from 0.01 to 100 microns and slash burning, and natural (especially PMlo; the portion less and averaging about 2 microns in sources,such as ocean spray and than 10 microns or 0.0004 inches size (1 micron = 1/2,540 inch) wind-raised dust in diameter); causes material dam- age and visibility reduction Sulfur Dioxide A colorless,pungent, irritating Oil and coal combustion and indus- Aggravates asthma, heart, and lung (S02) gas try process losses disease in the elderly; irritates lungs, corrosive to metals and mar- ble; causes plant damage Carbon Monoxide A colorless, odorless gas that is Incomplete combustion sources, Interfere with the blood's ability to (CO) highly toxic mostly cars carry oxygen, causing heart diffi- culties in those with chronic dis- eases; reduces lung capacity; im- pairs mental abilities Photochemical Oxi- Mostly consists of ozone,which is Photochemical processes in the Irritates eyes, causes damage to dants (ozone) a toxic gas atmosphere by reaction between lung tissue, and impairs lung func- oxides of nitrogen and hydrocar- tions;causes material and plant bons in the presence of sunlight damage Nitrogen Dioxide A reddish-brown gas,toxic in Conversion of nitric oxide (from Increases chronic bronchitis and (NO2) high concentrations autos and combustion sources) and irritates lungs Industrial sources Nonmethane Hy- A large family of compounds con- Autos, evaporative fuel and solvent Participates in oxidant formation drocarbons sisting of hydrogen and carbon losses, and industry and combus- and causes plant damage (methane tion processes is produced naturally by decay or organic matter and is not signifi- cant in oxidant formation) Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)Air Quality Handbook. Note: In this document, the terms nonmethane hydrocarbons (HC),volatile organic compounds (VOCs), reactive organic com- pounds (ROC),and reactive organic gases (ROG) are used synonymously. 7/19i96«I:\IISG630\BIR1$rc74-5.WPD» 4.5-5 Neither the proposed nor the final FIN relieve the State and local agencies of their continuing responsibilities to comply with the requirements of the 1990 CAAA, and these agencies were'still required to submit their own ozone attain- ment plans in the form of State Implementation Plans (or SIPs) by November, 1994. State Regulations/Standards The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was most recently revised in 1994. This revision of the AQMP is designed to satisfy the planning requirements of both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Requirements to meet the federal CAA required the inclusion of the following demonstrations or plans: • An ozone attainment demonstration, • A post-1996 rate of progress demonstration, and • A PMio State Implementation Plan that incorporates best available con- trol measures for fugitive sources. The 1994 revision is also designed to comply with State requirements. Accord- ing to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), districts must design their air quality attainment plan to achieve a reduction in basinwide emissions of five percent or more per year (or 15 percent or more in a three year period) for each nonattainment pollutant(i.e., a criteria pollutant that is out of compliance with federal or State standards), or its precursors (i.e., those pollutants that undergo reaction to become criteria pollutants). For emission reduction accounting purposes, the CARB has established a seven year initial reporting period from 1988 to 1994,with reporting intervals every three years thereafter. Therefore, the 1994 AQMP must seek to achieve a 35 percent reduction for the initial pe- riod and a 15 percent reduction for every subsequent interval. The CCAA also requires that the 1994 AQMP control measures reduce overall population exposure to criteria pollutants,with a 40 percent reduction due by the end of 1997 and a 50 percent reduction in 2000. This provision is applicable to ozone, CO,and NOZ in the Basin. Baseline Air Quality Existing levels of air quality near the Merged Project Area are best characterized from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at its Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa monitoring stations. Although there are no known data resources currently available through which differences can be demon- strated, those portions of the Merged Project Area located in proximity to the ocean would be expected to have better air quality than reported. Table 4.5.0 summarizes the SCAQMD data obtained at these two stations from 1990 through 1994. 7l19/964 WG630\EWSECT4-5.WM* 4.5-6 Table 4.5.0-Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa Air Monitoring Stationsl (Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During Such Violations), Pollutant/Standard 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Ozone 29 37 30 22 24 1 hour > 0.09 ppm 12 23 21 10 3 Ozone 7 10 9 4 5 l hour > 0.12 ppm 3 5 3 1 0 Ozone 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.21 Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm) 0.15 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 Carbon Monoxide NM2 NM NM NM 0 8 hour > 9.5 ppm 4 0 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 0 1 hour > 35 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 0 8 hour.:? 9.1 ppm 5 0 1 0 0 Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 0 1 hour > 20 ppm 0 0 0 0 0 Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 12 Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm) 13 10 13 10 10 Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 8.6 Max. 8 hour conc. (ppm) 10.7 8.1 9.1 7.3 7.9 Nitrogen Dioxide NM NM NM NM NM 1 hour> 0.25 ppm 0 0 0 0 03 The upper value represents the Los Alamitos station and the lower value represents the Costa Mesa station. (Note that in 1994 the Los Alamitos and Anaheim Stations were combined into the Central Orange County Station.) 2 NM-Not monitored. 3 Does not include the entire 12 months and may not be representative. + 7/'19/964<I:\RSG630NEIRSECr4-5 WPD» 4.5-7 Pollutant/Standard 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 Nitrogen Dioxide NM NM NM NM 0.19 Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm) 0.22 0.16 0.23 0.14 0.161 Total Suspended Particulates 103.4 79.6 63.8 56.8 63.5 Annual geometric mean NM NM NM NM NM Total Suspended Particulates 834 176 122 168 131 Max.24 hour conc. ()ug/ml) NM NM NM NM NM Particulate Sulfate 0 0 0 0 0 24 hour 25 gg/ml NM NM NM NM NM Particulate Sulfate 16.8 16.9 16.0 14.7 14.5 Max.24 hour conc. (ug/m) NM NM NM NM NM Particulate Lead NM NM NM 0 0 1 Month > 1.5 gg/ml NM NM NM NM NM Particulate Lead NM NM NM 0.07 0.06 Max.Monthly(Fcg/ml) NM NM NM NM NM Inhalable Particulates (PM10) NM NM NM NM 11161 (exceedances/#samples) 24 hour > 50 ug/ml NM NM NM NM NM Inhalable Particulates (PM10) NM NM NM NM 0161 (exceedances/#samples) 24 hour > 150 ug/ml NM NM NM NM NM Inhalable Particulates (PM10) NM NM NM NM 106 Max.24 hour conc. (ug/m ) NM NM NM NM NM Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Data Monitor- ing Summary Cards, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994. The upper value represents the Los Alamitos station and the lower value represents the Costa Mesa station. (Note that in 1994 the Los Alamitos and Anaheim Stations were combined into the Central Orange County Station.) 2 NM-Not monitored. 3 Does not include the entire 12 months and may not be representative. 7/l9/96«I:\RSG630\E=ECT4-5 VMv 4.5-8 As shown in Table 4.5.C,most pollutant species showed a marked reduction in 1993• Ozone levels continue to exceed both the State and federal air quality standards during portions of the year. Note that the two stations show consider- able differences for ozone with the more coastal Costa Mesa station exhibiting far fewer exceedances of both the State and federal standards. Both carbon monox- ide and nitrogen dioxide exhibit this trend, with the coastal location showing reduced concentrations. The standard for nitrogen dioxide has not been ex- ceeded over the last five years. The eight hour State standard for carbon mon- oxide was violated in both 1990 and 1992; the federal standards was violated only in 1990. The State PMio particulate standard was violated approximately 18 percent of the time in 1994, the only year monitored at the Central Orange County Station, but no violations of the federal standard were reported. Al- though no monitoring for PMio was conducted between 1990 and 1993, it is reasonable to believe that the State standard was exceeded during this time. 4.5.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE In accordance with the methodology presented in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Handbook) (1993), both quantitative and qualitative stan- dards are used to determine the significance of a project's air quality impacts. These impacts are considered significant if they: • Result in emissions that exceed daily emission criteria established by the SCAQMD and contained in the SCAQMD Handbook and presented be- low. Construction Pollutant Daily Criteria Quarterly Criteria CO 550 lbs/day 24.75 ton/gtr NO, 100 lbs/day 2.5 tons/qtr ROG 75 lbs/day 2.5 tons/qtr SOx 150 lbs/day 6.75 tons/qtr PMIO 150 lbs/day 6.75 tons/qtr Operations Pollutant Daily Criteria CO 550 lbs/day NO. 55 lbs/day ROG 55 lbs/day SO, 150 lbs/dap PMIo 150 lbs/dap 7n9A6<<I:\RsG630\MUEcr4-5 VM>> 4.5-9 • Result in emissions that exceed State or federal air quality standards (including CO hotspots), • Violate SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) or Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust),or • Emission levels not in conformance with the Air Quality Management Plan or other regional or local attainment plans. 4.5.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Air quality impacts can be divided into both short term and long term. Short- term impacts are usually associated with construction and grading activities. Long-term impacts are typically associated with build out conditions. Although most long-term emissions are due to increased automotive use, nominal emis- sions are also associated with on-site combustion involved in both space and water heating, and the off-site generation of electrical power used on site. Reac- tive organic emissions are also associated with the storage and dispensing of fuel. Construction Exhaust Emissions Heavy equipment and materials deliveries would produce combustion pollut- ants and fugitive dust at construction locations slated for redevelopment. ROG emissions are also generated from the construction and refurbishment of asphalt roads and from the application of paints and architectural coatings. These are highlyvariable and dependant on the type of asphalt/coating used,its thickness, and method of application. Because the level of constriction to be performed at any one time is unknown, the potential for construction impacts is based on a qualitative analysis. However, to aid the regulatory agencies in the determina- tion of the potential for significant impacts, quantitative values are provided for the construction of various types of land uses. It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment Plans or the City's General Plan. The following information on constriction emissions is provided to address potential construction emissions of the Merged Plan that are addressed in this EIR. These potential impacts have been previ- ously addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. Because the Merged Project Area is to have a small amount of square footage and number of homes constructed as part of the Amendmeni/Merger, and it is un- known what level of construction could occur at any one time,this analysis fo- cuses on the various emissions associated with the construction of the various types of land uses. The quantities of emissions released can be estimated from screening data presented by the SCAQMD in the Handbook and reproduced here as Table 4.5.D. The daily emissions rate is then calculated as follows: 7/i"6«I:\RSG630�EIMECr4-5 WPD» 4.5-10 �MwJ Table 4.5.1)-Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction Emissions1 Emission Factors Unit of (Lbs/Construction Period) Land Use Measure CO NO, ROG PM,,, Residential Single Family Housing 1,000 sq.ft GFA2 75.62 347.74 23.66 24.69 Apartments 1,000 sq.ft GFA 70.22 322.9 21.97 22.93 Condominiums 1,000 sq..ft GFA 68.06 312.97 '21.3 22.22 Mobile Homes 1,000 sq. ft GFA 68.06 312.97 21.3 22.22 Education Schools 1,000 sq.ft GFA 150.16 690.52 46.99 49.03 Commercial Business Park 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85 Day Care Center 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Discount Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Fast Food 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Government Office Complex 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85 Hardware Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 132.87 611.04 41.58 43.39 Medical Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85 Motel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 132.87 611.04 41.58 43.39 Movie Theater 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85 Resort Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 132.87 611.04 41.58 43.39 Restaurant 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Shopping Center 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Supermarket 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16 Industrial All Major Uses 1,000 sq.ft GFA 104.79 481.88 32.79 34.22 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Air Quality Handbook. 1 Construction emissions included on-site construction equipment and worker's travel. t 2 GFA-Gross floor area. �wr 7/19/96«I.RSG630\E=ECT4-S.VM> 4.5-11 1. The project's square footage is determined. 2. This area,is then divided by 1,000. 3. This resultant value is multiplied by the emissions factors presented in Table 4.5.D. 4. This value is then divided by the number of days necessary to construct the project. If this resultant value exceeds the daily emissions criteria,the project is deemed to have a significant impact for daily emissions. This analysis is based on several factors for the additional development in the Merged Project Area. With most construction utilizing diesel equipment, NO, is the limiting factor because it has among the strictest criterion and is produced in the greatest qua- ntities. Table 4.5.E lists the minimum construction period per 1,000 square feet for those land uses identified in Table 4.5.D that are projected to remain within the criteria levels. Another way to gauge the potential daily impact from construction equipment is to examine the maximum amount of equipment that can operate on a daily basis before the daily threshold levels are exceeded. The Handbook presents these data for screening purposes to determine whether a project is potentially signifi- cant. These data are presented by equipment type in Table 4.5.F. Again, these data are for screening purposes,and individual projects should undergo analysis to determine their emissions' contributions: Additionally, these data do not include other emissions,such as worker commutes and haul trips,that must also be considered in the daily threshold levels. Based on these screening tables,it is noted that construction has the potential to create short-term significant impacts, especially if more than one area is to un- dergo construction simultaneously. Fugitive Dust Site clearing,grading, equipment travel on unpaved surfaces,and demolition of existing improvements will generate considerable quantities of fugitive dust,and potentially asbestos, during the development of most projects. As with exhaust emissions, the level of construction to be performed at any one time is un- known. AP-42 (EPA 1985) estimates that each acre of land disturbed generates 1.2 tons per month(110 pounds per day) of total suspended solids (or PM30)particulate matter from dust lofting into the air. This value will vary with soil moisture,silt content,wind speed,and several other factors. The unhealthful,regulated PMIO fraction typically consists of about 45 percent of the PM30 or about 50 pounds per acre disturbed per day. Based on these values, the grading of an area of three acres would produce about 150 pounds of PMIO per day. Typical dust 7/19A6(<I.\RSG630�EM\SECT4-5 WPD),� 4.5-12 Table 4.5.E-Screening Table for Estimating the Construction Period for Various Land Uses That Will Remain Within,the Significance Criterial Pounds of NOX per Unit Days of Land Use Unit of Measure of Measure Construction Residential Single Family Housing 1,000 sq.ft GFA3 347.74 3.5 Apartments 1,000 sq.ft GFA 322.90 3.2 Condominiums 1,000 sq.ft GFA 312.97 3.1 Mobile Homes 1,000 sq.ft GFA . 312.97 3.1 Education Schools 1,000 sq.ft GFA 690.52 6.9 Commercial Business Park 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1 Day Care 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Center Discount Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Fast Food 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Government Office Complex 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1 Hardware Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 611.04 6.1 , Medical Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1 Motel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 611.04 6.1 Movie Theater 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1 Resort Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 611.04 6.1 Restaurant 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Shopping Center 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Supermarket 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7 Industrial All Major Uses 1,000 sq.ft GFA 481.88 4.8 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Air Quality Handbook. 1 Construction emissions include on-site construction equipment and worker's travel. 2 Days of construction per unit of measure that will remain below the 100 pound per day NOX criterion. 3 GFA-Gross floor area. 7n"6<d. cscs3o\EWECT4-s VM* 4.5-13 Table 4.5.F-Number of Pieces of Construction Equipment That Can Be Operated on a Daily Basis And Will Not Exceed the SCAQMD Daily Significance Threshold by Type' Gasoline Diesel Equipment Type Powered Powered Determining Factor Carbon Nitrogen Monoxide Oxides Threshold Threshold (100 Lb/day) (550 Lb/day) Wheeled Loader 4 6 Wheeled Tractor 7 9 Roller 5 14 Fork Lift-50 Hp 4 28 Fork Lift- 175 Hp 4+ 8 Trucks (Off-highway) _ 3 Tracked Loader _ 15 Tracked Tractor _ 9 Scraper _ 3 Motor Grader 5+ 17 Miscellaneous 4 7 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Handbook. (+ -An additional piece of equipment in this category may be operated for four hours or less per day and remain below the threshold levels for this equipment category.) 1 Based on 8 hours of operation per day at 100 percent load factor. 7/i"6(<I-VLSG630\E=ECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-14 control measures, as required under SCAQMD Rule 403 (Dust), will reduce } these values by about 50 percent, allowing the grading of an area of up to about �•r' six acres per day. However, PMlo associated with equipment and vehicle travel must also be considered, and the area that may be worked is reduced to about five acres per day. Grading on a larger area would be expected to produce a significant impact. In addition to degradation of the air quality, this dust creates a soiling nuisance as it settles out on parked cars, landscaping, and other horizontal surfaces. Regular watering and adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and other dust abatement procedures,typically implemented as a normal part of construc- tion activity,will aide in the control of this nuisance; and any dust settlement will result in an adverse,but not significant,air quality impact. Contaminated Soils and Dusts Another area of potential concern relates to the material contained within any dust raised during construction activities. Although most dust created through construction is inert,some of the Main-Pier and Yorktown areas has been used to extract crude oil. Petroleum residue,if present in the soil,could be stirred up during grading operations. This residue acts as a binder to trap fine soil particles that might otherwise escape into the air during handling. These larger particles settle out of the air much more rapidly.than unagglomerated particles, creating a potentially significant,localized health impact. } �wrr' Along with contaminated soils,there is the potential to raise dust contaminated with asbestos from any structures to be razed. This asbestos may occur in pipe and wall insulation, roofing and floor tiles, and acoustic ceiling treatment. Uncontrolled demolition of such a structure could release friable asbestos and produce a localized health impact. Operations It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment Plans or the City's General Plan. The following information on construction emissions is provided to address potential construction emissions of the Merged Project. These potential impacts have been previously addressed in the General Plan Update EIR. The Agency has not established firm development plans for the Merged Project Area at this time; thus, this analysis is founded on projections included in the General Plan. This analysis is based on the following additional development in the Merged Project Area: 530 single family residential units, 80 multifamily units,600 timesbare/hotel rooms,260,000 square feet of commercial space,and 3,000 square feet of industrial uses. vi9/96KI%RSG630NEU0$ECT-1 5 VM>> 4.5-15 project Vehicle Trips l Operational emissions impacts stem mainly from the use of motor vehicles; nominal emissions are also associated with on-site combustion involved in both space and water heating,and the off-site generation of electrical power used on- site. Reactive organic emissions are also associated with the storage and dispen- sation of fuel used in the operation of project related vehicles. The Merged Project Area totals 619 acres, or approximately 3.5 percent of the City's acreage. As with the City in general, proposed redevelopment will include low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, and general industrial land uses. The analysis is based on general factors for the various land uses;no design details are available. Projected vehicle trips and associated mileage for the project areas are included in Table 4.5.G. Exhaust Emissions Using vehicle trips and mileage predicted in Table 4.5.G,vehicle emissions were developed using data included in the Handbook. This analysis considers emis- sions produced from vehicle travel, cold and hot starts and,for residential land uses, diurnal emissions. Trucks are proportioned in accordance with ratios projected in the Handbook. Emissions projected for vehicle use are included in Table 4.5.H. Secondary Impacts Other air quality impacts will also occur indirectly because of Merged Project implementation. These indirect impacts,although individually small, can make a substantial contribution to regional air quality when totaled for the County overall. These secondary impacts include: • Increased fossil fuel combustion in County power plants to produce electrical energy used at the project site, • On-site combustion of natural gas used for heating,hot water,and cook- ing, and • Increased evaporative emissions from storage and dispensation of fuel for project related vehicles. Each of these emissions sources is addressed below, and their daily contributions are contained in Table 4.5.H. 7/19i96<<I:\RSG630\E=ECT4-5 VM>> 4.5-16 Table 4.5.G-Approximate Land Uses, Densities, and Daily Trips i from Estimated Projects Within the Amendment/Merger' Trips per Miles per Total Miles Land Use Number Trips Day Trip per Day Single Family 530 units 12.0/unit 6,360 8.6 54,696 Residential Multifamily 80 units 8.6/unit 688 8.6 5,917 Residential Timeshare/Hotel 600 rooms 3.16/unit 1,896 6.5 12,324 Commercial 260 ksg2 70/ksq 18,200 6.8 123,760 Industrial 3 ksq 13/ksq 39 11.3 441 Totals -- — 27,183 197,138 Source: LSAAssociates,Inc., 1996. 1 Based on best available information on potential projects that may be related to or assisted by Agency activities. 2 ksq- 1,000 square feet. 7/19/96«I.NRSG630\EMSECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-17 C� Table 4.5.H-Operational Emissions from Estimated Projects Within the Amendment/Merger On-Site Passenger Electrical Combustion of Fuel Total Emission Vehicles Tracks Generation Natural Gas Dispensation Emissions Source (Lb/dav)t (Lb/day)Z (Lb/day)3 (Lb/dav)4 (Lb/day) (Lb/day) Carbon 2,311.3 410.3 7.0 4.6 N10 2,733.2 Monoxide Nitrogen 149.9 188.6 40.2 22.2 NA 400.9 Oxides(NOx as NO.) Reactive 60.2 50.0 0.3 1.2 14.7 126.4 Organics Sulfur 19.3 13.4 4.2 NEG6 NA 36.9 Oxides(SOx as SO2) PMlp 40.6 17.0 1.4 NEG NA 71.6 Particulate Matter Source: LSAAssociates,Inc.,1996. 1 Based upon 2009 emissions data. Emissions are based on the SCAQMD run of EMFAC7EP. Passenger vehicles include 24,549 trips generating 175,453 miles per daywith 53.00 percent cold and 47.00 percent hot starts and 100 percent hot soaks. Passenger vehicle emissions also include diurnal emissions for two vehicles for each of the 610 residential units. 2 Based upon 2009 emissions data. Emissions are based on the SCAQMD run of EMFAC7EP.Truck emissions include 3,034 trips generating 21,685 miles per day with 51.73 percent cold and 48.27 percent hot starts and 100 percent hot soaks. All vehicles are assumed to travel at an average speed of 25 mph. 3 Includes the generation of 34,984 kilowatt-hours per day and emission factors presented in Table A9-11-B of the Handbook. 4 Includes the combustion of 227,994 cubic feet of natural gas per day and emission factors presented in Table A9-12-B of the Handbook. 5 NA-Not applicable. 6 NEG-Negligible,value is less than 0.05 pound per day. 7/19/96K(1..WSG630\EWEC14-5 WPD» 4.5-18 i parr' Off-Site Electricity Generation Emissions Each dwelling unit (including timeshare units) is anticipated to use 5,626.5 kilowatt-hours (kwh) per unit per year(SCAQMD, 1993). Based on the occupancy of 610 units,annual electrical consumption is calculated at 3,432,165 kwh per year or 9,403 kwh per day. The Handbook indicates that hotels consume 9.95 kwh per square foot per year. This analysis assumes that each of the 600 timeshare/hotel rooms is 750 square feet. The electrical use is then calculated at 4,477,500 kwh per year or 12,228 kwh per day. Commercial and industrial land uses are more difficult to determine, as use factors are dependent on the actual proposed land use as well as the square footage developed. However,in accordance with current land uses described in the General Plan, for the purposes of this analysis, commercial was divided into the following: Office - 10.6 percent @ 12.95 kwh/sq ft year Retail - 67.4 percent @ 13.55 kwh/sq ft/year Dining - 4.8 percent @ 47.45 kwh/sq ft/year Food Sales - 9.3 percent @ 53.30 kwh/sq ft/year Misc. - 7.9 percent @ 10.50 kwh/sq ft/year Based on the above,the average electrical consumption for commercial applica- tions is 18.57 kwh per square foot per year. Using SCAQMD electrical use rates presented in the Handbook, the approximately 260,000 square feet of new commercial land uses are estimated to use 4,828,200 kwh per year or 13,228 kwh per day. New industrial land uses are estimated to occupy approximately 3,000 square feet. While the Handbook does not give electrical use factors for industrial land uses,it does present factors for both warehousing and miscellaneous land uses. Because warehousing makes up less than one percent of the total land use in the City of Huntington Beach,all industrial uses are assigned the higher use rate for miscellaneous land uses (i.e., 10.5 kwh per square foot per year). Industrial land uses are projected to use 34,984 kwh per year or 86 kwh per day. Total daily electrical consumption is estimated at 34,984 kwh per day. Emissions produced in the generation of electrical energy are included in Table 4.5.H. On-Site Gas Combustion Emissions Per the SCAQMD, the consumption of natural gas is dependent on the type of structure. According to the Handbook, each of the 530 projected single family and 80 multifamily dwellings will use 6,665 and 4,011.5 cubic feet per month per unit, respectively. If the 250 timeshare units are considered as multifamily dwellings and the hotel units are also included,total residential natural gas use is calculated at 6,013,370 cubic feet per month. Commercial applications are estimated to use 2.9 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot of structure per 7/19/96KI:\RSG630\EU�DSECT4-5 W M>> 4.5-19 month for an additional 754,000 cubic feet per month or 25,133 cubic feet per day. The Handbook estimates that industrial operations use 241,611 cubic feet of natural gas per customer. No explanation is given as to the size or type of customer. Assuming an average industrial customer at 10,000 square feet, the 3,000 square feet of projected industrial use would then use 72,483 cubic feet per month or 2,416 cubic feet per day. Total natural gas consumption is esti- mated at 227,994 cubic feet per day. Emissions for the combustion of this gas are included in Table 4.5.H. Increased Evaporative Emissions from the Storage and Dispensing of Gasoline for Project Related Vehicles As previously demonstrated, vehicle trips from the Merged Project are antici- pated to generate 197,138 miles per day. Of this travel,approximately 89 per- cent(i.e., 175,453 miles) is projected to be passenger vehicles while the remain- ing 11 percent (i.e., 21,685 miles)would be from trucks. Based on a projected fuel consumption of 30 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles, 5,848 gallons of gasoline would be consumed daily. Per AP-42, Section 4.4-14, the combined vapor loss for underground tank filling, breathing, and fuel dispensing (includ- ing spillage)is presented as 3.1 pounds per 1,000 gallons throughput. Using the value of 5,848 gallons per day,volatile losses due to service station operations are then calculated to be 14.6 pounds per day. This loss is shown in Table 4.5.H. Heavy trucks typically require diesel fuel. These trucks are estimated at 6.7 miles per gallon. Based on a total distance of 21,685 miles, 3,237 gallons of diesel would be consumed on a daily basis. The storage and transfer of diesel are not expected to add substantially to air emissions. AP-42 lists transfer operations for diesel loading from tank trucks as 0.03 pound per 1,000 gallons transferred. Due to the low Reid vapor pressure of diesel,evaporative losses from on-site and off-site diesel storage are even lower. However, the transfer of this fuel into storage tanks will produce an additional 0.014 pound of ROG per 1,000 gallons. Total daily diesel emissions are estimated at 0.1 pounds per day. These emis- sions are also included in Table 4.5.H. Total Emissions for Project Occupancy Table 4.5.H presents the totaled emissions for vehicle travel, off-site electrical power generation, natural gas combustion, and fuel evaporation. Note that these emissions do not include any augmented vehicle trips associated with the refurbishment of Huntington Beach Mall As presented in the table, the project will produce amounts of CO, N021 and ROG in excess of the SCAQMD signifi- cance criteria. (When Huntington Center is considered, all emissions would be greater than presented, but SO,and PM10 are still projected to remain below their criteria values.) This constitutes a significant adverse impact on air quality. It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous redevelopment plans or the City's General Plan. According to the General Plan Update E1R, 7/1"64d:\RSG63GTMsECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-20 l future development allowed under the General Plan would generate an addi- tional,151,775 pounds of carbon monoxide, 8,612 pounds of reactive organic gases, 12,221 pounds of nitrogen oxides,933 pounds of sulfur oxides and 2,200 pounds of fine particulate matter per day over current emission rates in the City. These General Plan emission i increases at General Plan build out exceed SCAQMD's quantitative thresholds and therefore are considered to be significant. Carbon Monoxide Microscale Analysis As mentioned in Section 4.5.2, air quality impacts are significant if generated emissions cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standards promulgated at the State and the federal levels. This is demonstrated through a CO analysis. Because CO does not readily dissipate into the air, it has the potential to stag- nate,especially at congested intersections. Areas of localized CO concentrations in excess of State or federal ambient air quality levels are called hotspots. The General Plan Update predicts hotspots at the five intersections reviewed. These include Beach Boulevard at,Ellis Avenue, Bolsa Avenue at Golden West Street, Brookhurst Street at Hamilton Avenue, Golden West Street at Garfield Avenue,and Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street. Each of these intersections is projected to operate at LOS E at build out, in the year 2010. Because traffic originating from the Merged Project Areas is distributed throughout the City circulation network, all intersections are relevant to the Merged Project Area. Based on this premise, it is projected that any intersection operating at LOS E or worse (and perhaps some major intersections that are projected to operate at sue} LOS D) would have the potential to create CO hotspots. These hotspots are significant if they expose local receptors to concentrations in excess of either State or federal ambient air quality standard levels. This potential for exposure is ultimately dependant on the locations of proximate sensitive receptor locations. 'Without accurate data as to the placement of redevelopment structures,it is not possible to determine whether relocated residents would be exposed to exceedances of the CO standards. Therefore, at this time the potential to expose receptors to CO concentrations in excess of criteria levels is considered as a potentially significant impact. Further analysis will be required as individual projects undergo CEQA review prior to their construction. Those intersections containing volumes of traffic sufficient to create significant hotspots in the Merged Project Area will be mitigated on a project by project basis, potentially reducing these impacts to a level that is less than significant. Consistency urith the AQMP CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the AQMP. A consistency deter- mination plays an essential role in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual projects to the AQMP in the following ways. It fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It provides the local agency with ongoing information assuring local decision makers that they are making real contributions to clean air goals contained in the 1994 AQMP and a 7/l9/96KI:\RSG630\)E=ECT4-5 VM>> 4.5-21 PMto Plan. Only new or amended General Plan Elements, Specific Plans, and significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review. The reason is that the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans. Therefore,projects that are consistent with the local General Plan are considered consistent with the'air quality related regional plan. The Amendment/Mergerwill not require a General Plan update. Such an update was recently completed (Envicom, 1995) and the updated General Plan was found to be consistent with the AQMP.- Because the recent update of the Gen- eral Plan included the build out of the City,the build out of the Merged Project Area was included in the analysis and is also consistent with the AQMP. 4.5.4 CUMM77VE IMPACTS The City's General Plan Update EIR,which assesses the build out of the City, of which the Merged Project Area is a part, made the finding (page 5.4-16) that future growth in the Northwest Orange County Subregion would result in fur- ther increases in short-term construction, as well as long-term stationary and non-stationary emissions. The General Plan Update EIR further stated that if this growth is not accommodated within SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan or adequately addressed by other jurisdictions' General Plans, attainment of State and federal standards could be delayed and could result in a cumulatively signifi- cant impact. The City's General Plan Update EIR made the following finding, which is re- peated for this Amendment/Merger since the development is within the overall General Plan build out: The level of development permitted under the Draft General Plan would inevitably result in an increase in emissions concentrations that already exceed State and federal standards. Although implementation of the Draft General Plan's air quality element would serve to minimize this increase, the presence of CO hotspots at busy traffic intersections may never be fully mitigated. Consequently, air quality impacts are consid- ered to be significant and unavoidable (Class 1), requiring a Statement of Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan. 4.5.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Air Quality Element of the General Plan that will lessen air quality impacts resulting from vehicle trips and reduce ambient CO concentrations. In addition, the applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source emis- sions(i.e.,emissions associated with stationary sources within the development) through the General Plan policies listed below. During development review and prior to issuance of building permits, the City will assure confirmation that the applicable General Plan Air Quality Element policies have been incorporated into the redevelopment projects to the maximum extent feasible. 7/19/96KI:\TLSGeO\MUECT4-5 WM)> 4.5-22 `rrr' These key policies provide a well rounded approach to reducing the potential g secondary impacts to air quality generated by the implementation of the Rede- velopment Plan and subsequent build out of the redevelopment area. Imple- mentation of these policies serves to reduce the number of vehicle trips and reduce ambient CO concentrations. The applicable policies are as follows: • Encouragement of alternate work schedules (Policy AQ 1.1.1). • Require all businesses and multiple tenant centers with 100 or more employees to participate in a Transit Management Association or Organi- zation (Policy AQ 1.1.2). • Encourage funding, research, implementation and evaluation of telecommuting and teleconferencing(Policy AQ 1.1.4). • Encourage on-site day care facilities, on-site automated teller machines, telecommuting and/or teleconferencing facilities (Policy AQ 1.1.5). • Work with OCTA to expand the local transit service area and provide more frequent service (Policy AQ 2.1.1). • Require developers and encourage existing property owners of employ- ment centers with 100 or more employees and major activity centers to include transit amenities and access as an integrated part of their projects (Policy AQ 2.1.2). • Encourage major commercial and industrial development projects lo- cated along transit routes to include integrated transit access points in the project design (Policy AQ 2.1.4). • Require that employment centers with 100 or more employees increase the availability and attractiveness of parking spaces for vans and carpools (Policy AQ 3.1.2). • Encourage fines to offer alternative schedule work weeks to employees who carpool(Policy AQ 3.1.3). • Encourage residential and commercial growth to occur in and around existing activity centers and transportation corridors (Policy AQ 5.1.1). • Encourage commercial-residential mixed use development (Policy AQ 5.1.3). • Encourage day care facilities to be located at work sites with 100 or more employees (Policy AQ 5.1.4). • Investigate the feasibility of providing new Class H bike lanes (Policy AQ 6.1.1). • Continue to improve existing Class II bike lanes for bicycle travel (Policy AQ 6.1.2). f 7/19/96«I..\RSG630NEIR\SECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-23 • Encourage all new residential developments to incorporate pedestrian paths to link the projects with adjacent developments and transit access points (Policy AQ 6.1.3). • Encourage commercial developments to provide facilities for employees and patrons who bicycle to the sites (Policy AQ 6.1.4). • Continue to implement the Traffic Signal Management Program and synchronize all other traffic signals, when such technology becomes economically feasible (Policy AQ 7.1.1 and 7.1.2). • Encourage the provision of dedicated parking space with electrical out- lets for electrical vehicles (Policy AQ 71.5). • Convert city owned vehicles to alternative fuels as it becomes economi- cally and technically feasible (Policy AQ 7.1.6). • Require installation of temporary construction facilities and implementa- tion of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways (Policy AQ 8.1.2). • Assure that sufficient buffer areas exist between a sensitive use and a potential toxic emission source (Policy AQ 9.1.1). • Require design features, operating procedures, preventative mainte- nance operator training and emergency response,planning to prevent the release of toxic pollutants for applicable uses in all business park, industrial parks and industrial designated areas (Policy AQ 9.1.2). • Encourage retrofitting of energy conservation devices in existing devel- opments (Policy AQ 10.1.2). I I 4.5.6 MrHGATION MEASURES I The following recommendations will assist in reducing air quality impacts result- ing from future development and redevelopment within the Merged Project i Area. The recommended mitigation measures are as follows: Construction Exhaust Emissions 4.5 A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. How- ever,exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures to be implemented are as follows: • Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment; t Maintain equipment in tune,per manufacturer's specifications; 7II9196«I:\RSG630M"ECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-24 i • Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment; `•�r✓ • Use reformulated,low-emissions diesel fuel; • Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered equipment,where feasible; • Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods (i.e.,more than five minutes); and • Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construc- tion site inspections. Fugitive Dust 4.5-B The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accor- dance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emis- sions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction.These measures may include the following: • Spread soil binders on site,.unpaved roads,and in parking areas; ) • Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening; • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seed- ing and watering; • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to ero- sion over extended periods of time; • Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed exca- vated soil during and after the end of work periods; • Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local ordinances and use sound engineering practices; • Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in coordination with local public agencies; • Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; • Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; • Wash off trucks leaving site; '' 7n9/96o Mc63o\EnVSEcr4-5 WM)), 4.5-25 • Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks;and • Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means. Volatile Organic Emissions 4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application. • Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided whenever possible. • Where feasible,low VOC paints,primers, and coatings,as well as precoated materials,shall be specified. Contaminated Soils and Dusts 4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site as- sessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extrac- tion process has occurred,the soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unfor- seen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during excava- tion activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate. 4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos will be removed and disposed in accordance with sound engi- neering practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these mea- sures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level that is less than significant. 4.5 7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCEAFIER MITIGATION Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the construction air emission impacts to a level below significance. The measure with the greatest potential to mitigate construction emissions to a level that is less than significant will result from the phasing of construction such that major portions of the Merged Project do not overlap. Therefore, because all construction efforts (including the refurbishment of the Huntington Beach Mall) are unlikely to occur during the same time period and because the construction impacts will be 7/1"6<<I:\FSGG30\EM'SECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-26 temporary,it is anticipated that construction related impacts will be mitigated to below a level of significance. ` As stated in Section 4.5.4, Cumulative Impacts, cumulative impacts were de- scribed in the General Plan Update EIR. Because the Amendment/Merger does not change General Plan land uses or increase development intensity, there are no additional impacts not previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR. With implementation of required General Plan policies and the mitigation mea- sures included in this section above, impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant. 7/19196KI.\RSG630%EMRSECT4-5 VM- 4.5-27 ' 4.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION This Transportation and Circulation section is based on the analysis prepared for the Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR. Technical data for the General Plan Update EIR are taken from a traffic report (dated October 24, 1994; amended March 21, 1995) prepared by DKS Associates, on file with the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department. Major findings of the study are summarized in this section of the EIR for the Amendment/Merger. 4.6.1 ZUSTING FIWIIZONMENT"AL SETTING This section summarizes the circulation system infrastructure and its operating conditions within the Merged Project Area of the City of Huntington Beach. The components of the circulation system in the Merged Project Area include the following: • Streets and Highways • Transit Service • Rail Systems • Bicycle Routes. The basic components of the Huntington Beach circulation system are described below. I � Streets and Highways The roadways of the circulation system are classified according to their design and operation. The roadways have been grouped into the following categories: Freeway, Principal Arterial Street, Major Arterial Street; Primary Arterial Street, Secondary Arterial Street and Collectors. Figure 4.6.1 displays the City's existing circulation network and the Merged Project Area. Table 4.6A provides the existing design and capacity criteria for the City's network. Table 4.6.A-City of Huntington Beach Design Criteria for Arterial Streets and Highways Maximum Maximum Width Maximum Right of Way Curb-to-Curb Number of Median Width Capacity at Classification (feet) (feet) Lanes (feet) LOS C(ADT) Freeway Variable Variable 4 Variable 55,000 Variable Variable 6 Variable 100,000 Variable Variable 8 Variable 235,000 Principal N/A N/A 8 14 60,00o Major 120 104 6 14 45,000 Primary 100 84 4 14 30,000 Secondary 8o 64 4 0 20,000 8o 64 2 0 5,000 Source: City of Huntington Beach,GPEM July,1995;Bruce Gilmer,Department of Public Works. 7n8/96«L:\RSG630\EMR,SECT4-6 WPD» 4.6-1 i U C 3 ca C7 LU w LU SEAL 1 WESTMINSTER BEACH BOtSA a Q x z ARGOSY y 1 1 ~ c c rADDEN? , EDIN(ER HEIL 4e Y�� 1 �` WARNER FOUNTAIN VALLEY SLATER :.R` i'R COLINTYO F\ � �rALsERrN ' ^ ORE �FGp {tLSA CFt1CA) �� %'1 3Cr N Euts •..riia:;....•.,,.t:�. ,.a.- D 1 cc to �•x>:.v t•:rt.:.t: c 6 cc a :.;.;...,....t - c rrt•::::.,t:}. :.,::.: {�j�� rtl��+frar � �r�0'�GARflELD ;r'rs^M � ,Y^ r` �z e, t. S• YOWOWN Pacific O 1 O`cn a:a':si �``` ArrIs INDIANAPOLIS Legend t`'`F' w " ` � A 5- ATLANTA City Boundary 1 wJEFiSx-. _ __ Principal Arterial Street >��--' `�Fµ �- ��-1—� uroN LinMajor Arterial StreetBANNING Primary Arterial Street -17 COSTA Secondary Arterial Street Y'' h ur^<';w"Y ,�� MESA Collector Street '`��,,.}^ "'�+�'��`•�'" �[!/ •-<os•rN:^,,.oar?:�„•.,�:.:, -. Santa Ana River Bridge Crossing Redevelopment Project Areas '"''` ^' N °z Source:City of Huntington Beach.Department of Community Development,General Plan Update El July 1995. 7/15/96(RSG630) Figure 4.6.1 N Scale in MilesExisting Network of L S-A 0 0 s 1 4.6-2 Arterial Streets and Highways Roadway Segment Characteristics and Capacity t Table 4AB provides roadway characteristics for all arterial highways within the study area relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area. Characteristics are for both directions of a roadway unless otherwise noted. Roadway traffic operation is generally evaluated by the ratio of existing daily traffic volumes to the daily roadway capacity. Capacity is measured in terms of the ability of the street system to meet and serve the demands placed on it. Average daily capacity is the theoretical maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a segment of roadway in 24 hours. The capacity of a roadway is af- fected by a number-of factors, including roadway type, street and lane widths, the number of travel lanes,the number of crossing roadways,signal cycle length, the absence or presence of on-street parking, the number of driveways, pave- ment conditions and roadway design. The County of Orange Growth Management Plan (GMT) Element_of the General Plan contains policies on the planning and provision of traffic 'improvements necessary for orderly growth and development. The Traffic Level of Service Policy sets,as general criteria,an operating Level of Service (LOS) of D for signal- ized intersections, which would be a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 or less. The City of Huntington Beach accepted level of service value for arterial links is LOS C (a V/C ratio of 0.80 to 0.89). For signalized intersections, it is LOS D. These values will be used to assess the adequacy of the circulation system. Existing Parking Conditions Parking in Huntington Beach consists of on-street parking, public lots, private driveways, and private lots. Table 4.6.B identifies the on-street parking supply for those streets in the Merged Project Area. Parking deficiencies have been a controversy for many years in Main-Pier, especially in the downtown area near Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. However,several parking structures have been added in the downtown area in recent years that have alleviated this prob- lem. The City has adopted the Downtown Parking Master Plan,which includes research and data showing that there is adequate parking in the downtown/pier area for the development allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan. Existing Daily Traffic Capacity Analysis Existing daily traffic volumes along arterial streets are shown on Figure 4.6.2. An analysis of daily operating conditions on the selected roadway segments was conducted for the General Plan Update EIR,using the County of Orange and the City of Huntington Beach Arterial ADT Capacities and Level of Service Assump- tions. Table 4.6.0 includes a summary of existing roadway level of service (LOS). 7/18�9 l.\RSG630\EUZGSECT".WPD» 4.6-3 i Table 4.6.B-Existing Merged Project Area Roadway Characteristics Existing Number of Travel Lanes Ultimate Curb Right to-Curb Median NB SB Bike Roadway Name From To of-Way Width Width or EB or WB Parking Lane WarnerAve. Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Beach Blvd. Newland St. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Atlanta Ave. take St. 1st St. 100' 84' - 1 1 P N - 1st St. Delaware St. 100' 84' - 1 1 PN N Delaware St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84' - 2 2 P N Beach Blvd. I405 Edinger Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N EdingerAve. Heil Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Heil Ave. WarnerAve. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Warner Ave. SlaterAve. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Slater Ave. Talbert Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Talbert Ave. Ellis Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Ellis Ave. Garfield Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Garfield Ave. Yorktown Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Yorktown Ave. Adams Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Adams Ave. Indianapolis Ave. ' 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Indianapolis Ave. Atlanta Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N Atlanta Ave. PCH 120' 104' 14' 3 3 PE N Slater Ave. Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 80' 64' 14' 2 2 NP Y N/A- not available due to construction PS- parallel parking on south side of street only NP- no parking PE- parallel parking on east side of street only P- parallel parking on both sides allowed PW- parallel parking on west side of street only PN- parallel parking on north side of street only AP- angle parking on both sides 7/18/96 I:\RSG630\EtR\SECT4-6.WPD» 4.6-4 Table 4.6.B (Continued) Existing Number of Travel Lanes Ultimate Curb Right to-Curb Median NB SB Bike Roadway Name From To of-Way Width Width or EB or WB Parking Lane Talbert Ave. Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84' - 2 2 P Y Yorktown Ave. Golden West St. Main St. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 P Y Main St. Lake St. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 NP Y Lake St. Delaware St. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 PN Y Delaware St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84' 2 2 NP Y 6th.St. PCH Orange Ave. 100' 84' - 1 1 P N 1st St. PCH Atlanta Ave. 100' 84' - 1 1 P Y Orange Ave. 6th St. Lake St. 100' 84' - 1 12 P N PCH 17th St. 6th St. 120' 104' 14' 2 2 P Y 6th St. 1st St. 120' 104' 14' 2 2 P Y 1st St. Beach Blvd. 120' 104' 14' 2 2 P Y N/A- not available due to construction PS- parallel parking on south side of street only NP- no parking PE- parallel parking on east side of street only P- parallel parking on both sides allowed PW- parallel parking on west side of street only PN- parallel parking on north side of street only AP- angle parking on both sides 7/18/96«L•\RSG630\EFRI�SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-5 Table 4.6.B (Continued) Existing Number of Travel Lanes Ultimate Curb Right to-Curb Median NB SB Bike Roadway Name From To of-Way Width Width or EB or WB Parking Lane EdingerAve. Golden West St. Gothard St. 100, 84' 14, 3 3 NP Y Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84, 14' 3 3 NP N 17th St. PCH Orange Ave. 100' 84' 14' 1 1 P Y Palm Ave. Main St. 100, 84, 14, 2 1 NP Y Main St. PCH Walnut Ave. 100' 84' - 1 1 AP N Walnut Ave. Orange Ave. 100, 84' - 1 1 AP N Orange Ave. Palm Ave. 100, 84' - 1 1 P N Palm Ave. Adams Ave. 100, 84' 14' 1 1 P N Adams Ave. 17th St. 100' 84' IT 1 1 P N 17th St. Yorktown Ave. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 P N Yorktown Ave. Garfield Ave. 100, 84' 14, 2 2 NP N Lake St. Orange Ave. 6th St. 100' 84' - 1 1 P Y 6th St. Indianapolis Ave. 100, 84' - 1 1 P Y Indianapolis Ave. Adams Ave. 100, 84, 14' 1 1 P Y Adams Ave. Yorktown Ave. 100' 84' 14' 1 1 P Y Sourcei City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,filly, 1995. N/A- not available due to construction PS- parallel parking on south side of street only NP- no parking PE- parallel parking on east side of street only P- parallel parking on both sides allowed PW- parallel parking on west side of street only PN- parallel parking on north side of street only AP- angle parking on both sides 7/18/96<q:VISG630\P.IR\SECT4.6.WPD>> 4.6-6 C � o x , n b r sAnAaoA o to .,p .•• a st I3.00o ADlst C7A01 . 17.000r u.000 � /.000 .000 _ � ,•'' oAA7sAl1 � fr F ' .% f/AIHODut sr •000 to,aoo ss000 traoo tt000 .WO to,aoo e •� IPWAADS ._. r Ir moo 13.000 1r,000 t1,000 20.000 4. y DOIDEMWfst rsr O ••off 23.0000 o0 N Low t o f7.000 N00.0 41.000„ Mom k 0.00 II Aj fV �t1 HAIs ts.000 y 00fr 17. o �.• 8 S! j_, GORNO 1f.000 14.000 10.00_ tf.000 14,000 A c /,000 y 'St{! 000�000 t f000 " /fACH s Is,000 , JI.Noa,00D ••,aoo44.08 &to" 00.00 410.000 ot000 /2.000 p.000 %" M(MlAMO Is ma 17.000 l0 000 11.000 Imo^ .0 N tl - p9 1 ,N s.0oo� ts.000 1 .000AVIAGMIA i { > i 33.00ff CA (iq d� --_- -- - ---- — —sr SLOW 1 1 .ODD 1 I.Wo I Wo .. � CA s► '�• •••.... ,000 a000 s MAAD � S sr Table 4.6.0-Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service Roadway Capacities Average Daily Roadway Segment LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Traffic LOS Warner Avenue Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 34,000 B Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 21,000 A Slater Avenue Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 16,000 A Beach Boulevard PCH-Atlanta Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 28,000 A Atlanta Ave.-Indianapolis Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 32,000 A Indianapolis Ave.-Adams Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 40,000 C Adams Ave.-Yorktown Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 44,00o C Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 48,000 D Garfield Ave.-Ellis Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 58,000 F Ellis Ave.-Talbert Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 60,000 F TalbertAve.-SlaterAve. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 60,000 F SlaterAve.-Warner Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 62,000 F Warner Ave.-Heil Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 62,000 F Heil Ave.-Edinger Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 65,000 F PCH Golden West St.-Brookhurst St. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 34,000 E Edinger Avenue Edwards St.-Golden West St. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 .24,000 A Golden West St.-Gothard St. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 39,000 B Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 33,900 39,400 45,000 %6w 56,300 39,000 B Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 23,000 E Talbert Ave. Golden West St.-Gothard St. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 5,000 A Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 10,000 A 17th Street PCH-Orange Ave. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 1,000 A Palm Ave.-Main St. 11,250 13,150 15,000 16,900 18,750 11,000 A 7/18/96«I:\RSG630\EEIR�SECT4.6.WPD» 4.G-8 Table 4AC (Continued) Roadway Capacities Average Daily Roadway Segment LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Traffic LOS Main Street PCH-Walnut Ave. 3,000 4,800 6,000 7,500 9,000 3,000 A Walnut Ave. -Orange Ave. 3,000 4,800 6,000 7,500 9,000 4,000 B Orange Ave.-6th St. 3,000 4,800 6,000 7,500 9,000 4,000 B 6th-Sc.-Adams-Ave. 7,500 8,800 10,000 . 11,300 12,500 12,000 E Adams Ave.-17th St. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 15,000 F 17th St.-Yorktown Ave. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 15,000 A Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 12,000 A Yorktown Avenue Golden West St.-Beach Blvd. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 15,000 A Beach Blvd.-Magnolia St. 18,750 21,900 25,000 28,150 31,250 14,000 A Magnolia St.-Bushard St. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 11,000 " A Bushard St.-Ward St. 18,750 21,900 25,000 28,150 31,250 13,000 A Orange Avenue 6th St.-1st St. 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 3,000 A Atlanta Avenue 1st St.-Beach Blvd. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 10,000 C Source: City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995. 7/18/96aI:\RSG630\EIR45ECT4.6.WPD» 4.G-9 The rapid dispersement of traffic actually originating or ending in the Merged Project Area allows focus on roadway conditions that serve the Merged Project Area and roadways/mtersections immediately adjacent to the Merged Project Area. Roadways relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area are shown in the tables. Existing daily volumes were compared to their roadway capacities to arrive at the existing LOS of operation for these roadways. The following Merged Project Area roadway segments are currently carrying traffic volumes in excess of existing LOS C capacity: • Beach Boulevard: Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue(ZOS D) • Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue(ZOS 19 • Beach Boulevard. Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue(ZOS P) • Beach Boulevard. Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue(ZOS 19 • Beach Boulevard. Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue(ZOS F) • Beach Boulevard. warner Avenue to Heil Avenue(ZOS 19 • Beach Boulevard.- Heil Avenue to Edinger Avenue(ZOS 19 • Pacafic CoastHighway: Golden lest Street to Brookhurst Street(ZOS E) • Main Street: 6th Street to Adams Avenue(ZOS E) • Main Street: Adams Avenue to 17th Street(ZOS F) These roadway segments,which are operating at unsatisfactory levels of service, are shown on Figure 4.6.3. E=stzng Intersection Capacity Analysis Traffic volumes for each intersection were collected on a typical weekday during a.m. and p.m. peak periods or obtained from the City's count program, County of Orange's count program, Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program (FETSI1%1) studies, or prior traffic analysis from other EIR/EIS reports. The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) is the methodology employed to determine operating levels of service (LOS) at the signalized intersections (see Table T-5 from the General Plan Update E1R). The ICU methodology is dis- cussed in greater detail in Appendix D of the General Plan Update EIR. Table 4.6.1)displays the results of the LOS analysis for the intersections relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area for both a.m. and p.m. peak traffic periods. Figure 4.6.3 also shows existing intersections operating at unsatisfac- tory levels. 7lIs)96<Q=vRSG63o\EUZIsEC".VM)> 4.6-10 Cn d My Q a- LAJ 0 I - ` WESTMINSTER SEAL BEACH SOLSA D o = � v 5C z G m �� : L} S c� — Mc FADDEN m < z `tom 1 ��r�� .�• j 3--EDWGER ' z HEIL •. Cf "—� WARNER FOUNTAIN .......—.�.� 2 VALLEY SLATER .06 :. . COUNTY 0 F t TAIBERT GOF ORANGE SOLSA cHIeA} 3 y 9�y1 :< j =ELLIS 0 o c co •: r� = GARFIELD �`' ~"' �, ScP z �••••••.� s YORKMWN ADAMS Legend ;n City Boundary ' ulDuuvnaous Roadway Seomertt Level of Service ' f i ATLANTA LOS F �. LOSE HAMu.TON LOSID BANNING Intersection Level of Service . J COSTA f—PM Peak Hour Vslr«, � # MESA 17=17.- E-1 LOS �--AM Peak Hour Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EiR.7/95. 1&%(RSG630) Figure 4.6.3 N L �A Scale in� �1 Existing Intersections and Roadway Segments 0 0s 1 Operating Below Level of Service C 4.6-11 Table 4.6.1)-Existing A.M.and P.M.Peak Hour LOS at Signalized t Intersections A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour Intersection V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS Edinger Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.68 B 0.97 E Warner Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.81 D 1.62 F Slater Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.72 C 0.87 D Talbert Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.65 B 0.77 C Adams Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.53 A 0.75 C Adams Ave.-Brookhurst St 0.74 C 0.89 D PCH-Goldenwest St. 0.78 C 0.64 B PCH-Beach Blvd. 0.51 A 0.47 A Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update M July,1995. 7/18i96uI:\RSG63011MSECT4-6.WPD» 4.6-12 Existing Transit and Non-Motorized Serviee The General Plan Update EIR describes the various transit options available throughout the City(see General Plan Update EIII,Appendix D), including bus service by the Orange County Transportation Authority(formerly OCTD). Congestion Management Program (CMP) and Transportation Demand Management(TDM) In June of 1990, voters approved Proposition 111, which was a component of the six-bill Transportation and Rail Bond Fund package. Proposition 111 gener- ated funds through a gasoline tax to fund various transportation improvements throughout the State. Orange County's share of these gas tax subventions is estimated at$1.7 billion over a ten-year period. The Orange County Congestion Management Program has designated all State Highways within Orange County and a set of principal arterials (SMART Streets) as the CMP's system of highways. Beach Boulevard is benefitting from these funding expenditures. Warner Avenue is planned for improvements under this program. The CUT network within the City of Huntington Beach includes: • Beach Boulevard • Warner Avenue • Adams Avenue: Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard 4 Pacific Coast Highway:Warner Avenue to Interstate 405 • Bolsa Avenue • Bolsa Chica Street In accordance with the CMP, the City has adopted a Transportation Demand Management (MM) ordinance, established a Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and a level of service (LOS) deficiency plan. The City's TDM regulations apply to any discretionary permit for commercial, industrial, institutional, or other uses that are determined to employ 100 or more persons. A description of the full program is provided in the General Plan Update EIR, pages 5-3 to 5-35. 4.6.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The City's accepted level of service for arterial links is LOS C. Therefore,a signif- icant adverse traffic impact would result if implementation of the Amendment/ Merger would result in level of service conditions of D or worse at any of the study roadway links. The City's accepted level of service for traffic signal controlled intersections is LOS D. Therefore,a significant adverse traffic impact would occur if implemen- tation of the Amendment/Merger would result in level of service conditions of E or worse at any of the study intersections. l 7/18/96<<I.\RSG630=\SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-13 4.6.3 PROJECT IMPACTS ' g This section addresses the future circulation system requirements,year 2010,for the Merged Project Area based upon build out of the General Plan. Because the 'project is an Amendment/Merger of existing Redevelopment Projects/Plans,and the Amendment/Merger does not include any new development, there is no analysis provided beyond reporting conditions created at General Plan build out. As stated in the Project Description,Section 3.0,all uses permitted in the Merged Project Area are identical to those allowed by the General Plan. Therefore, projected traffic conditions within and adjacent to the Merged Project have been analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, and impacts are identical to those reported in the General Plan Update EIR. Year 2010 Daily Traffic Capacity Analysis Year 2010 daily traffic volume projections obtained from the General Plan Up- date EIR are based on the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) model.' Model results have been compared to the anticipated future roadway capacities to determine the volume to capacity ratios and the corresponding level of service. Review of Table 4.6.E shows that many of the roadway facilities within Hunting- ton Beach are expected to operate better than LOS C. However,the following roadway segments serving the Merged Project Area are expected to operate worse than LOS C: • Beach Boulevard: Yorktown Avenue to Garfleld Avenue(ZOS D) • Gothard Street. Heil to Edinger Avenue(ZOS 19 • Gotbard Street: Edinger Avenue to Center Avenue(ZOS E) • Gotbard Street: Center Avenue to McFadden Avenue(ZOS 19 • Orange Avenue: 17tb Street to 6tb Street(ZOS D) • Pacific Coast Highway: Darner Avenue to Golden best Street(ZOS F) • Pacific Coast Highway: Delaware Street to Beach Boulevard(ZOS D). Year 2010 Intersection Capacity Analyses Intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the year 2010 scenario for 32 key intersections within the City. Year 2010 turning movement counts were extracted from the SARA model and were refined by Robert Kahn,John Kain and Associates. Table 4.6.F shows the results of the level of service analyses and Figure 4.6.4 shows the intersection locations that are operating worse than LOS D,which are outside of the Merged Project. Intersections directly adjacent to or within the Merged Project Area are projected to operate at LOS C or better. ' The Santa Ana River Area (SARA)traffic model developed and refined by Robert Kahn,John Kain and Associates was used to determine the future baseline daily traffic forecasts: 711&96<<I:\RSG6301EIR\SECT4 6 WPD» 4.6-14 Table 4.6.E-2010 Merged Project Area Roadway Level of Service Summary, Average Daily Roadway Roadway Segment V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Classification Atlanta Avenue 1st St.-Beach Blvd. 0.64 B 24000 4-lane primary arterial Beach.Boulevard 0.48 A 27,000 6-lane major arterial PCH-Hamilton Ave. 0.53 A 30,000 6-lane major arterial Ellis Ave. -Talbert Ave. 0.65 B 49,000 8-lane major arterial Slatcr Ave. -Warner Ave. 0.67 B 50,000 8-lane major arterial Delaware Street PCH-Hamilton Ave. 0.28 A 10,000 4-lane secondary arterial Hamilton Ave. -Atlanta Ave. 0.28 A 10,000 4-lane secondary arterial Atlanta Ave.-Indianapolis Ave. 0.14 A 5,000 4-lane secondary arterial Edinger Avenue Golden West St.-Gothard St. 0.78 C 44,000 6-lane major arterial Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 0.75 C 42,000 6-lane major arterial Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 0.71 C 40,000 6-lane major arterial Gothard Street Ellis Ave. -Talbert Ave. 0.36 A 13,000 4-lane secondary arterial Hell Ave.-Edinger Ave. 1.12 F 40,000 4-lane secondary arterial Edinger Ave.-Center Ave. 0.93 E 33,000 4-lane secondary arterial Center Ave. -McFadden Ave. 1.35 F 48,000 4-lane secondary arterial Without Garfield and Banning Bridges,with Cross Gap Connector. 7/18/96«I:\RSG630\CIR�SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-15 Table 4.6.E-20101!'t��Project l WRoadway Level of Service Summary-continued Average Daily Roadway Roadway Segment VIC Ratio LOS Traffic Classification Lake Street PCH -Atlanta Ave. 0.35 A 13,000 4-lane primary arterial Atlanta Ave. -Adams Ave. 0.29 A 11,000 4-lane primary arterial Adams Ave. -Yorktown Ave. 0.37 A 14,000 4-lane primary arterial Main Street Yorktown Ave. -Garfield Ave. 0.69 B 26,000 6-lane major arterial Garfield Ave.-Delaware St. 0.77 C 29,000 4-lane primary arterial Delaware St. -Beach Blvd. 0.66 B 37,000 4-lane primary arterial McFadden Avenue Golden West St.-Gothard St. 0.70 C 25,000 4-lane secondary arterial Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 0.53 A 19,000 4-lane secondary arterial Orange Avenue 0.20 A 7,000 4-lane secondary arterial Golden West St.- 17th St. 0.81 D 29,000 4-lane secondary arterial 17th St. -6th St. PCH Golden West St.- 17th St. 0.78 C 44,000 6 lane major arterial 17th St. -6th St. 0.69 B 39,000 6 lane major arterial 6th St. -Lake St. 0.76 C 43,000 6 lane major arterial Lake St. -Delaware St. 0.80 C 45,000 6 lane major arterial Delaware St. -Beach Blvd. 0.85 D 48,000 6 lane major arterial Without Garfield and Banning Bridges,with Cross Gap Connector. 7/18/96uI:\RSG630\EIR\SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-16 . ` Table 4.6.E-201011Ierged Project A eb Roadway Level of Service Summary-continued Average Daily Roadway Roadway Segment V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Classification Slater Avenue Gothard St. -Beach Blvd. 0.48 A 17,000 4 lane secondary arterial Talbert Avenue Gothard St. -Beach Blvd. 0.32 A 12000 4 lane primary arterial Yorktown Avenue J Golden West St. -Main St. 0.77 C 29,000 4 lane primary arterial Main St. -Lake St. 0.56 A 20,000 4 lane secondary arterial Lake St. - Delaware St. 0.36 A 13,000 4 lane secondary arterial Delaware St.-Beach Blvd. 0.31 A 11,000 4 lane secondary arterial 17th Street PCH -Orange Ave. 0.29 A 11,000 4 lane primary arterial Palm Ave. -Main St. 0.48 A 18,000 4 lane primary arterial Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995. Without Garfield and Banning Bridges,with Cross Gap Connector. 7/18/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\,SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-17 Table 4.6.F-Year 2010 A-M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS p at Signalized Intersections AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Intersection V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS Edinger Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.88 D 0.82 D Warner Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.80 C 0.81 D Slater Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.90 D 0.911 C1 Talbert Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.72 C 0.82 D Yorktown Ave.-Golden West St. 0.61 B 0.77 C PCH-Golden West St. 0.70 B 0.70 B PCH-Beach Blvd. 0.58 A 0.80 C PCH-Brookhurst St. 0.68 B 0.66 B Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR,July 1995;DKS Associates, March 21, 1995 1 LOS was determined using the intersection operational analysis methodology as described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Higbway Capacity Manual. 7/18/96<(I.\ESG630\EnDSECT4-6.WPD» 4.6-18 _ y J � c ~ co a FE Lu LLJ �• ` WESTMINSTER BEACH BOISA�t = C tS1 8 z � Mc m FADDEN 4 I EDINGER !• $i HEFL p WARNER FOUNTAIN J-__—• I I O VALLEY f SLATER `S9 COUNTY OF TALBERT �,g9 �•ORANGE h}. (84LSA c>ixra) ELLIS c GARFIElD z YORKTOWN iO9 4 f ADAMs INDIANAPOLIS Legend 1 an�NTa City Boundary FUIU LTON Roadway Segment Level of Service • y .... L05 D ,> ••. sANNM :" .'• . ": ';;.'.. •• J COSTA Intersection Level of Service •, --PM Peak Hour •�� MESA �—AM Peak Hour :.,•s` Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan update EIR.7/95. 7/18/96(xsc,630) Figure 4.6.4 4 N Intersections and Roadway Segments Scale in Miles Operating Below Level of Service C LSAO 0.5 1 4.6-19 Post General Plan Update Implementation General Plan Update The General Plan Update EIR describes how the General Plan reduces environ- mental impacts on the City circulation network. This is accomplished through the use of two basic tools: 1) improve roadway facilities,and 2) control land use growth. Generally, it will be necessary for the City to coordinate with regional agencies such as Caltrans and OCTA in an effort to control impacts. Because the Amendment/Merger calls for a program of roadway improvements, including those in the City's Seven Year Capital Improvement Program and those listed in Chapter 3.0, it implements improvements consistent with the City's General Plan and lessens traffic congestion, especially at Center Avenue and I-405. A key component of the General`Plan's Circulation Element is that roadway geometrics and lane widths are proposed to change in order to accommodate future traffic volumes. As Table-4.6.G indicates, there are five Merged Project Area roadway segments that may require an increase in the number of lanes. Based upon the threshold of significance of LOS C, all potential traffic impacts on roadway segments would be mitigated to acceptable levels of service by these improvements, except for one: Pacific Coast Highway from north of Beach Boulevard to south of Brookhurst Street,a roadway segment serving,but outside of,the Merged Project Area. Table 4.6.G -Merged Project Area General Plan Roadway Segments Change in Roadway Classification Existing Proposed '�...r Roadway* Classification Classification Gothard Street: Heil Avenue to 4 lane secondary 6 lane major McFadden Avenue Orange Avenue: Golden West Street 4 lane secondary 2 lane collector to Sixth Street Pacific Coast Highway: N/O Beach 6 lane major 8 lane major Boulevard to S/O Brookhurst Street Warner Avenue: Gothard Street to 6 lane major 8 lane major Magnolia Street Yorktown Avenue: Golden West 4 lane secondary 4 lane primary Street to Main Street *None of the identified roadways require right-of-way acquisition. Source: City of Huntington Beach, Community Development Department. AMF"ALENTIMERGER INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS The Amendment/Merger includes Agency assistance and/or participation in a num- ber of transportation improvements. In many of the cases,these improvements are to alleviate congestion, remedy design problems, or offset anticipated growth in background traffic combined with Merged Project Area development and economic 7/ISY96KI:\WC7630\EMNSECT4-6 WPD)> 4.6-20 growth. Specific roadway improvements are noted in this EIR in Section 3.5,and are repeated below: Oakview Area Complete improvements to streets, street lights,alleys,and landscape. Talbert-Beach Monitor maintenance requirements of public infrastructure. Center Avenue Complete construction of Center Avenue street improvements and traffic signal,and improvements to signage and landscaping at the Hun- tington Beach Mall. Interstate 405 Improve I-405 off-ramp access to Huntington Center. Improve I-405 cloverleaf landscaping and widen McFadden/1-405 overpass. Edinger Avenue Street Alignment Seek adoption of the specific plan and construction of street improve- ments,including consolidation of ingress/egress points, unified signage and landscaping. Gothard Street and Hoover Street Construct street improvements to Connection connect Gothard and Hoover Streets to create another north-south arte- rial to alleviate traffic congestion on other north-south arterials. These improvements include minor widenings, within the existing right-of-way, restriping of streets, additional turn lanes and neighborhood protection measures (cul-de-sac at Keelson and Elm). The exceptions to these minor improvements are: 1) McFadden Bridge widening, which requires additional non-City/non-Agency funding to be constructed;and 2) the improvements to Center Avenue at Hunting- ton Beach Mall. Details of Center Avenue improvements include a new driveway into the Huntington Beach Mall. This driveway would be located directly across from the 1-405 south- bound off-ramp at Center Drive. The proposed driveway will consist of one lane (14 feet wide) and will be restricted to inbound traffic only. No exits or left turns into the driveway will be permitted. In 1993, the owners of Huntington Beach Mall approached the City of Huntington Beach with plans to change the tenants and uses for a portion of the shopping center. Because of the changes of uses, which are still being finalized, the City requested that the owners investigate the possibility of providing an additional, direct access to the center from the I-405 off-ramps. 7/18i96«I.V SG630%MtR SECT4-6_WPD» 4.6-21 It is proposed that the new driveway be designated for inbound traffic only and be j restricted to direct access from the I-405 southbound off-ramp and right-turn only from Center Avenue. Construction of this project will have no impact on mainte- nance of the traffic signal or improvements at this interchange. A minimal amount of landscaping will be removed from the westerly side of Center Avenue due to construction of the proposed driveway fill. This driveway was proposed by the City of Huntington Beach to assist in promoting business to the center by means of providing a direct access from the freeway,making the plaza more of a regional than a local shopping center. The improvements included in the Amendment/Merger, as described above, will provide general benefits to the Merged Project Area and to the City's roadway net- work consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan. Although circulation benefits are forecast as a result of the General Plan improve- ments, the General Plan Update EIR traffic analysis concluded that a significant unmitigable impact would occur along Pacific Coast Highway in the future build out condition. The segment of Pacific Coast Highway north of Beach Boulevard to south of Brookhurst Street is forecast to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service in the General Plan build out scenario. This forecast condition is partially a function of implementation of the General Plan, but is largely due to regional through traffic along Pacific Coast Highway. Overriding considerations were adopted as part of the General Plan Update EIR acknowledging the unmitigable impact. As the Amendment/Merger maintains the same land use designations and intensities as the General Plan, the Amendment/Merger is consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR, including the General Plan impacts, mitigation measures and overriding considerations. The Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the same as those in the General Plan. Therefore, no circulation impacts are forecast that were not considered in the General Plan Update EIR. Furthermore,no additional mitigation is required,and the overriding considerations adopted as part of the General Plan are unaffected by the Amendment/Merger project. 4.6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Further growth and development allowed by the General Plan would result in an increase in vehicle trips to and from the City of Huntington Beach,as well as genera- tion of pass through vehicle trips. The impact of this regional"background"growth was incorporated into the traffic model utilized in the General Plan analysis. There- fore,all projected traffic levels and the LOS reported for the segments and intersec- tions include cumulative conditions. Several factors contribute to the conclusion that the Amendment/Merger will not be locally or cumulatively significant. The land uses included in the Merged Plan are identical to those designated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Amend- ment/Merger does not result in land use changes, and traffic generation will not be affected by the Amendment/Merger. With no increase in traffic, the Amend- ment/Merger will not affect traffic levels of service or intersection capacity. The cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan build out that are considered significant and unavoidable are only PCH north of Beach Boulevard to south of 7/18/9&<I.\RSG630\EnZ,,SECT4-6 win» 4.6-22 (� Brookhurst Street. There are other similar impacts that were identified as significant, but mitigatible. These impacts have been previously acknowledged by the City in adopting the City's General Plan and certifying the General Plan Update EIR. There- fore, the Amendment/Merger has no effect on that prior finding. Future projects within the Merged Project Area,when implemented,'represent a very small percent- age of the total future traffic generated in the City. Finally, the Merged Project Area is currently built out, with few opportunities for new infill development. While future redevelopment projects may result in some intensification of uses (and, therefore, increase in traffic). The intensifica- tion/increase will be a small increment of existing background traffic increases. In addition,because it is an objective of redevelopment to resolve infrastructure prob- lems, future redevelopment projects have the means to resolve traffic impacts in conjunction with the implementation of the project. This is demonstrated by the circulation improvements already included in the list of infrastructure improvements to be assisted by the Agency. As previously discussed,the Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the same as the General Plan. Therefore, cumulative General Plan impacts, mitigation measures to address these impacts,and overriding considerations for those cumula- tive General Plan impacts deemed unmitigable are unaffected by the Amendment/ Merger. The Amendment/Merger project is consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR, including the overriding considerations for the forecast (� conditions along Pacific Coast Highway. t 4.6.5 GENERAL PIANPOLICLES The General Plan Update E1R identifies several policies contained in the Circulation Element of the General Plan that will serve to lessen the impacts to traffic and circu- lation resulting from the Amendment/Merger. The policies that are applicable to the proposed project are listed below: • Maintain primary truck routes that sustain an effective transport of commodi- ties while mitigating the negative impacts on local circulation and on noise sensitive land uses as shown in Figure CE-7 of the Circulation Element and Figure N-1 of the Noise Element in the General Plan(Policy CE 1.2.3). • Utilize Caltrans and City design criteria for any future truck routes within the City(Policy CE 1.2.4). • Maintain a city-wide level of service (LOS) for links not to exceed LOS"C"for daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst Street(Policy CE2.1.2). • Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or have reached, unacceptable levels of services(Policy CE 2.1.3). • Encourage and support the various public transit agencies and companies, (� ride sharing programs,and other incentive programs,that allow residents to 7/18/96&d%RSG630=SECT4-6.WPD» 4.6-23 utilize forms of transportation other than the private automobile(Policy CE • Augment the existing bus routes with any new bus routes designated in the Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) Future Transit Needs Study as shown in Figure CE-8 in the General Plan(Policy CE3.1.2). • Explore the possibility of a transportation center located in the vicinity of the downtown commercial area (Policy CE3.1.4). • Work with OCTA in pursuing a future urban trail transit system that services the City of Huntington Beach(Policy CE3.1.5). • Provide for future use of water borne passenger services along ocean front- ages and harbor waterways (Policy CE3.1.7). • Require developers to include transit facilities, such as park-and-ride sites, bus benches,shelters,pads or turn-outs in their development plans,where feasible as specified in the City's TDM Ordinance (Policy 3.2.1). • Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use (Policy CE5.1.1). • Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment,the community image, or quality of life(Policy CE 5.1.2). • Encourage the utilization of casements and/or rights-of-way along flood control channels,public utilities, railroads and streets,wherever possible,for the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians (Policy CE 6.1.5). • Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to pro- vide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments,schools and public facilities (Policy CE 6.1.6). • Require new development to provide accessible facilities for the elderly and disabled(Policy CE 61.79. • Encourage non-residential development to provide employee incentives for utilizing alternatives to the conventional automobile,i.e.,carpools,vanpools, buses,bicycles and walking(Policy CE 41.1). • Encourage employers to use flex-time, staggered working hours and other means, such as but not limited to the following,'to lessen commuter traffic during peak hours(Policy CE 4.1.2): ' Includes Mitigation Measure T-1 as specified in EIR No.94-1,Table EX 1. 7/1"6.K1ARSG630\=$ECT4-6.WPD» 4.6-24 - Bus passes that can be purchased on a monthly basis and sold to employees at a reduced rate with proof that they consistently used the transit system to commute. Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Parking Fees or a monthly parking fee for SOV's using parking facilities. Commuter Rideshare Matching Service or a database containing employees zip codes and commuting preferences to be provided to interested participants. Guaranteed ride home (GRI) program that provides a ride home to employees. • Encourage the use of multiple-occupancy vehicle programs for shopping and other uses to reduce midday traffic (Policy CE 4.1.3). • Support national, state and regional legislation directed at encouraging the use of carpools and vanpools (Policy CE 4.1.4). • Promote ride sharing through publicity and provision of information to the public(Policy CE 4.1.5). • Restriction or elimination of curb-side parking along congested arterials (Policy CE 4.1.8). 4.6.6 MITIGAHONMEASURES None required. 4.6.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFlF.R MITIGATION There are no significant project impacts on the circulation system that result from the Amendment/Merger. 7/is/96«I:\.RSG630\MSEM-6.WPD>> 4.6-25 l 4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section provides an overview of the biological resources present within the City of Huntington Beach and in the Merged Project Area, and discusses poten- tial impacts to those biological resources resulting from the proposed project. The information presented here is taken primarily from the EIR for the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update prepared by Envicom Corporation Guly 5, 1995),which is herewith incorporated by reference. 4.7.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SE7I7NG Biological resources within the City of Huntington Beach include marine open waters, coastal dunes, coastal saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, and grassland. The majority of these habitats is concentrated in a few areas, since most of the Iand within the City has been converted to residential, commercial, industrial, and public park uses. The Merged Project Area is primarily built out with urban uses, except for sandy beaches and a small wetland area at Beach Boulevard and PCH (see Figure 4.7.1,Area E, where a small wetland extends west of Beach Boule- vard). Urbanized areas and small municipal parks provide little or no habitat for native plants and animals. The exception is Huntington Beach Central Park, which is not within the Merged Project Area. Sign,ficant Biological Resource Areas Areas within the City,as described in the General Plan Update 01;, that continue to provide important biological resource values are described below and shown on Figure 4.7.1. The Talbert Marsh (Area G) and least tern nesting colony(Area 1) are located more than two miles south of Main-Pier. The Huntington Mesa is located about one-half mile west of Yorktown-Lake. There are a few vacant lots in the City that have biological resource value. Those of interest include larger lots with some large trees (e.g.,Eucalyptus spp.) adjacent to open fields that support California ground squirrels, Botta's pocket gopher, mice, and other small animals. The important vacant lands are shown on Figure 4.7-1, and are not in the Merged Project Area and would not be affected by any redevelopment activity in the Merged Project. The Newland Avenue Marsh (Area E) and Hun- tington Beach Central Park (Area D) are located directly to the west of the Talbert-Beach and southwest of Oakview. The City's corporate boundary includes Bolsa Chica Beach State Park,Hunting- ton Beach Municipal Beach,and Huntington Beach State Park. These areas are mostly devoid of vegetation, and are subject to intense human presence, and periodic removal of drift algae and debris. Nonetheless, the beach surf zones provide habitat for sand dwelling invertebrates, which are important food for shorebirds such as the sanderling,willet, and western sandpiper. These shore- birds, in turn, are prey for raptors, possibly including peregrine falcons. One interesting species found along sandy beaches is the California grunion (Leuresthes tenuis), a fish that leaves the ocean in spring, during high tides on nights following the full moon,to lay its eggs in the sand. 7/19/96KI:\RSG630\EMMSSECT4 7 WPD» 4.7-1 U < O J G Z C ~ m0 G iiJ W SEAL WESTMINSTEA BEACH < _ BOLSAi T - z a O o Mc g a FADDEEN £ w rw# ! I z co EDINGER E oA 2 •-- WARNER FOU'V'i'AIN ------ E I _ VALLEY •� $ SL ATEn 405 COU ORNr`(OF�` { It TAL BERT OF;OFgr ELLIS Z5MI s o C E` f GARFIELD D z c F YORKTOWN ADAMS LEGEND i I INDIANAPCL:S I � City Boundary I , ® Redevelopment Project Areas I I1 PIER E IHAMILiCN QOpen Space with Bioloaical Resource Value: F A Vacant Land(White-tailed Kite observed) 3A.NING B Vacant band(Bolsa Chica Mesa) C' C Huntington Beach Central Park COSTA D Vacant Land(Huntington Beach Mesa) •� !/.SSA E Newland Avenue Marsh H F Vacant Land G Huntington Beach Wetlands I H Talbert Marsh I California Least Tern Nesting Colony So=e:City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EM.7/95. /17/96(xsG630) Figure 4.7.1 N Scale in Miles Huntington Beach Natural Open Space L S— A 0 0.5 1 4.;-2 With Biological Resource Value t_ , Sandy beaches are located directly across PCH from Main-Pier. fl B The Newland Avenue Marsh is located in the northeast comer of the junction at ' PCH and Beach Boulevard, west of Newland Avenue. A portion of this corner along PCH, and at the junction of PCH and Newland Avenue, has been devel- oped, and the entire area is subject to human intrusion (e.g., beach parking, off-road vehicles, pedestrians, etc.). The marsh supports vegetation characteris- tics of a wetland,despite its history of disturbance and isolation from tidal influx. Moisture to support the existing pickleweed saltmarsh habitat is either through groundwater inflow, accumulated rainfall, or occasional overflows of the Hun- tington Beach Channel. A small strip of wetland habitat,which supports cattails, is located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, separated from the Newland Avenue Marsh by Beach Boulevard. This small patch, less than an acre,is in the Waterfront development site,which has had previous environmental review in Supplemental E1R 82-2. Several bird species have been recorded as nesting in the Newland Avenue Marsh, including black-necked stilt, American avocet, and killdeer (CNDDB, 1994). In addition,sensitive bird species have been recorded nesting at the site: the western snowy plover and Belding's Savannah sparrow(CNDDB, 1994). The Newland Avenue Marsh is directly adjacent to the southern end of Main-Pier. Based on findings from Supplemental EIR 82-2, certified for the Waterfront project, there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of the Waterfront site. Sensitive Biological Resources Sensitive biological resources are associated with most of the important resource areas described above. Sensitive resources include wetlands, coastal dune and scrub habitats, and a number of plant and wildlife species associated with these habitats. Appendix C of this EIR provides a complete listing of the sensitive biological elements known from or expected to occur within the City. None of the sensitive biological elements identified in Appendix C exist within the Merged Project Area. 4.7.2 TB2ZESHOZDS OF SIGNIFTCANCE The thresholds for findings of significance for impacts to biological resources are taken from Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. According to these guidelines, a project will normally have a signifi- cant effect on biological resources if it would: • Conflict with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the commu- nity where it is located; 7/19/96«I.\RSG630NEIR,$ECT4-7.WPD» 4.7-3 Substantially effect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the 1 habitat of the species;' • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species;or • Substantially diminish habitat for fish,wildlife,or plants. 4.7.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Impacts to biological resources can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts involve the removal of habitat for plants and animals for conversion to some other use. Habitat removal results in the displacement or mortality of plants and animals occupying a project area, both during site preparation and throughout the life of a project. Indirect impacts generally involve the effects of disturbance and cumulative impacts,including: • Noise and night lighting that interrupts normal daily cycles; • Predation by cats and dogs; • Introduction of non-native plant and animal species that out compete or prey upon native species; Human collection or killing of animals;and • General human activity in open space that, because it is not easily con- trolled, can create trails, disrupt breeding activities, and generally de- grades habitat quality for plants and animals. In order for direct or indirect impacts to be considered significant, they must result in impacts that exceed thresholds defined in Section 4.7.2,above. Direct impacts to important biological resources resulting from the Amendment/ Merger could occur only where those resources are found within the Merged Project Area. Based on the discussion above and on field windshield surveys, there are no important biological resources within the Merged Project Area, except for the small strip of wetland habitat across Beach Boulevard from the Newland Marsh. As mentioned above, the effect on this strip has had previous environmental review is discussed in Supplemental EIR 82-2 for the Waterfront Project, and mitigation to offset project impacts has been required in the EIR. ' Section 15380 of CEQA indicates that plants or animals listed by a gov- ernment agency as rare or endangered are presumed rare or endangered for the purposes of CEQA analysis, without the need for further proof. In addition, Section 15380 (d) states that a plant or animal species can betreated as rare or endangered even if not placed on an official list, provided the status of the species meets the definitions of rare or endan- gered in Section 15380(b). 7/19i96<<I:\RSG630\EIR�.SEM-7.WPD» 4.74 Any future discretionary actions associated with the Newland Avenue Marsh and the small strip of wetland habitat will be subject to further environmental re- view. Indirect impacts may occur where important biological resources are located adjacent to or nearby the Merged Project Area and the proposed redevelopment would result in changed or intensified uses,causing greater indirect effects than existing conditions. Although sandy beaches are in close proximity to Main-Pier, the existing intense use of the beaches would mask any additional impact associated with the AmendmenVMerger. Huntington Beach Central Park receives intensive public use. Important biologi- cal resource areas are located in relatively protected, interior areas of the park. Existing uses within the park have a greater effect on the park's biological re- sources than any uses proposed for the Merged Project Area adjacent to the park. The streets surrounding the park act as a buffer between the park and adjacent uses. In addition, the more developed perimeter park space serves as a buffer between sensitive biological resources in the interior of the park and activities outside the park. For these reasons, indirect impacts to the park's biological resources resulting from the Amendment/Merger are not expected to be significant. As indicated in Section 4.7.1 above, the Newland Avenue Marsh is located di- rectly adjacent to the southern end of Main-Pier. Newland Avenue Marsh may be indirectly impacted by changed or intensified uses at the southern end of Main- Pier,which is adjacent to the marsh. As noted previously, the marsh is disturbed and degraded, but still provides important resource values. Indirect impacts may include increased human intrusion and related activities such as noise and night lighting associated with higher intensity/higher scale uses. The degree of potential indirect impacts would depend on the uses proposed and their scale. None of the other designated biological resource areas is closer than one-half mile to the Merged Project Area, and are too far from the Merged Project Area to be affected by direct or indirect impacts. Furthermore, the Merged Project is located in an urban setting and will not adversely impact any rare or endangered species of plant, animal or any habitat of the species; interfere with the move- ment of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species; or diminish habitat for fish, wildlife and/or plants. Therefore, the Merged Project will not significantly impact biological resources in the area. 4.7.4 CUMULA77VE IMPACTS General Plan land uses within the Merged Project Area will not change with the Amendment/Merger. Consequently,the effects on biological resources with the Merge Project Area will be identical to the potential impacts that would occur without it. In addition, the Merged Project Area land use designations are identi- cal to the City's General Plan designations. In addition, the Merged Project is not proposing any development or.the change of any land use designations. 7/19/96«I..\RSG630\EIR'SECT4-7.wPD>> 4.7-5 Therefore,the potential impacts are no different from those contemplated in the t. General Plan and reported in the General Plan Update EIR. For these reasons,it is not expected that there would be significant direct or indirect impacts to the significant biological resource areas identified in the General Plan or the sensi- tive biological resources identified earlier in this section. 4.7.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES None apply to the Merged Project. 4.7.6 MIIYGA27ON MEASVRES Mitigation measures are not warranted. 4.7.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION The Merged Project is located in an urban setting and is not near any sensitive biological resource areas. Therefore,the Merged Project will not result in signifi- cant direct or indirect impacts on any rare or endangered plant or animal species or their habitats,interfere with the movements of any migratory fish or wildlife species, or diminish the habitat for fish,wildlife and/or plants. t 7n9)96<<I:\xsC,s3o\EII\,sEcr4-7 VPD>> 4.7-6 4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH 4.&1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The public health issues and hazards identified in the Merged Project include the following: hazardous waste materials (generation, collection, treatment, trans- port),and emergency response time/capabilities. Regulatory Background Hazardous waste is defined as: "a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious characteristics may: • Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an in- crease in serious irreversible,or incapacitating reversible illness; or • Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated,stored,transported, or disposed of, or otherwise managed."' Beginning in 1987,the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed the prepa- ration of a County Plan under AP 2948. The Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan (HV`MP), completed in January, 1989,and amended in June 1991, established a city and County action program for managing hazardous waste through the year 2000. The City of Huntington Beach has incorporated applicable portions of the HWMP into their General Plan. A description of the implementation programs for existing and future actions and activities of the County, cities, and special districts for the management of hazardous waste in Orange County contained in the HWMP is included in the General Plan Update EIR. County and City Requirements A permit is required by the Orange County Health Department if a business creates or disposes hazardous waste. Businesses that handle hazardous materials are also required by County ordinance to disclose the amounts and the types of materials to local fire departments. In addition to County requirements,the City of Huntington Beach requires that any business storing or handling hazardous materials secure a City permit. The City of Huntington Beach has approximately 690 facilities registered as hazardous materials operations within its boundaries (General Plan Update E1R, page 5.11-2). The majority of these facilities are small-scale generators such as auto body and repair garages, gas stations, dry cleaners, and light industry. i Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, § 1004(5) 7/18j96<d\TtSG630�5ECT".WM)> 4.8-1 These facilities are spread throughout the City, including the Merged Project Area. Hazardous Waste Generation/Treatment Relative to larger scale hazardous waste generators, the Comprehensive Environ- mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) established the federal means for hazardous waste dump sites "cleanup,"and identified the methods to finance cleanup operations of so called "Superfund" sites. Two "Superfund"sites are located (Ascon Landfill and AMF Tobo Scope Inc.)within Huntington Beach. In addition, the Huntington Beach Fire Department has identified 19 hazardous materials operations (including the two "Superfund" sites) in the City that they feel are of'special concern (see Figure HH-1 in the General Plan EIR, page 5.11-4). None of the"Superfund"sites or the 19 hazard- ous materials operations are located in the Merged Project Area; however, the Ano D'art Inc. operation is located adjacent to Huntington Center. Hazardous Waste Collection The Hazardous Materials Program at the Orange County Fire Department is responsible for planning,coordination,and management of a countywide collec- tion and disposal of household hazardous waste.-The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department, in conjunction with the Orange County Fire Department, (� operates a facility called the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collec- tion Center at the Rainbow Disposal Company transfer station,located at 17121 Nichols Avenue in Huntington Beach. This transfer station serves the Merged Project Area,but is not located within the Merged Project Area. Hazardous Waste Transport The transport of hazardous materials by truck or rail is regulated by the United States Department of Transportation through National Safety Standards. The federal safety standards are also included in the California Administrative Code, Environmental Health Division. There are no designated routes or travel time restrictions for hazardous material transporters on City streets; however, the local police department must be notified of the transport. In addition,transport of acutely toxic/hazardous mate- rials must be reported to the Califomia Highway Patrol. i The Huntington Beach Police Department has reported that most of the City's hazardous waste transport occurs along the City's truck routes. Typical east west corridors used to transport hazardous waste within the Merged Project Area include Warner and Edinger Avenues. Beach Boulevard is often used as the primary route when transporting hazardous waste from the Ascon Landfill to disposal sites outside of the City. Hazardous waste transport also t 7/18i96<<I:\ItSG630\EUt SECT".VM)> 4.8-2 occurs along the I-405 Freeway,which abuts several residential and commercial land uses in Huntington Center. Emergency Response The Huntington Beach Fire Department initially responds to all local reports involving hazardous waste. If they determine a need for special expertise and equipment, they may request assistance from the Orange County Hazardous Materials(Hazmat) Team. The Hazmat Team provides hazard identification,risk assessment, and actual control measures. The Hazmat Team is a cooperative organization structure intended to bring the maximum available equipment and special expertise to any given emergency situation. Huntington Beach also maintains a Multi-Hazard Function Plan, should a hazardous waste accident create the need to evacuate all or a portion of the City. 4.8.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE The following thresholds of significance are used to determine potentially signifi- cant public health impacts: • Project construction that would interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. ' • Increased exposure to the general public or environment due to a haz- ardous material release or improper hazardous materials disposal prac- tices. • Degradation of water quality or contamination of a public water supply by release of hazardous waste or materials. 4.8.3 PROJECT IMPACTS With the Amendment/Merger,there will be no change in the Merged Project Area boundaries. The Amendment/Merger does not add property to,or delete prop- erty from,the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger is a reorganization of the redevelopment process and authority. None of the 19 hazardous waste material operations identified by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department are located within the Merged Project Area; however,the Ano D'art Inc.operation is located adjacent to Huntington Center. Safe and proper operation of hazardous material at existing and future land sites, including the Ano D'Art Inc. operation,requires that these operations continue to be subject to local, State, and federal regulations regarding the use, genera- tion, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of toxic and hazardous materials/waste. All hazardous waste material sites would continue to be identi- fied, monitored, and controlled by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Therefore, any effects to public health and safety would be considered minimal and less than significant. } 7n8j96*ci:\xsG,60\EMsacr4-s VM> 4.8-3 4.8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS The General Plan Update EIR(page 5.11-10) discusses the cumulative impacts of implementing the General Plan from existing and reasonably foreseeable future sources of toxic or hazardous materials/wastes. Although future populations will be subject to impacts from existing and reasonable foreseeable sources of toxic or hazardous materials/wastes, implementation of existing County and State criteria and guidelines for toxic and hazardous materials handling, storage, transport,and location of new uses that include toxic or hazardous materials will reduce the adverse cumulative impacts to a level below significance. 4.8.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICLES The General Plan identifies several policies in the Hazardous Materials Element that reduce potential effects in the Merged Project Area. The applicable policies are identified below: • Facilitate proper disposal of hazardous waste by providing means for safe disposal(Policy HM 1.1.1). • Implement federal, State and local regulations for the handling, storage and disposal of hazardous materials (Policy HM 1.1.4). Support land use patterns that avoid development of hazardous waste generators adjacent to sensitive uses(Policy HM 1.2.1). • Identify and map all existing hazardous waste sites (Policy HM 1.4.1). • Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency(EMA) (Policy HM 1.4.4). These policies, combined with the current regulatory practices of the Hunting- ton Beach Fire Department and the permitting review necessary to maintain an existing hazardous materials site or to open a new site,fully regulate the poten- tial safety hazards to a level of impact that is less than significant. 4.8.6 MITIGATION JMSVRES Mitigation measures are not warranted. 4.8.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MMGAT70N With implementation of the General Plan policies, the effects of the Amend- ment/Merger to public health will be reduced to a level below significance. t 7/18/96«I:%WG630\E1KR`SECT4-8 WPD» ''�$ 4.9 NOISE This section is based on the analysis in the General Plan Update EIR and on field observation by ISA in May, 1996. 4.9.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Noise Sources Noise is generated from a variety of sources, including mobile and stationary sources. Exterior noise applicable to the study area is generated by motor vehi- cles, aircraft operations, construction work, and industrial operations. Noise is often defined as "unwanted sound" because of its potential to disrupt sleep, interfere with verbal communication,and damage hearing. The primary noise source within and adjacent to the Merged Project Area is vehicular traffic. Secondary noise sources include aircraft operations and petro- leum extraction activities. Vehicular traffic noise is the most pervasive source of noise in the Merged Project Area. This can be attributed to the extensive network of arterial roadways and the large number of vehicle trips on those roadways. There are no airports located within Huntington Beach. In addition, no airplane Sight patterns for either the Long Beach Municipal Airport or the Orange County Airport (John Wayne Airport) exist over the City of Huntington Beach (Federal Aviation Administration, Burgen, 1992). However, it is not uncommon for airplanes to fly over the Merged Project Area displaying advertisement banners, primarily during summer months, and during aircraft approach to either of the two aforementioned airports. During approach flights to the Long Beach Munic- ipal Airport, airplanes typically fly several times daily over downtown Hunting- ton Beach,areas east of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands,and the Huntington Harbour, at altitudes ranging from 1,500 to 4,000 feet. For similar approach flights to the Orange County Airport, airplanes occasionally fly over the southeastern most portion of the City at an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet(Burgen, 1992). Two heliports and three helistops are located within the City. A heliport is defined as an airport that serves helicopters,whereas a helistop is a landing take- off pad that is primarily used to pick up and drop off passengers. The heliports are located on Gothard Street (10301 Gothard) and the Signal Oil Fields. The helistops are located at the Guardian Center, the McDonnell-Douglas Space Center, and the Civic Center. With the exception of the Huntington Beach Police Department's helicopters, helicopter flight routes within the City are typically located above major and primary arterials,as well as the 405 Freeway. Although single event noise exposure resulting from airplane and helicopter operations are potentially annoying, the relatively low frequency and short duration of these operations do not significantly affect average daily noise levels within the City. 7/19N6«I:1RSG630\EHC�SECT4-9.WPD>> 4.9-1 Petroleum extraction from the Huntington Beach Oil Field is a source of noise within the City. various independent oil companies also maintain several "oil islands"(isolated oil extraction areas) near Downtown Huntington Beach. Alam- Pier has several"oil islands"disbursed throughout the project area. Noise Measurement Environmental noise is usually measured in A-weighted decibels (dB). A decibel is a logarithmic unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves, traveling outward from a source exert a sound pressure (commonly called "sound level") mea- sured in decibels. The dBA is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. In general, a three dBA increase in sound level represents a doubling in sound energy but it will not be experienced as a doubling of loudness. A one dBA fluctuation in sound requires close attention to notice a change in loudness, whereas a three dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is nearly twice as loud. A noise level of 70 dBA is approximately twice as loud as 60 dBA and four times as loud as 50 dBA. The average range of sounds that humans are commonly exposed to generally falls within the 30-100 dBA range (Table 4.9.A). Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time. Different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. These descriptors include Leq, which is the actual time-averaged noise level, and Ldn, which is the day-night average noise level. Ldn is a 24 hour noise measurement,which ac- counts for people's greater sensitivity to nighttime noise. Using the Ldn descriptor, noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted by adding ten dBA to noise readings taken during that period to account for the greater annoy- ance of nighttime noises. For planning purposes, the 24 hour Ldn is roughly equivalent to the peak hour Leq for noise environments dominated by traffic noise minus five dBA(Office of Noise Control, 1976). This System of Calculating noise exposure has been recommended as the uniformly accepted index by the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA). Noise Regulations The State Office of Noise Control has established guidelines to provide a com- munity with a noise environment that it deems to be generally acceptable. Figure 4.9.1 depicts ranges of noise exposure levels that are considered compati- ble with types of land uses. Where a land use is denoted as "normally accept- able" for the given Ldn noise environment, the highest noise level in that range should be considered the maximum desirable for conventional construction that does not incorporate any special acoustic treatment. The acceptability of noise environments classified as"conditionally acceptable"or"normally unacceptable" will depend on the anticipated amount of time that will normally be spent outside the structure and the acoustic treatment to be incorporated in the struc- ture's design. t 7/19/9CwI_\RSG630\EMECT4-9.WD» 4.9-2 Table 4.9.A.-Sound Levels and Human Responses Sound Level dBA Example Human Response 0 Threshold of hearing 10 Just audible 20 Broadcasting studio 30 Whisper Very quiet 40 Library Quiet 50 Light auto traffic at 100 feet 60 Conversation 70 Freeway traffic at 50 feet Telephone use difficult 80 Alarm clock Annoying 90 Heavy truck Very annoying; hearing damage after 8 hours 100 Jet Flyover(1000 ft.) 110 120 Jet flyover(200 ft.) Initial discomfort;maxi- mum vocal effort 130 140 Initial pain threshold 150 Carrier deck jet operation Source: General Plan Update'EIP,July 1995. 7/1"6«I.\RSG630NEM\SECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-3 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATAGORY Ldn OR CNEL,dB 55 60 65 70 75 80 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX, MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL-MULTI-FAMILY TRANSIENT LODGING- HOTELS,MOTELS SCHOOLS,LIBRARIES, CHURCHES,HOSPITALS, ZEE NURSING HOMES AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT HALLS, AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA,OUTDOOR SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS �/ZV16/Z EE TMMM. GOLF COURSES,RIDING STABLES, WATER RECREATION, CEMETERIES MMMM, OFFICE BUILDINGS-BUSINESS, 777777 COMMERCIAL&PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING, UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the New construction or development should generally be assumption that any buildings involved are of normal discouraged. If new construction or development does conventional construction, without any special noise proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction insulation requirements. requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation New construction or development should generally not features included in the design. Conventional be undertaken• construction, but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. Source:Office of Noise Control,California Department of Health. 5/21/%(RSG630) Figure 4.9.1 LSD Land Use Compatibility for 4.9-4 Community Noise Environments Federal and State regulations provide for certain controls on noise sources,such as motor vehicles. In addition, the City has adopted provisions that restrict the generation of noise within the community. The City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance is described in detail in the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40, Noise Control. The noise level standards that have been adopted by the City are more stringent than State Office of Noise Control guidelines for residential and commercial noise levels. Furthermore, the City's noise ordinance places limita- tions on noise produced by equipment operation, human activities, and con- struction. As stated in the City's Noise Ordinance, the Orange County health officer has primary responsibility for the enforcement of these regulations. The exterior and interior noise standards of the City's Noise Ordinance are presented below in Tables 4.9.13 and 4.9.C. Existing Noise Conditions As discussed previously,the primary source of noise affecting the Merged Project Area is motor vehicles. Average daily traffic flows along primary roadway corri- dors within the City were utilized to model noise levels (Table 4.9.1)). In addition to the Noise Prediction Model, which is based on existing traffic volumes on primary roadways in the City, noise measurements were also taken at various locations throughout the City to validate the accuracy of the model calculation, to determine existing ambient noise levels on secondary or less traveled residential streets,and to account for point sources of noise. These are reported in the General Plan Update in their entirety (see General Plan Update EIR Figure N-2). Noise measurements in specific residential areas throughout the City were taken to assess existing ambient noise levels. Noise levels in these areas generally range from 50-65 dBA Ldn. Residential uses at various locations throughout the City are exposed to noise levels exceeding 55 dBA Ldn, the normally acceptable level according to Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control) of the City's Municipal Code. However,many of these uses are provided with noise attenua- tion measures (e.g.,walls, double glazed windows). Noise measurements were also taken near selected point sources of noise, including the Huntington Beach Oil Field, Orange County Sanitation Treatment Plant, and Southern California Edison Company Generating Plant. All of these locations registered noise levels below 66 dBA Ldn; the main source of noise was generated by motor vehicles operating in the vicinity of the point sources (see Appendix F of the General Plan Update EIR Technical Appendices).There are no known noise point sources within the Merged Project Area based on a review of the General Plan Update EIR and visual inspection of the Merged Project Area in May, 1996. 7/1"6<<I:\RSG630\EnR ECT4-9.WPD>> 4.9-5 Table 4.9.B-City of Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Land Use Noise Level Time Period 1 All residential properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 50 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 2 All professional office 55 dBA Anytime and public institutional properties 3 All other commercial 60 dBA Anytime properties 4 All industrial properties 70 dBA Anytime Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995. Table 4.9.0-Interior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 55 dBA 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 1 45 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. 2,3,4 55 dBA Anytime Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995. 7/19y96«I:\RS"30\EnDSECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-6 Table 4.9.1)-Existing and Future Noise Levels (Ldn) at 50 Feet from Centerlines of Major 4 Traffic Corridors �.,r►' Average Daily Traffic Noise Level dBA Roadway Segment Existing(1992) Future (2010) Existing Future A. Warner Avenue(between) 1) Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 34,000 46,000 65.27 65.40 2) Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 21,000 47,000 65.06 68.56 B. Adams Avenue(between) 1) Main St.-Beach Blvd. 8,000 17,000 64.64 67.91 C. Beach Boulevard(between) 1) PCH-Atlanta Ave. 28,000 30,000 65.19 65.22 2) IndianapoIis Ave.-Adams Ave. 40,000 40,000 65.34 65.34 3) Adams Ave.-Yorktown Ave. 44,000 38,000 65.38 65.32 4) Ellis Ave.-Talbert Ave. 60,000 54,000 65.52 65.47 5) Talbert Ave.-Slater Ave. 60,000 49,000 65.52 65.43 6) Slater Ave.-Warner Ave. 62,000 49,000 65.53 65.43 7) Warner Ave.-Heil Ave. 62,000 50,000 65.53 65.44 D. PCH(between) 1) Golden West St.-Brookhurst St. 34,000 49,000 65.27 65.43 E. Main Street(between) 1) Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 12,000 26,000 64.82 68.18 F. Edinger Avenue(between) 1) Golden West St.-Gothard St. 39,000 44,000 65.33 65.38 G. Talbert Ave.(between) 1) Golden West St.-Gothard St. 5,000 91000 64.44 66.99 2) Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 10,000 12,000 64.82 64.90 3) Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 14,000 18,000 64.97 65.08 H. Yorktown Avenue(between) 1) Beach Blvd.-Magnolia St. 14000 17000 64.89 64.97 Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995. 7/19/96KI:\RSG630NEMR$ECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-7 4 9.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGIVLFICAIVCE As identified above, ambient noise levels exceed City standards along major arterial roadways within the Merged Project Area. The following thresholds of significance are used to determine potentially significant noise impacts. • Future ambient noise levels exceed 70 dBA I.dn in Noise Zone 4 (Indus- trial); • An audible (three dBA) increase in exterior 24 hour ambient noise levels occurs in Noise Zones 1, 2 or 3 (see Table 4.9.0 for interior noise stan- dard noise zones). No additional CEQA Guidelines thresholds of significance criteria apply. 4.9.3 PROJECT IMPACTS This section addresses future noise effects for the Merged Project Area based upon cumulative build out of all areas within the City boundaries,as presented in the General Plan Update EIR. .Implementation of the General Plan would generate an increase in vehicular trips throughout the City that would, in turn, generate an increase in ambient noise levels throughout the City. This includes increased vehicle trips originating from,and ending in, the Merged Project Area. Future ambient noise levels were estimated using future traffic data as presented in Section 5.3,Transportation/Circulation of the General Plan Update EIR. Table 4.9.D includes modeling results for existing as well as future ambient noise levels at build out conditions along the arterial roadways of the City near the Merged Project Area. As the table indicates, there are no areas within the Merged Project Area that would experience an audible (three dB or greater) change in ambient noise levels. None of the above roadway links are within the Merged Project Area; however, they are adjacent (Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue; Warner Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street). Nonetheless,at build out of the City,including the Merged Project Area,traffic from and through the Merged Project Area will contribute to the overall increase in noise levels reported in the General Plan Update EIR. Significant noise impacts on existing sensitive uses may also be generated during the construction of infrastructure improvements and future uses permitted in the Merged Project Area. Construction noise is controlled through the City's Noise Ordinance. General Plan Policy N 1.6.1 ensures that construction activi- ties are regulated and are in conformance with City ordinances. Adherence to the City's policies and noise ordinance will reduce the effects of construction noise on sensitive receptors to a level that is less than significant. t 7l1"Cwle\RSG630\EMSECT'4-9.WPD) 4.9-8 4.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As reported in the General Plan Update EIR, local and regional vehicular traffic, as well as increases in rail and air traffic,will contribute to cumulative increases in ambient noise levels,both within and outside of the boundaries of the Merged Project Area. Because there is no specific development proposed as part of the Amendment/Merger, and there is no additional traffic or aircraft trips associated with the Amendment/Merger (see Transportation and Circulation, Section 4.6 for a description of traffic effects), there will be no increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, there is no exceedance of the thresholds of significance. 4.9.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan includes several relevant polices in the Noise Element. The policies that are applicable to the Amendment/Merger are identified below. • Require, in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of 50 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior,all new development of "noise sensitive" land uses such as housing, health care facilities, schools,libraries, religious facilities include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits (Policy N 1.2.1). • Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or ex- panded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise levels to exceed an Ldn of.65 dB(A) exterior on areas containing "noise sensitive"land uses as depicted on Figure N-1 in the General Plan (Policy N I22). • Require development,in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby,reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dB(A) Ldn level (Policy N I.2.3). • Encourage existing "noise sensitive uses, " including schools, libraries, health care facilities, and residential uses to incorporate fences, walls, landscaping,and/or other noise buffers and barriers,where appropriate and feasible to mitigate noise impacts (Policy N I.2.4). • Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance (Policy N 12.-5). • Require all new non-residential development to design and configure on-site ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby"noise sensitive"land uses to the greatest degree practicable (Policy N 1.3.1). } 7/19i96«I:\tSG630\E=ECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-9 Provide for the development of alternate transportation modes such as bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways to minimize the number of noise generating automobile trips (Policy N 1.3.7). • Require that mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units or pool equipment,comply with the City's noise ordinance and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (Policy N 1.3.10). • Require commercial and industrial land uses' loading and shipping facili- ties which abut residential parcels to be located and designed to mini- mize the potential noise impacts upon residential parcels (Policy N 1.4.2). • Require all commercial and industrial land uses' parking areas which abut residential areas to be buffered and shielded by walls, fences, or adequate landscaping (Policy N 1.4.3). • Require commercial or industrial truck delivery hours to land uses abut- ting residential uses to be limited unless there is no feasible alternative or there are overriding transportation benefits (Policy N 1.4.5). • Require that commercial and residential mixed-use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use. The design measure used may in- dude: (1)the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or(2) 1` the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission (Policy N 1.5.1). • Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation,to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excess or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordi- nance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance (Policy N 1.6.1). • Require that entertainment and restaurant/bar uses take appropriate steps to control the activities of their patrons on-site,as well as within a reasonable and legally justified distance or proximity,to minimize poten- tial noise-related impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods (Polity N1.8.1). • Require new oil or residential development to include noise mitigation measures (Policy NT.II.1). • Require detailed and independent acoustical studies be conducted for any new or renovated land uses or structures determined to be potential major stationary noise sources. Recommended mitigation measures must be successfully implemented and tested, prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the land use or structure(Policy N 1.12.1). Encourage major stationary noise generating sources throughout the City of Huntington Beach to install additional noise buffering or reduction 7/1"64(1:\RSG630\F.'MECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-10 mechanisms within their facilities to reduce noise generation levels to the lowest extent practicable prior to the renewal of Conditional Use Permits or business licenses or prior to the approval and/or issuance of new Conditional Use Permits for said facilities (Policy N 1.12.2). 4.9.6MrHGA7IONMEASURES None required. 4.9.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION General Plan Noise EIement policies and City noise ordinances will be imple- mented for the Amendment/Merger, resulting in lower ambient noise levels than reported in the General Plan Update EIR. Because the Amendment/Merger does not change land use intensities from those reported in the General Plan, and there is no specific new development proposed by the Amendment/Merger, there are no significant impacts. 7/19Y96<cI_\RSG630\MSECT4-9.WPro 4.9-I1 4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Questionnaires were sent with the Notice of Preparation for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment EIR to the public service utilities and other service provid- ers requesting information on current service levels in the Merged Project Area, whether demand exceeds supply, and whether there would be an impact as a result of the project. Information from the questionnaire responses is used as a basis for the analysis,and is included throughout the chapter. Information from the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR is also used in the analy- sis in this section. 4.10.1 EaSTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Police Services The City of Huntington Beach is served by one central police station and four substations. The main station is located at 2000 Main Street,within Yorktown- Lake. The Oakview Center Substation, located at 17261 Oak Lane, is located within Oakview. The Downtown Substation,at 204 5th Street,is located within Main-Pier. Huntington Center Substation, at 7777 Edinger, is located within Huntington Center. Figure P-1 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.13.1-2) identifies the locations of the central police station and substations. The General Plan Update EIR reports that the Downtown and beach areas con- tinue to require extensive police coverage, particularly during the warmer months of the year when crowds increase. Although the Koledo Park-Oakview area requires extra police coverage,the police substation in that area has helped to stabilize reported crimes. Eire and Emergency'Medical Services The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department provides fire protection services to the Merged Project Area. The Fire Department has seven fire stations,three of which are located adjacent to or within the Merged Project Area. The station number,name,location, and equipment assigned to the three stations are iden- tified in Table 4.10.A. Table 4.10-B lists the necessary staff levels to operate the fire protection equipment. The Fire Department operates on a 24 hour shift basis,with one command unit staffed with two persons, five engine companies staffed with three persons each, two paramedic engine companies staffed with four persons each, three para- medic vans staffed with two persons each, two ladder truck companies staffed with four persons each, three ambulance units staffed with two persons each, and a combination engine,hazmat/light air company staffed with three persons. This provides a total of 36 firefighters each day, supported by three dispatchers and administrative staff. Staffing levels are increased when fire risk levels are increased (e.g.,high winds,active fire conditions,natural disasters). 7/19H6<�I:\RSG630�EMECT4-10.W M>> 4.10-1 I Table 4.1OA-Fire Stations Servicing the Merged Project Area � 3 Station No./Name Station Location Equipment Assigned) �J 1-Gothard Station 18311 Gothard Ambulance Unit, HA 41 Street Fire Paramedic Engine HME 41 Fire Engine Squad HE 241 HAZ-MAT Unit HMH 41 Air&Mobile Light Plant HLA 41 Command Unit HB 4 2-Murdy Station 16221 Gothard Fire Ambulance HA 41 Street Fire Engine HE 42 Ladder Truck HQ 42 Paramedic Unit HM 42 Reserve Engine HE 242 Ambulance Unit HA 42 5-lake Station 530 Lake Street Fire Engine HE 45 Ladder Truck HQ45 Paramedic Unit HN 45 Reserve Engine HE 245 Ambulance Unit HA 45 Table 4.10.B-Fire Operations Staffing Levels Hazardous Engine Truck Materials Paramedic Engine 1 Captain 1 Captain 1 Captain 1 Captain(Paramedic) 1 Engine 1 Engine 1 Engineer 1 Engineer(Paramedic) 1 Firefighter 2 Firefighters 1 Firefighter 1 Firefighter 1 Firefighter Paramedic 3 Total 4 Total 3 Total 4 Total(Requires a total of two paramedics) Dispatch Medic Van Battalion Chief 3 Dispatch2 2 Paramedics 1 Battalion Chief 1 Engineer/Aide 3 Total 2 Total 2 Total SOURCE:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995. 1 HA-Huntington Ambulance HE-Huntington Engine HM-Huntington Medic HHM-Huntington Hazardous Materials HLA-Huntington Light Air HB-Huntington Battalion 2 Operated under a Joint Powers Authority that includes the cities of Foun- tain Valley,Huntington Beach,Newport Beach,and Westminster. 7/19/96«I:1RSG630\Enr SECT4-10.WPD» 4.10-2 • Currently, a response time of five minutes or less exists for the Merged Project Area. (Source: General Plan Update EIR). Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities The City of Huntington Beach has several parks, and offers a wide variety of recreational programs and facilities, primarily through the City's Department of Community Services. Park facilities include community centers,senior centers, a golf course,clubhouses,a gym and pool,bikeways and equestrian trail systems, a historic structure, campgrounds, and marine based amenities such as the beaches and the pier. The City contains 1,165.7 acres of parks and recreational facilities, including beach parks, a City owned golf course, and other parks currently planned or under development. Park facilities in the City include mini, neighborhood, community,and regional parks. Terry Park is located within Talbert-Beach. Facilities at Terry Park include an activities building, basketball courts, children's play area, open grass play area, picnic tables and softball diamonds. The Huntington City Beach is located within Main-Pier. Facilities include a public beach, basketball courts, a bicycle path, and camping. There are no park facilities located within Yorktown-Lake, Huntington Center and Oakview. Recreational facilities other than parks in the City include the Municipal Pier, recreational vehicle camping, Huntington Harbour, community centers, Seniors' Center,golf courses, City Gym and Pool, clubhouses, bikeways, equestrian trail system,Newland House, Golden West College, and private recreational facilities. These facilities are described in further detail in the General Plan Update EIR (pages 5.13.4-5 through 5.13.4-8). Road Maintenance Road maintenance includes the general care of roads and landscaping within all public rights-of-way. This work is primarily handled by the City's Public Works Department through the Street and Sewer Maintenance Division and the Park, Tree, and Landscape Division. The Street and Sewer Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the City's streets. The Division also conducts preventative road maintenance ser- vices. The Park, Tree and Landscape Division is responsible for landscape and tree maintenance of all public right-of-way property within the City. In addition,the Division maintains landscape and trees on Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and Pacific Coast Highway(SR-1). 7/19/96aI:\RSG63"1"ECT4-10.WPD» 4.10-3 The above road maintenance programs and departments cover the entire City of , ) Huntington Beach. Therefore,the Merged Project Area is served by road mainte- nance in the City of Huntington Beach. Other Governmental Services .Library Service There are five public libraries within the City, which serve the Merged Project Area and are identified in Table 4.10.C. The Oakview Branch Library is the only library within the Merged Project Area. Table 4.10.0 -City of Huntington Beach Public Libraries Visitors Per Name Location Day No.of Volumes Central Library 7111 Talbert Ave. 3,000 350,000 volumes, 12,000 and Cultural genealogy items&5,700 Center media items Graham Branch 15882 Graham 240 19,850 Street Oakview Branch 17251 Oak Lane 100 6,540 Banning Branch 9281 Banning Ave- 214 24,197 nue Main Street 525 Main Street 160 26,670 Branch SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995; Personal Communication with Oakview Branch Library Staff. The Banning and Graham branches are operating beyond capacity. In addition, the Main Street branch library requires facility rehabilitation. The Oakview branch library is a new facility,and is located in Oakview. This facility has been in operation for approximately one year. Public Health Care Service Public health care is provided to City residents through two governmental orga- nizations:the County of Orange Health Care Agency and the University of Cali- fornia at Irvine,Medical Center. 7/19/96«I:uLSG630\EWECT4-10.WPD» 4.10-4 Utility Services Water The Huntington Beach Water Department currently supplies an annual average of 33 million gallons per day (MGD) to 48,000 water meters. Typically, the majority of the City's water is supplied by groundwater wells,while the remain- der is supplied through imported sources. Varying rainfall amounts and import water availability make these amounts vary fromyear to year. The City has two water pressure zones: Zone Nos. 1 and 2. Zone No. 1 covers the majority of the City and includes the Merged Project Area. The water pres- sure in Zone No. 1 is approximately 50 to 60 pounds per square inch(psi). Other sources of water for the City of Huntington Beach include water supplied by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and 14 underground water wells. One of the wells is located within the Merged Project Area,within Huntington Center. The City's water storage system consists of the Overmyer Reservoir Complex and the Peck Reservoir. The Peck Reservoir has a capacity of 16 million gallons; the Overmyer Reservoir Complex has a capacity of 24.5 million gallons. Currently, the storage facilities are inadequate to serve the water demands of the City. A new nine million gallon reservoir is being considered. Under the Master Plan for the City's water system designed to accommodate new growth and development,including the following facilities to be constructed: • Three new underground water wells, • One nine million gallon reservoir, and • Reclaimed water distribution line to connect with the Orange County Water District's Green Acres Project. Other planned improvements include increasing the water system capacity for water distribution relative to boosters and groundwater well sources. Sewerage Sewerage services for the City of Huntington Beach are provided by the Sanita- tion Districts of Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach. Currently,98 percent of the residents of the City are connected to the existing sewer system, while the remaining two percent use septic tanks. The Sanitation Districts of Orange County has two wastewater treatment plants that serve the City. Both wastewater treatment plants perform primary and secondary treatment. Plant No. 1 has an operating capacity,of 60 million gallons per day (mgd). Plant No. 2 has an operating capacity of 200 mgd for primary treatment and 96 mgd for secondary treatment. Plant No.2 currently operates at 170 mgd. Currently,the Sanitation Districts of Orange County is experiencing a 14 percent decrease in wastewater treatment demand due to conservation 7/ig/ l..\RSG630\.EMHCT4-10 Wm>> 4.10-5 `moo►° practices and City/County imposed regulations. Neither of these wastewater treatment plans is located within the Merged Project Area. However, these plants serve the Merged Project Area. Solid Waste The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department reports that the City currently generates approximately 1,845 tons of solid waste per day. Rainbow Disposal,the provider of waste collection service to the City,transports waste to a transfer station and then to the City's materials recovery facility (MRF). The MRF is located at 17121 Nichols Avenue, and is not within the Merged Project Area. Solid waste is sorted at the MRF,and all recyclables are separated. Approx- imately 16 percent of the solid waste accepted by the MRF is diverted to recy- cling- Solid waste that is not recycled is transported to the Frank Bowerman Landfill in Bee Canyon in the City of Irvine. The lifespan of the Landfill is 30 years,begin- ning in 1995. On January 1, 1990, the California State Legislature enacted the California Inte- grated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). Under AB939, cities and counties must identify and implement a solid waste reduction schedule to divert 25 percent from the solid waste stream by 1995, increasing to 50 percent by 2000. In response to AB939, the City of Huntington Beach adopted a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) in April, 1992. If AB939 (discussed below) solid waste reduc- tion requirements are met,the Frank Bowerman Landfill has a potential lifespan of 50 years. Storm Drainage/Flooding Storm Drainage The storm drainage system for the Redevelopment Project Area is a combination of the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department. Figure SD-1 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.12.3-2) illustrates the existing storm drain channels within the City. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has identified locations in the City that are susceptible to flooding. Figure 4.10.1 identifies the potential FEMA flood event locations in the City. The Merged Project Area is also shown on the map- Project specific flooding information is identified below. The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project, a storm water project of the United States Army Corps of Engineers, is expected to be completed in the year 2000. The purpose of the project is to decrease storm drainage impacts on the Santa Ana River and its basin by increasing the storage capacity of dams located along the river and improving the river's channels from the San Bernardino Mountains to , } 7/l9/96«I:VLSG630\EIR�SECT4-30 WM>> 4.10-6 U � O S s i. U ¢ O Q Cn Td U ¢ O ~ O C7 5 w m y 2 ;. ut M J A+• 3 '6 z F, WESTMINSTER SEAL BEACH BotSA -- x l a ss 3 b 2 4 �Fk ✓y J L C Y g i bz c� Mc m FADDEN 3 , l k z EDINGER ° HEIL � k M M WARNER FOUNTAIN -�--- 2` VALLEY <SLATER 6r15 Elev.10-13'` COUNTY OF — <TAL BERT ORANGE giYy (BOLSA CHICA} a ¢ CD Elev.V13' I ELLIS z cc GARFIELD YORKTOWN V. fa ADAMS LEGEND `Elev.13' '�- INDIaNApous City Boundary r 5 A-No Base Flood Elevation Elev.1 i'!i `: ATLANTA ® A99-Protected by Federal Project Elev.12-13' PtER Under Construction HAMILTON Elev.12' ® VE-Coastal Flood with Velocity Hazard BANNING X-Areas of 500 Year Floods; Areas of 100 Year Floods with Average Depth .` ,;.;.;; COSTA < 1 Ft.and Protected by 100 Year Flood Levels Elev. 11':' ';.••,. MESA Area Outside of 500 Year Flood [31 Redevelopment Areas rr-<stt: r:+' ';rixa's 5:2<:rti;:• .. . Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,7/95. 7/18/96(RSG630) Figure 4.10.1 (7� N L S—A Scale in Miles 0.5 4.10-7 Flood Hazard Areas the Pacific Ocean. The capacity of the Santa Ana River Channel,which borders the southeastern edge of the City, has been increased to approximately 506.3 million gallons per day. The City owns and operates five storm drain channels that are tributary to the County's channels (see Figure SD-I, General Plan Up- date EIR, page 5.12.3-2). Flooding The flood hazard areas for the City are identified in Figure 4.10.1. FEMA has determined that in a,100 year flood event the floodwaters could reach depths that would cause significant flooding impacts, primarily from the Santa Ana River, but also from over topping of the County and City drainage channels. The majority of Huntington Center is located in an area that could experience flood depths of one foot or less. The remainder of Huntington Center,located primarily south of Edinger, could experience flood depths of one to three feet. Oakview is located in an area that could experience flood depths of one foot or less. Oakview and Yorktown-Lake are located in areas of minimal flooding,and are not considered threatened by flooding. The majority of Main-Pier is located in an area of minimal flooding and is not considered threatened by flooding. The portion of Main-Pier from Huntington Avenue to Beach Boulevard is located at the base flood elevation, and may experience flooding. Electricity Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electrical service to the City of Hun- tington Beach and to the Merged Project Area. SCE currently provides service to 71,349 residential meters, 5,221 commercial units, and 735 industrial uses, as well as 539 meters for public authority, public street, and highway lighting within the City. One SCE generating station and six substations are located in the City. One of the substations,located at 730 Lake Avenue,is within Main-Pier. SCE,in cooper- ation with the City, is in the process of undergrounding electrical distribution lines. Natural Gas, The Southern California Gas company(SCG) provides natural gas service to the City of Huntington Beach and to the Merged Project Area. These'supply lines transmit natural gas ranging from 150 to 500 pounds of pressure. SCG serves over 60,342 meters within the Huntington Beach area. The supply lines are constructed of steel, and the distribution lines are steel or polyethylene plastic material. SCG has no immediate plans to update the exist- ing equipment or implement new technologies other than periodic maintenance checks and replacements of deteriorating supply lines. SCG reports that current 7/19,,9&<I:\RSG630\M;t$ECT4-10:WPD» 4.10-8 demands are being met and that additional demand for natural gas can be pro- vided if necessary. Telecommunications Telephone General Telephone and Electric (GTE) provides telephone service to the Merged Project Area. Five GTE offices are located in the City of Huntington Beach, providing local service coverage for all of the Merged Project Area. Cable Television Time Warner Communications provides cable television service to the Merged Project Area. 4.10.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Impacts to public services and utilities are considered significant if they result in the following: Police Services • Results in increased demands that significantly exceed the Huntington Beach Police Department's capabilities to the extent that they pose a serious health and safety risk. Fire and Emergency Medical Services • Results in demands that significantly exceed the Huntington Beach Fire Department's capabilities to the extent that they pose a serious health and safety risk. Other Services and Utilities • Results in demands for services that significantly exceed available service or utility capacity. 4.10.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Police Services (^ The Merged Project Area is nearly built out at this time,and future build out will t not substantially increase the need for police service. Therefore, it is anticipated 7/1.9/96«I vR G630\E=ECr4-Io wPD» 4.10-9 that police service facilities would not be significantly impacted due to the im- plementation of the Amendment/Merger. Future redevelopment and new construction projects will need to be analyzed on a project by project basis to determine potential police service needs in the Merged Project Area. Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on police services. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Build out of the Merged Project Area would result in additional incremental demands for fire and emergency medical services. Due to the nature of the redevelopment activities to implement infrastructure improvements, and to assist in affordable housing and economic development activities, additional demand for fire and emergency medical services would be small. The potential Agency actions do not change any land uses, and potential development is consistent with anticipated growth in the City's General Plan. Future redevelopment and construction projects associated with the implemen- tation of the Amendment/Merger will need to be analyzed on a project by pro- ject basis to determine potential new demand for fire and emergency medical services. Therefore,the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on fire and emergency medical services. Parks and Recreation The General Plan Update EIR indicates that existing parks and'recreation facili- ties are adequate under build out of the General Plan Update. The growth within the Merged Project Area is consistent with that anticipated at build out of the General Plan; therefore, the Amendment/Merger will not result in significant impacts to parks and recreation located in the Merged Project Area. Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in significant impacts to the demand for parks and recreation services. Road Maintenance Build out of the General Plan Update will create an increased demand on road maintenance services beyond existing provision of services. Construction of new roadways will add to the demand for road maintenance service,as well as land- scape maintenance services. The General Plan Update EIR reports that without increases in funding, level of service provided by road maintenance crews will decrease due to increased demand on existing staff, equipment and facilities. One of the functions of the Amendment/Merger is to provide additional funding for such projects within the Merged Project Area. Therefore,the Merged Project will offset new demand for road maintenance and landscape maintenance ser- vices by providing funding for such programs. 7/19,9&1:\LSG630WZC,SECT4-10 WPD» 4.10-10 Other Governmental Sert ces Library The General Plan Update EIR identifies the need for additional library space on a citywide basis. The Oakview Branch Library, which has been in service for ap- proximately one year,provides services to the Merged Project Area. One of the programs that could be funded by Redevelopment Agency tax increment financ- ing is expansion of the Oakview Branch Library. This could more than offset any impacts resulting from implementation of the Amendment/Merger. Public Healtb Care Due to the nature of the redevelopment activities to increase commercial reha- bilitation and provide economic and infrastructure incentives to aid in economic revitalization, the overall effect will be to add job opportunities and reduce dependance on social programs. The redevelopment activities programmed in the Amendment/Merger will not displace or physically effect any public health care provider. Therefore,there is no significant effect on public health care. Utility Services Water t Because of the nature of typical redevelopment investment into infrastructure and resolving service deficiencies as a means of promoting area economic devel- opment, and the additional financing available by the Amendment/Merger, beneficial effects on infrastructure are anticipated, including water services. Redevelopment activities that are primarily infrastructure projects and economic development assistance will not significantly affect existing water service. How- ever, future redevelopment and new construction projects will need to be ana- lyzed on a specific project level basis to determine the future water service need for the Merged Project Area. Sewerage The Amendment/Merger will not change the redevelopment area boundaries or the land uses that were analyzed in the General Plan Update E1R. Therefore, the conclusion that sewage capacities at nearby plants was adequate to ensure that sewage service could be provided is still valid for the Amendment/Merger. The Amendment/Merger will not change the amount of sewage and,therefore, will not adversely impact the ability of the'Sanitation Districts of Orange County to provide service to the area. 7/19/96<<I.\RSG63ff.M 4ECT4-10.WM>> 4.10-11 Solid Waste Although the Merged Project Area is included in the General Plan, the square footage and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are unknown at this time.,In addition,it is anticipated that the potential increase in capacity needed under the General Plan build out would not be significant, and could be re- duced through implementation of solid waste reduction policies. Therefore,it is anticipated that redevelopment activities will not significantly affect existing solid waste facilities or generate a significant amount of solid waste. Storm Drainage/Flooding Because the Merged Project Area is nearly built out, with a small number of vacant parcels yet to develop,the additional development potential would not substantially increase the amount of impermeable surfaces;i.e., it would have virtually no effect on runoff amounts and velocity. Potential runoff increases resulting from new projects will need to be analyzed on a project by project basis to determine any potential storm drain impacts on the storm drain channels in the immediate vicinity. The Orange County Environ- mental Management Agency(OCEMA) has indicated that it will not accept any new connections to the County's storm drainage system until existing facilities have been expanded to accommodate additional capacity. Several of the pro- jects that could be funded by Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing could include improvements to storm drains and surface drainage. However, the Merged Project will not result in increased stormwater runoff and will not impact the storm drain system. Tsunami/seiche hazards are also considered to be potentially significant due to the City's proximity to the Pacific Ocean. When a tsunami reaches shallow coastal areas,the rapid incoming tide"runs up"onto beaches, harbors and other narrow inlets, damaging light weight and poorly constructed structures. Main- Pierwould experience the most severe tsunami/seiching damage;the remainder of the Merged Project Area would not be affected. These conditions currently exist at the Main-Pier,and are not a direct result of the Merged Project. Flooding hazards to the City and to the Merged Project Area are considered to be potentially significant. As previously identified, portions of the Merged Project Area are located in areas of potential flood depths of up to three feet. Future redevelopment sponsored activities and new construction projects will need to be analyzed on a project level basis to determine future storm drainage and flooding avoidance needs. Projected construction of stormwater runoff drainage systems using Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing could be a major benefit of the adoption of the Amendment/Merger (see the list of projects funded by the Redevelopment Agency in Chapter 3.0). 7/l9/96«I.NRSG630%EIR`SECT4-10 VM> 4.10-12 Electricity _The square footage and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are un- known at this time. Based on SCE's continued provision of electrical service to the Merged Project Area and the City as a whole, it is anticipated that the Merged Project will not significantly affect existing electrical facilities and demands. Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in'a significant impact on the de- mand for electricity in the area. Natural Gas The potential Merged Project programs and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are consistent with the General Plan. As indicated in the General Plan Update EIR, there are adequate services available or planned to accommo- date the planned growth. It is anticipated that redevelopment activities will not significantly affect existing natural gas service and demands. Telecommunications As indicated in responses to a questionnaire, GTE will continue to provide its current level or expanded levels of stationary telephone service. In addition, Time Warner Communications will be able to accommodate increased demands for cable television associated with implementation of the project. Therefore,no significant effects to telecommunications service will result with build out of the General Plan or the implementation of the Merged Project. 4.10.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Due to the nature of the proposed projects of the Redevelopment Agency, including street, landscaping and storm drainage improvements (see Chapter 3.0), the anticipated benefits to the Merged Project Area from these infrastruc- ture and facilities improvements will lessen service and facility cumulative de- mand. The General Plan Update EIR indicates that build out of the General Plan Update will bring an additional 48,470 persons to the City's population base. The Police Department has indicated that, using its current facilities and staffing levels, an adequate level of service cannot be provided with build out of the General Plan. However, the Amendment/Merger is not proposing to build any project. There- fore,the proposed Merger Project will not contribute to this cumulative impact. 4.10.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES With implementation of the policies contained in the Utilities Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from increased demand on police and fire ser- vices,public service,and utilities and facility improvements will be substantially reduced. 7/19,9&<I:ULSG630=�SECT4-10.WPD>> 4.10-13 • Identify tsunami and seiche susceptible areas, and require that specific measures be taken by the developer, builder or property owner,as nec- essary, to prevent or reduce damage from these hazards and the risks upon human safety (Policy EI15.1.1). . • Participate in the National Weather Service or other system for local tsunami and/or seiche warnings (Policy EH 5.1.2). Implementation,Programs • Standards for tsunami/seiche studies to be completed for harbor areas, breakwaters and dikes, and coastal areas of concern. The City shall up- date its evaluation of the tsunami hazard, make its standard more spe- cific,and disseminate available information on tsunami warnings and on procedural steps to prepare the populace for such an event. Mitigation measures shall be suggested for new construction(Program I-EFI1). 4.10.E MIYTGA7IONME4SVRES There are no potentially significant or significant impacts,to public services and utilities resulting from the implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There- fore,no additional mitigation measures are required. 4.10.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION Provided that the mitigation measures identified above and the General Plan policies are implemented and monitored, the impacts to public services and utilities are considered to be less than significant. 7/19/9&<I:\xsc630vZUK'�sEcr4-io VM>> 4.10-14 i 1 4.11 AESTHETICS This section is based on a field survey by LSA in May, 1996,and on information in the City's General Plan Update EIR. 4.11.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Urban Form The Merged Project Area is located in portions of the City of Huntington Beach that have fiat or near level topographic expression. As a result, there are no significant identifiable landform features relevant to these areas. Main-Pier has some minor landforms where the beach area gradually slopes down to the Pacific Ocean. Elevation differences in this area are minor. The General Plan divides the City into component urban forms. These include principal districts, nodes and key entry points, paths, landmarks and edges. Principal visual assets are also identified. The Merged Project Area includes many of these urban forms,as illustrated in Table 4.11A. The City of Huntington Beach's urban form has been determined by residential, commercial, and industrial subdivisions that have occurred in a piecemeal and inconsistent manner since before the City's founding. Generally,the design and configuration of lots and uses reflected planning styles that were typically used at the time the subdivisions were platted. As the City is comparatively flat, the patterns of development have occurred with little regard to natural topography, creating relatively uniform grid patterns. The only significant natural element influencing the urban pattern in the Merged Project Area is the Pacific Ocean, which establishes a clear edge on the City's western boundary. An exception to the standard subdivision development pattern occurs in the City's downtown area. This unique pattern of development formed very early in the City's history;this follows the old"town lot"pattern,consisting of small lots and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern. Devel- opment and lots were configured to form a distinct "coastal village" character, which was representative of many communities along the Southern California coastline. Older Urban Condition The Merged Project Area contains a mixture of residential, commercial and industrial land uses. Although some new development has 'occurred, most development is at least 20 years old or older. With the aging process,there are notable visual issues regarding lack of routine maintenance,including exterior building paint and repair, and deterioration of landscape materials. Improve- ments needed to address these issues generally range from general maintenance, such as paint and minor exterior remodeling, to major exterior upgrading, and modernization of signage. 7/19/96�KI:\RSG630\E M$ECT4-11 VM>> 4.11-1 Table 4.11.A-Relevant Urban Forms in Merged Project Area Location Primary District Node/F-ntry Point Path Landmark fudge Visual Asset Main-Pier Downtown Commercial Secondary entries along Beach(primary); Pier/Pierside Pacific Pacific Ocean (7) PCH;internal node at Main PCH(primary);Main Pavillion/Maxwell's;Wa- Ocean/Beac &PCH (secondary) terfront Hilton hes Huntington Cen- Edinger Commercial Primary entry node at Beach Beach(primary); None San Diego None ter Corridor(9) Boulevard;internal nodes at Edinger(primary) Freeway Edinger/Golden West& (405) Edinger/Beach Oak View Beach Commercial Cor- Internal node at Warner& Beach(primary); Guardian Tower None None ridor(8);Gothard In- Beach Warner(primary) dustrial Corridor(14) Talbert-Beach Beach Commercial Cor- None Beach(primary) None None None ridor(8);Gothard In- dustrial Corridor(14) Yorktown-Lake "Old Town"District(1) Internal node at Yorktown& Main(secondary) City Hall&High School None Mature Land- Lake scaping Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995. 7/19i96 I:\RSG630\EtR\SECT4-11.WPD» 4.11-2 Visual Liabilities Visual elements exist within the City that confuse and weaken the community's aesthetic resources and overall visual appearance. These visual liabilities inter- fere with development of a cohesive City image. The nature of community development can,in and of itself,be a visual liability if it inhibits the observer's ability to gain orientation or a sense of place. The EIR for the General Plan describes the types and locations of Huntington Beach's visual liabilities that contribute negatively to the visual quality of the community. These liabilities are classified in three categories: 1) confusions, 2) obstructions, and 3) discontinuities. Briefly "confusions" are locations that do not provide orientation or a sense of direction to either pedestrians or vehicular traffic. Obstructions are natural or man-made elements that limit visual access within a community. Discontinuities are developments where there is no appar- ent order or harmony in the overall scale or character of the built environment. All three types of these visual liabilities were identified in the General Plan Up- date EIR as being found within the Merged Project Area. Within Huntington Center,the Beach Boulevard off-ramp of the southbound I-405 is identified as an area of"confusion,"primarily as a result of the convergence of traffic onto Center Avenue from various directions. Huntington Center, Oakview and Talbert-Beach are all characterized predomi- nately as containing "obstructions" such as fencing/landscaping signage or de- tracting urban activities (i.e., oil production facilities or large buildings),which block views and create visual clutter. One example of this is vegetation that blocks views from the I-405 Freeway, creating visual obstruction to Huntington Beach Mall. Yorktown Lake and Main-Pier include areas of identified"discontinuuties,"where the pattern of urban development has resulted in a lack of a cohesive urban design or visual character. Through identification of these visual liabilities, the City identified specific poli- cies within the General Plan to guide the urban design and aesthetic character of new development and identify other means for improving'the overall visual appearance of the City as a whole. Visual Amenities The primary visual amenity within the Merged Project Area is the view of the ocean and beach frontage on the southerly side of PCH. Adding to the shoreline identity of the community is a significant landmark,the Huntington Beach Pier. This landmark is a major identifying element of the community, and is also an historic'landmark. The pier was demolished after being severely weakened by heavy storms, and was rebuilt according to original plans, thus preserving its place as an important visual and historical element of the City of Huntington Beach. 7n9r96(<I:vRSC�63M SEcr¢ii Wn» 4.11-3 �ar�✓ 4.11.2 TIUZESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes a definition of a significant aes- thetic/visual impact as having a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect on the environment. The General Plan Update EIR applies this broad definition to the City of Huntington Beach, in two ways. Significant aesthetic impacts would be generated if the Amendment/Merger: • Results in a substantial disruption or loss of public views, including those of the ocean and shoreline, natural bluffs, wetlands, or mature vegetation. • Allows development or intensification of development which is substan- tially out of character or scale with the existing development of a dis- trict, node,path, landmark, or edge area of the City. 4.11.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Since implementation of the Amendment/Merger will allow land uses consistent with the land uses identified in the General Plan,this impact analysis is based on the analysis conducted for the EIR for the General Plan. As concluded in the EIR for the General Plan, intensification of residential,com- mercial and industrial land uses within the City will result in opportunities to remedy existing visual liabilities or enhance the visual strengths of existing districts, nodes, paths, landmarks and edges. Although intensification has the potential to create visual liabilities, such as obstruction of existing views and introduction of land uses that are out of character/scale with existing land uses, implementation of the policies of the General Plan will foster development of unifying visual themes and result in a net improvement of the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach, reducing potential impacts to below the level of significance. In relationship to the Merged Project Area, the primary visual effects of the proposed land use intensification would occur along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue commercial corridors. Huntington Center, Oakview and Talbert-Beach are located adjacent to or in proximity to Beach Boulevard, and would be affected by General Plan policies developed to enhance the economic viability of this corridor. General commercial expansion would be allowed from the I-405 to Warner Avenue,between Talbert and Garfield Avenues and between Yorktown and Adams Avenues. The Edinger Avenue commercial corridor, from Golden West Street to Beach ` Boulevard (within Huntington Center), is characterized by intermittent "large box" retail centers. The proximity to freeway transportation,which can more easily access larger market areas,favors locations along Edinger Avenue for such commercial uses rather than more southerly locations in the City. In addition, the Downtown commercial district includes an area covering two blocks on each side of Main Street, between the pier or Pacific Coast Highway j 7/19/96«I:\RSG630\EI"ECT4-11 WM>� 4.11-4 `w� and Palm Street. The General Plan Update indicates that this district will likely continue to experience growth in the form of mixed-use developments,such as those recently constructed with a neo-Mediterranean design (within the Main- Pier). The encouragement of commercial growth to selected segments of Beach Boule- vard and Edinger Avenue is designed to complement existing conditions, to enhance commercial themes, and to permit distinct locations and identities along existing commercial corridors. The overall visual image characteristics of the commercial corridors would only slightly change over the short term, at an incremental,fairly slow pace as business owners' decisions to build new business and/or expand existing ones occur. Most of the increased commercial develop- ment would be along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue corridors,which are outside of the Merged Project Area. General Plan Policies The General Plan sets forth a number of goals, objectives, and policies that are intended to enhance and better coordinate the visual character of Huntington Beach's natural and built environments. These policies are, for the most part, applicable to the Amendment/Merger. Goals presented in the Environmental Resources/Conservation (ERC) Element address issues relating to Scenic High- ways, Aesthetic Resources, and Open Space. Goals contained in the Urban Design (UD) Element focus on issues related to the enhancement of the City's visual image. Goals and objectives established for both of these elements are also designed to remedy,repair,or improve the visual character of visual liability areas of the City. Several of the stated goals,objectives,and policies contained in the General Plan are intended to foster the creation of identifiable visual themes for the 15 urban districts and for the corridors and nodes that link them physically and function- ally (see Section 5.9,Aesthetic/Visual Resources, Figures VR-2,VR-3 and VR-4 in the General Plan Update EIR). Implications of the Amendment/Merger The adoption and implementation of the Amendment/Merger will allow the Agency to collect additional tax increment revenue. The increased tax revenues will, in part, be applied to upgrading the Merged Project Area aesthetics, thus improving the visual appearance and reducing or eliminating negative visual images. Revenues can be used to renovate buildings, provide public landscap- ing,demolish blighted,dilapidated and unsafe'buildings,among other uses. The use of tax increment revenue to eliminate blight, and to upgrade and improve existing buildings,will result in positive aesthetic impacts to the Merged Project Area and the City of Huntington Beach. The Amendment/Merger does not include any specific development projects. The only projects associated with the Amendment/Merger include capital public improvements such as street,storm drains,sidewalks, curbs and gutters,as well 7/19/96«I:\RSG630\EIRNSEC:T4-11.wPD» 4.11-5 as water and sewer utilities. The construction of these improvements will assist in improving the area's aesthetics and image. It is likely that these types of improvements will have a positive impact on private investment, thus encourag- ing local property owners to follow with additional upgrades, improvements, increased maintenance and new development. All of these efforts are consid- ered beneficial due to the Amendment/Merger and, therefore, will result in positive aesthetic impacts to both the project area and the City in general. At the time that private projects are proposed, consistent with the Merged Plan and General Plan, they must be submitted to the City Community Development Department for review. If there are potential aesthetic impacts associated with a particular project, the City will, through its normal development review process, require design changes to reduce aesthetic impacts to acceptable levels. The Community Development Department reviews all project applications, and the Amendment/Merger will have no effect on that process. All future projects developed with redevelopment assistance must be processed through the City's development approval process and building permit process. Overall, the Amendment/Merger is anticipated to have positive and beneficial aesthetic impacts to the Merged Project Area. The use of tax increment revenue will allow the Agency to use monies for improving and updating dilapidated and blighted buildings, ultimately having positive visual impacts. Within the Merged Project Area, development projects that could negatively affect or disrupt public views, or could be developed out of character or scale could occur. However, there are several reasons why such development should not negatively affect the Merged Project Area's visual resources or adjacent resources: 1. The Merged Project Area is substantially developed, and future infill development of vacant parcels will not be significant. Where redevelop- ment involves substantial demolition and reconstruction, there is a po- tential for larger scale development and loss of public views, if these views were previously available. However,in the four inland portions of the Merged Project Area, there are no locations where existing public views would be affected, either through development of vacant parcels or through large-scale redevelopment. 2. Future development requests that are out of character or scale would be reviewed and modifications recommended to achieve neighborhood compatibility consistent with the policies of the General Plan. In any event,as described above, future development projects are submitted for development review by the City Community Development Department; this assists in reducing the negative aesthetic impacts to acceptable lev- els. 3. Main-Pier, located within the coastal resource area, could have future projects that affect public views, including those of the ocean and shore- line. Depending upon the location,size and height of these future pro- jects, views from inland areas to the coastal resources values could be adversely affected. However;-as stated above, all future projects would 7/19/96«Ic\BSG6301EMR SEM-11 WM> 4.11-6 ` be submitted to the Community Development Department for develop- went review. Any project in Main-Pier submitted for review would have to be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. This review,together with public disclosure of project impacts during public hearings, will assist in reducing the potential adverse aesthetic impacts to acceptable i levels. 4. The Amendment/Merger does not involve changes to land use or to other features of the planning process that were identified to have signifi- cant visual impacts as part of the analysis for the EIR prepared for the General Plan Update. The General Plan defines and guides future devel- opment to achieve land use balance and internal land use compatibility. Applicable policies that protect views of the beach and ocean area indi- cated below in Section 4.11.5. These policies provide strong guidance to protect these important views. The Merged Plan is consistent with the General Plan land use designations;thus,:impacts similar to those identi- fied in the General Plan Update EIR can be expected. Therefore,future development projects within the Merged Project Area would attain the appropriate scale and character within; the respective urban district, node,path,landmark or edge and will not result in new significant visual impacts. In addition,the Downtown Specific Plan includes development restrictions that help to maintain the community character and future beach oriented development, consistent with the downtown/pier/beach atmosphere of the area. 4.11.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will encourage planned develop- ment within the Merged Project Area, consistent with the General Plan land use designations and applicable policies. Given that implementation of the General Plan was determined to have less than significant visual impacts,with implemen- tation of General Plan policies and no additional development intensity permit- ted by the Amendment/Merger, no additional cumulative impacts will occur within the City as a result of project implementation. Any cumulative aesthetic effects are considered less than significant. 4.11.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan identifies several policies contained in the Urban Design Ele- ment and the Environmental Resources Conservation Element that enhance aesthetics and views and lessen or mitigate negative impacts of development. The policies that are applicable to the AmendmenVMerger are listed below. • Require public improvements to enhance the existing setting for all key nodes and pedestrian areas through the consideration of the following (Policy UD 1.2.1): ! (� a. Provide pedestrian connections and visual continuity between l the node and the surrounding neighborhoods; 7119i96KI:\TLSG630\EMEC14-11 WM- 4.11.-7 b. Incorporate shade trees to shelter pedestrians; C. Incorporate the use of enhanced paving materials at the pedes- trian crosswalks; f. Incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utili- ties,such as the Edison generating station. • Require that the nodes indicated in Table UD-1 incorporate the public improvements specified in Policy UD 1.2.1 of the General Plan and other elements that may be listed in the table, as feasible (Policy UD 1.2.2). • Coordinate the design of public and private signs and graphics on a citywide basis (Policy UD 1.2.3). a. Prepare and implement a coordinated public signage program that fosters a cohesive city image. b. Develop a major arterials'public signage installation program. C. Consider developing guidelines for private commercial monu- ment signage that incorporate a consistent public identification device such as a City logo or a logo for the business's location, i.e., Beach Boulevard. • Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character ; } along the community's corridors, reflecting the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City(Policy UD 1.3.1). • Provide for the implementation of streetscape and landscape improve- ments along the major commercial corridors, through public capital improvement programs, business district improvements, or other tech- niques as funding is available(Policy UD 1.3.2). a. Develop or enhance the pedestrian environment in those parts of the corridors where there is existing or the potential for pedes- trian activity;this includes the use of: - Sidewalk furniture; - Shade trees; - Shade structures; - Special paving;and - Pedestrian walkways linkages. b. Consider using special corridor oriented public signage, public art, or median monuments at prominent intersections. 7/19/964,�I:WG630N�EM$ECT4-11 WM>> 4.11-8 C. Discourage the excessive use of temporary signage including bunting and commercial banners. • Provide for the implementation of additional streetscape and landscape improvements in the corridors specified in Table UD-2 and shown in Figure UD-5 and UD-6 in the General Plan, through public capital im- provement programs, business district improvements, or other tech- niques as funding is available(Policy UD 1.3.3)• • Establish visual relief to the monotony of walled "superblock" corridors and enhance the corridors image through the visual strengths of the respective residential neighborhoods in which they are located including (Policy UD 1.3.4): - For new development, require the use of landscape materials in the public right-of-way; - For existing development, add tree pockets and/or landscape planters along arterial tract walls; - For both new and existing development, establish a consistent pattern of street trees along the corridor using the predominate tree types of the adjacent residential areas; - Develop a variety of street sections to allow for variation of right- of-way widths and sidewalk configurations, for example,some of the walls have•a three to four foot planting strip in which plant materials have been placed outside of the wall while other tracts have no plantings outside of the wall. Recognize that sidewalk width on residential district arterial streets is less important than in other situations as there are few pedestrians and few pedes- trian destinations (bus stops are a possible exception) along these arterials. If the sidewalk is narrowed to accommodate tree wells or wider planting strips, a sidewalk width of three to four feet is ample to accommodate the occasional pedestrian and maintain handicapped access (see Figure UD-7 and Figure UD-8 [in the General Plan); For new development,increased landscaping area; Consider reducing street widths to increase landscaping area; and Consider establishing a public art ordinance for the placement of art in public R.O.W. • Establish design standards for walls along the residential "superblock" corridors,including(Policy UD 1.3.5): For new development, require that privately developed walls make a positive visual contribution to the public streetscape 7/19/9&XKRSG630\E=ECT4-11.WM* 4.11-9 including provisions for plant material enhancements such as e vine pockets or decorative plants, and design features such as "`err►' sculptured or textured masonry units; For existing development,require that any modifications to walls in the public right-of-way are of quality construction and perma- nent materials consistent with the design of the wall, and that any additions to the walls be designed to make a positive visual contribution to the public streetscape;and For both the new and existing development, require that the walls will be maintained over their lifetime,and that future modi- fications to the walls will not negatively impact the public streetscape. • Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in its massing, height,and site orientation (Policy UD 2.1.1). • Require additional landscaping and varying hardscape along the beach trail and roadway medians,where appropriate (Policy UD 2.1.2). • Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil pro- duction facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way (Policy UD 2.2.1). • Require landscaping to screen flood control channels where visible to public view and where there is adequate planting area available (Policy UD 2.2.3). • Promote the preservation of public view corridors to the ocean and the waterfront through strict application of local ordinances, design guide- lines and related planning efforts,including defined view corridors (Pol- icy UD 4.1.5). •, Include commercial, residential,industrial,and natural areas in the bill- board removal programs (Policy ERC 4.1.7). • Include commercial,residential,industrial,and natural areas in the elec- trical undergrounding program(Policy ERC 4.I.8). 4.Z Z.6 MMGA770N MEASURES None required. 4.11.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIP7CANCEAF7ER MI77GA77ON Successful implementation of the General Plan Update policies would reduce potentially significant impacts of the Amendment/Merger relative to aesthet- ics/visual resources to less than significant levels. 7/19i96KI:\RSSC,630\EIR%SECT4-il WPD» 4.11-10 i 4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES This section includes a summary of the prehistory of Orange County and of the historic period from the Mission Period up to the history of settlement of Hun- tington Beach in the late 1890s and turn of the century. For the full historical report, including information about the Huntington Beach Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chica, early European settlement and the'period of prehistory,please see Appendix B. This section also includes the results of a historic building survey conducted by LSA within the Merged Project Area in the City of Huntington Beach. The survey assessed the presence of historic buildings (defined as any structures 50 or more years of age) within the Merged Project Area. In addition to the field survey,a records and literature search was conducted to assess the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources within the Merged Project Area. The results of this records search are summarized below;a copy of the records search is presented in Appendix B. 4.12.1=STIIVG ENVIRONMENTAL SE=G The history of the City of Huntington Beach is provided below in its entirety because of the location of the Merged Project in the City, and the relevance of the more recent subdivision and construction activities to the structures within the Merged Project Area. The following sections provide'background informa- tion. Pre&stmy of Orange County The following, outline, which is based primarily on Wallace's chronology (1955;1978) as revised for Orange County, provides background information relevant to the discussion of archaeological sites located within the Merged Project Area (Koerper 1981;Koerper and Drover 1983) Early Period(Prior to 6,000 B.C.) The Early Period(also known as the Hunting Period)covers the interval from the first presence of humans in Southern California until post-glacial times (6,000 to 3,000 B.C.). Although Early Period sites have seldom been identified in Orange County,there are two sites in the Upper Newport Bay area. No Early Period sites have been identified within the Merged Project Area. Milling Stone Period(6,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C) The transition from the Early Period to the Milling Stone Period is marked by an increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants, and is esti- mated to have occurred between 6,000 B.C. and 3,000 B.C. Milling Stone 7/1"6«I.\RSG63"-MNSECT4-12.WPD) 4.12-1 Period settlements were larger and occupied for longer periods of time than those of the Early Period, and mortuary practices included both flexed and extended interments as well as reburials. Several Milling Stone Period sites have been identified in Orange County. The best known is in Irvine. No Millingstone sites have been identified within the Merged Project Area. Intermediate Period(3,000 B.C. to A.D.500) By approximately 3,000 B.C., the inhabitants of Southern California were ex- ploiting a diverse array of food resources, including seeds and edible plants, shellfish, fish,and mammals. Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the appearance of the mortar and pestle (although the mano and metate also continued in use) and small projec- tile points. At present,at least two Intermediate Horizon site components have been identified in Upper Newport Bay: ORA-121 (Crownover et al. 1989) and ORA-287 (Clevenger 1986). Closer to the study area, two field camps (ORA 221J222 and ORA 226)apparently have small Intermediate Horizon components (Rosenthal and Padon 1986; Mason et al. 1987). No Intermediate Period sites have been identified within the Merged Project Area. Late Period(A.D.500 to 1769) The Late Prehistoric Period,which began approximately A.D.500,saw a number of important cultural developments in Southern California, including the con- centration of larger populations in settlements and communities,greater utiliza- tion of the available food resources, and the development of regional subcul- tures. Cremation was the preferred method of burial during the Late Period,and elaborate mortuary customs with abundant grave goods were common. Other cultural traits diagnostic of the Late Period include increased use of the bow and arrow, steatite containers, circular shell fishhooks, asphaltum (as an adhesive), bone tools and personal ornaments of bone, shell and stone (Bean and Smith 1978; Elsasser 1978:56;Moratto 1984:159;Wallace 1955:195). A number of the cultural elements found in Southern California during the Late Period have been linked to the migration of Uto-Aztecan-speaking peoples from the Great Basin; these traits include the manufacture of ceramics, the use of small triangular arrow points (especially those with side notches and serrations), and interment by cremation. The Los Angeles-Orange counties region was home to one Uto-Aztecan speaking group known as the Gabrielino.The City of Hun- tington Beach is located along the southwestern boundary of coastal Gabrielino territory. The Gabrielino practiced a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and lived in permanent communities located near the intersection of two or more environmental zones (habitats); commonly chosen sites included: rivers, streams and inland water- courses; sheltered coastal bays and estuaries; and the transition zone marking `nr 7/1"6KI:\RSG63U�EI ECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-2 the interface between prairies and foothills. The Gabrielino.community of Lukupa was located in the Huntington Beach area,perhaps in the vicinity of the Newland House; the name Lukupa reportedly means ,"silvery" (McCawley 1996:71). A record search (Appendix B) conducted at the South Central Coastal Informa- tion Center, Institute of Archaeology;University of California,Los Angeles,iden- tified one archaeological site, CA-ORA-149,within the Merged Project Area. This site,which is described as a shell midden with lithic (stone) artifacts, most Iikely dates to the Late Prehistoric Period. The Historic Period The Mission Period The first recorded contact between the Gabrielino and Europeans occurred in 1542 when the Cabrillo Expedition arrived at Santa Catalina Island (Wagner 1941). On the mainland, the first documented contact between the Gabrielino and European explorers occurred in 1769 when an expedition led by Gaspar de Portola's crossed present-day Los Angeles and Orange Counties (W. Bean 1968:36-38; Bolton 1927). Two years later, in 1771, Mission San Gabriel was established in the Gabrielino territory near Whittier Narrows;several years later, the Whittier Narrows site was abandoned and the mission was moved to its �^ present location in the City of San Gabriel (Engelhardt 1927a:19)• In 1776, ! another mission was established in San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1922). Although this mission lay outside the Gabrielino territory, many of its converts were drawn from the Gabrielino community. Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chica European patterns of land use in the Orange County region commenced with the establishment of missions San Gabriel (in 1771) and San Juan Capistrano (in 1776). In addition to the missions, the Spanish also established the pueblo of Los Angeles (El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula)and a number of private ranchos. One of these, Los Coyotes, was granted to Manuel Perez Nieto by Governor Pedro Fages in 1790 (Young et al. 1989), and was subse- quently subdivided into four ranchos, including Las Bolsas. In 1841, at the request of the Nieto heirs, Las Bolsas was further subdivided to create the 8,107-acre Rancho Bolsa Chica, which was granted to Joaquin Ruiz (Cowan 1956:19). Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chica included the area now occupied by Huntington Beach. History of Huntington Beacb Cattle ranching in Southern California reached its peak of prosperity during the period when Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chica were owned by Abel Steams. The Gold Rush and the arrival of massive numbers of immigrants created a huge 7/18/96«I.\rSG630\.FIIi4RGSECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-3 demand for beef and turned the ranchers into cattle barons. As immigration to Southern California increased during the late 1860s, Stearns began subdividing his landholdings and selling them in 20 to 60 acre parcels at prices varying from $5.00 to$10.00 per acre; the sales were managed through the"Robinson Trust," a syndicate comprising Steams, Alfred Robinson, Sam Brannan, Edward F. Northam, Charles B.Polhemus and Edward Martin. Although Steams lived only a few years after the syndicate was organized, dying in 1871 during a trip to San Francisco,his widow Arcadia survived him by more than 40 years;when she died in 1912, her estate was estimated at $15 million (Cleland 1941:106, 109, 134, 135, 203, 204,207;Wright 1977:97;Huntington Beach General Plan). One of the individuals who purchased former Rancho Las Bolsas land was Colo- nel Robert Northam. Northam purchased the area occupied by Huntington Beach (Meadows 1966:106). In 1901, a syndicate comprising Phillip Stanton, John N.Anderson and S. H.Finley purchased 1,500 acres from Robert Northam for $100,000; the syndicate, known as the West Coast Land Company, subdi- vided 40 acres of this property to create the community of Pacific City. In 1902, the West Coast Land Company was reorganized as the Huntington Beach Com- pany and included Henry E. Huntington; two years later (in 1904) the new community(now renamed Huntington Beach)was connected to Long Beach by a line of Huntington's Pacific Electric Railway(Macleod and Milkovich 1988). In 1909, the City of Huntington Beach was incorporated as a town with an area of 3.57 acres and a population of 915 (Macleod and Milkovich 1988; Huntington Beach General Plan). Agriculture was an important component of the early economy of the Hunting- ton Beach region; crops included celery,asparagus,peppers,corn and potatoes, and barley was grown on the mesa inland from the town. Huntington Beach also served as a transportation center for the region. The fast railroad in the region,the Smeltzer branch of the Santa Ana-Newport Railroad,was constructed in 1897 along the bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa;the line ended five miles inland from the coast, where peat bogs made further construction impractical (Macleod and Milkovich 1988). A number of early industries were located in the Huntington Beach area, includ- ing:the Rainey Tile Company(which manufactured industrial pipe used to drain the local farmlands) and La Bolsa (another tile company);the Holly,Sugar Com- pany; the Helm House,Furnishing Company (a pre-1910 commercial building located within the study area,which retains its architectural integrity); a broom factory; and a linoleum factory (Macleod and Milkovich 1988). However,these early industries were eclipsed during the 1920s by the discovery of oil. Early Huntington Beach residents discovered natural gas while drilling water wells, and in 1919,geologists influenced by the natural gas discoveries started explor- atory oil drilling. These efforts eventually,led to the discovery of the Huntington Beach Field in May, 1920. Standard Oil leased 500 acres of land from the Hun- tington Beach Company and drilled its first well in the northwest portion of the City. The first well produced 91 barrels a day and the second well,which was a much larger find, pumped 2,000 barrels a day. A second oil boom in 1926 was centered on the region between 8th Street and 23rd Street (Huntington Beach General Plan). 7/1s/96«te\RSG6307-MSECT4-12.wPn» 4.12-4 Although oil was an important factor in the growth and development of the City of Huntington Beach the community remained small 3.57 square miles until � , ty ( q ) the late 1950s, when 11 farmland annexations expanded its size to 25 square miles. The arrival of the aerospace industry during the 1960s was another im- portant factor in the growth of the region. Today, oil production and aerospace remain important aspects of the local economy (Huntington Beach General Plan). Existing Cultural Resources/Results of the Records and Literature Search A record search (Appendix B) conducted at the South Central Coastal Informa- tion Center, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, on May 9, 1996, shows one prehistoric site within the Merged Project Area. The site, CA-ORA-149, was recorded in 1963 and again in 1980 (McKinney 1963; Douglas 1980);it was described as a shell midden with a"few"artifacts. CA ORA 149 had been heavily impacted by road and residential construction, and by oil production and storage activities. Three additional prehistoric sites have been identified within one-quarter mile of the Merged Project Area;they are CA ORA- 276, CA-ORA 296, and CA-ORA-359• No historic archaeological sites have been recorded within the Merged Project Area. As part of previous EIRs, for other projects, five separate surveys and/or excava- tions have been conducted within one-quarter mile of the Merged Project Area; two of these included portions of the Merged Project Area, and are described below. In 1987, Beth Padon completed a linear survey of a small strip of land adjacent to Beach Boulevard along the eastern border of Main-Pier (Padon 1987). In 1989,STA Planning Inc.completed a survey of the downtown portion of the City of Huntington Beach (STA Planning,Inc. 1989). No new archaeologi- cal sites were identified as a result of these surveys. In addition to the California Archaeological Inventory, which houses the perti- nent information used to determine whether an area has been surveyed and whether any sites exist within the area, the following sources were reviewed: the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Orange County (HDP19; the National Register of Historic Places; the California State Historic Resources Inventory;the California Points of Historical Interest;and the listing of California Historical Landmarks in the region. The National Register of His- toric Places lists one property within the Merged Project Area and within one- quarter mile of Main-Pier (NR#89001203). The California State Historic Re- sources Inventory lists numerous properties within a one-quarter mile radius of the Merged Project Area, most of which are located in the downtown Hunting- ton Beach area; a listing of these properties is included in Appendix B. The listings of the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic Preser- vation and the California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties within the Merged Project Area or within one-quarter mile of the Merged Project Area. 7/1"Cp<(I:\RSG63OWntN$ECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-5 Results of Field Survey ' err►' On May 7 and May 8, 1996, a visual survey of the Merged Project Areas was completed. This survey was directed toward identifying historic buildings, defined as any structures appearing to be 50 or more years of age. The survey methodology consisted of walking or driving the study area and examining every building visible from the street or sidewalk. The age of each building was estimated based on visible architectural features including the following: roof design; window design; type of foundation; exterior wall treatments; building style or architecture;and setting. Those buildings that were estimated to be 50 years of age or older were recorded by address on the survey forms. In a few cases,addresses were not visible on the curb, building,or mailbox; these excep- tions were noted on the survey forms. The results of the survey were spot-checked for accuracy against several pub- lished sources, including the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Orange County (California State Historic Resources Inventory), published by the Office of Historic Preservation, and the listing of local land- marks in the Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR. These results are presented in tabular form in Appendix B. The survey confirms the existence of a substantial number of historic buildings within the Merged Project Area, espe- cially within Main-Pier, which includes downtown Huntington Beach. Among the most prominent of these early buildings are several that have been identified from earlier studies including: the Helm House Furnishing Company, con- structed in 1904 and the Helm Worthy House, constructed in the 1880s; the Shank House, constructed in 1912; the City Hall and jail, constructed in 1918; and the Pioneer Feed and Fuel building,constructed in 1904. Paleontological Resources Record searches into the archives of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History and the Orange County Natural History Association were conducted for the Merged Project Area. A single site was recorded within Oakview. This site (LACM 4018) is a peat bog deposit located near the intersection of Warner Ave- nue and Golden West Avenue. This site produced an extensive fauna including invertebrates, reptiles, birds, rodents, horses and deer. Radiocarbon dating showed the site is very late Holocene in age. Both record searches indicate that paleontological sites are known within a one mile radius of the Merged Project Area. Most of these sites are from Late Pleis- tocene formations of the Palos Verdes Sand, San Pedro Sand and Pleistocene Terrace deposits. 4.12.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE If the project may cause damage to an important archaeological or historical resource, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA,an"important archaeological resource"is one that: 7/1"64cI:\RSG630\EIRRISSECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-6 A. Is associated with an event or person of 1. Recognized significance in California or American History, or 2. Recognized scientific importance in history. B. Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or ar- chaeological research questions; C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest, or last surviving example of its kind; D. Is at least 50 years old (per the California Register of Historical Re- sources [AB 2881]) and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity;or E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown can be answered only with archaeological methods. For scientific resources, the proposed project will have a significant effect if unmonitored construction activities would result in the destruction of scientifi- cally valuable fossils. 4.12.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Historical Resources A complete listing of homes in the Merged Project Area that appear to be ap- proaching the 50 year threshold is provided in Appendix B. The homes on the list are approaching or are at the 50 year old criterion and need to be consid- ered when redevelopment of the land occurs. Future new development and redevelopment in the Merged Project Area will need to be analyzed on a specific project level basis to determine the potential impact to historic resources in the Merged Project Area. In general, tract style houses were not recorded during the survey, although some of these structures may date to the late 1940s and may therefore be ap- proaching the 50 year threshold for historic structures. Archaeological Resources According to the archaeological records search, no historic archaeological sites have been recorded within the Merged Project Area. However,unknown archae- ological resources may be encountered during grading activities for new con- struction and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area. In particular,the prehistoric reference material suggests that the City of Hunting- ton Beach, perhaps in the vicinity of the Newland House, may contain artifacts from the GGabrielino community of Zukupa. It is possible that subsurface distur- 7/18/96«I:WG630oEnMECT4-12.wPD» 4.12-7 bance within the Merged Project Area may encounter previously unknown archaeological resources. Therefore, the potential for discovery of previously unknown resources exists. Paleontological Impacts Based on a review of the Merged Project Area's geology,there is a high potential for disturbing unknown subsurface paleontological resources during project grading. 4.12.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Because there is no physical change contemplated for this Amendment/Merger that would affect any known cultural or scientific resource, there are no cumula- tive impacts. Future development in accordance with the General Plan has the potential to impact historic resources; however,with mitigation,such potential impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance. 4.12.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Historic and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan that will lessen the impacts to historic and prehistoric resources. Policies HCR 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.2.1, 1.2.2,and 12.4 provide mechanisms to identify,record,and preserve significant archaeological resources. Policies,,HCR 1.1.4, 1.2.2, and 1.3.7 provide for the identification and protection of historic resources. The policies relevant to this Amendment/Merger are listed below: • Establish a historical overlay for the area bounded by Gothard Street, Warner Avenue, Southern Pacific right-of-way, and Cedar Avenue. The overlay will encourage the adaptive reuse of the existing historic struc- tures while maintaining the light industrial surrounding uses (Policy HCR 1.1.3). • Utilize the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and standards and guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic Preservation as the architectural and landscape design standards for rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic re- sources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with the site's architectural and historic integrity(Policy HCR 1.2.1). • Encourage new development to be compatible with adjacent existing historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials and general architectural treatment(Policy HCR 1.2.2). • Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to the existing structure, or develop an accompanying building on the site , g that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to 7/1&96«I.\RSG630\EIR\SECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-8 setbacks, heights and parking requirements should be considered to make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no other reasonable alternative exists (Policy HCR 13.7). 4.12.E MIT 7GATTON MEASVRES The following mitigation measures will assist to reduce impacts to cultural resources in the Merged Project Area. Although specific project level impacts cannot be identified at this time, future specific development and redevelop- ment projects will comply with the mitigation measures. 4.12 A Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or require demolition of potentially significant resources,a complete assess- ment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings iden- tified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a mini- mum,this assessment shall include the following documentation: A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments,special architectural features,etc. B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each building. C) A determination of construction date from existing records such as building permit record books on file in the Planning Depart- ment at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant data to share. D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identi- fied in the present study. Additional measures may be imple- mented as a result,if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,archaeological resources or paleontological resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Or- ange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such re- sources,3)ascertain the presence of additional resources,and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. 4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equip- ment monitoring shall be on site during grading operations. 4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collection of historic documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another suitable local archive. 7/18/96KI:\RSG630\EU{�SEM-12.WPD» 4.12-9 4.I2.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ARER MMGATION The actions evaluated in this EIR will not directly result in any new develop- ment. Future projects in the Merged Project Area could impact potentially historic resources. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies and the mitigation measures identified above will reduce future impacts to cultural and historic resources within the Merged Project Area to less than significant. 7n8/96<<iuzsc630\EMacr4-12 wrn» 4.12-10 4.13 SCHOOLS 4.13.1 E sn7VG ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Merged Project Area is currently served by one high school district and three elementary school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) includes the entire City of Huntington Beach, as well as portions of the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, and Westminster, and portions of unincorporated territory in Orange County.' The Huntington Beach City School District (HBCSD), Westminster School District (WSD), and Ocean View School District (OVSD) also provide educational services to the Merged Project Area. Figure 4.13.1 identifies the location of the schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Each site name in Figure 4.13.1 is followed by its school district designation. There are no schools located within the Merged Project Area; however, one elementary school (Oak View Elementary) is located directly adjacent to Oakview. High Schools The HBUHSD operates four high schools serving the Merged Project Area. They are the Huntington Beach High School,Westminster High School, Marina High �^ School, and the Ocean View High School. Each facility serves grades 9-12. The District does not have any schools that are on a year-round schedule. Table 4.13 A provides information on the existing enrollments and capacities for each of the four high schools that serve the Merged Project Area. The number of portables indicated is in addition to the number of classrooms identified. Middle/Elementary Schools Huntington Beach City Scbool District The HBCSD has 13 facilities within the City of Huntington Beach,four of which serve the Merged Project Area. Of the four schools,two are elementary schools (Kettler Elementary and Smith Elementary) and two are middle schools (Dwyer Middle and Sowers Middle). The grades served, capacities, and enrollment for the schools serving the Merged Project Area are listed in Table 4.13A. ' The school district boundaries were set by the State Department of Edu- cation prior to the determination of the City boundaries, and were not l changed to coincide with City boundaries. 7/i9i96<<I.\RsG630�EII ECT4-13 VM>> 4.13-1 Westm inster High Stacey Intermediate (HBUHSD) r (WSD) � Clegg Elem. - �� (WSD) A■ Schroeder Elen - { X ` (WSD) t - - Marina High (HBUHSD) ® A Sun View Elem. (OVSD)Spring View Middle Oak View Elem (OVSD) ■ (OVSD) • �. - .(Nor in Redeveiop—A—) \`gyp •••:. • •--�;`;�,�•••-` — ,)\i GS Golden View Elem 2 �- Marine View Middle■ A ®Ocean View High Hope View ■ (HBUHSD) `•�.�, (OVSD) Mesa View Middle '- ---•- ��` -. Huntington Beach -- High (HBUHSD) 4 Dwyer Middle �~Smith Elem. (HBCSD) (HBCSD) Sowers Middle �•_ (HBCSD) ___ LEGEND — 5 _-__-.- 4 �•� City Boundary - — — �Kettler Elem. . (HBCSD) 1 Redevelopment Areas ® High School ® Middle School - - --_ ® Elementary School 6/19/96(RSG630) Figure 4.13.1 N :cd`Y T /� � Schools Serving the LS 1 0 os 1 4.13-2 J Redevelopment Project Area P Table 4.13.A-Schools Serving the Merged"Project Area Number of Student Current Remaining percentage Classrooms Name of School Capacity Enrollment Capacity of Capacity (portables) High Scbools(9-12) Huntington Beach High School 2,266 2,145 121 95% 80(0) (HBUHSD) Ocean View High School(HBUHSD) 11989 1,640 349 82% 5 16) Marina High School(HBUHSD) 2,367 2,055 312 87% 75(7) Westminster High School(HBUHSD)) 2,563 2,322 241 91% 89(0) yf Total 9,185 8,162 1,023 89% Middle Schools(6-8) 6 Mesa View Middle School(OVSD) 740 701 39 95% 24(4) � 1 Spring View Middle School(OVSD) 850 826 24 97% 26(3) Marine View Middle School(OVSD) 800 703 97 88% 25(7) Stacey Intermediate School(WSD) 764 709` 55 93% 30(1) Dwyer Middle School(HBCSD) 1,080, 870 210 81% 45(1) Rti Sowers Middle School(HBCSD) 1,110 1,146 (36) 103% 31(10) Total 5,344 4,955 389 93% Elementary Scbools(K5) Oak View Elementary School(OVSD) 617 617- 0 100% 19(6) Sun View Elementary School(OVSD) 470 440 30 94% 15(2) Hope View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 593 27 96% 23(3) Golden View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 561 59 9096 . 22(3) Clegg Elementary School(WSD) 420 481 (61) 115% 16(2) Schroeder Elementary School(WSD) 420 449 (29) 107% 15(2) Kettler Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 686 4 99% 22(6) Smith Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 770 (80) 112% 23(6) Total 4,547 4,597 (50) 101% .Source:Huntington Beach City School District,Development Fee Findings Report,March 14,1996.;Huntington Beach Union High School District,Development Fee Findings Report,February 27,1996;personal communication with Ocean View School District and Westminster School District. 7/1"6«I:WC7630\EM\,SECT4-13 WPD» 4.13-3 Ocean View School District There are approximately 641 residences within the Merged Project Area served by the OVSD. The District has six schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the six schools, four are elementary schools (Oak View Elementary, Sun View Elementary, Hope View Elementary, and Golden View Elementary) and two are middle schools (Mesa View Middle and Spring View Middle). Table 4.13.A iden- tifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers. Westminster School District There are no residences within the Merged Project Area served by the WSD. The District has three schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the three schools, two are elementary schools (Clegg Elementary and Schroeder Elemen- tary) and one is an intermediate school (Stacey Intermediate). Table 4.13.A identifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers. 4.13.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE A significant impact to public schools would occur if the anticipated future student population generated by the Amendment/Merger exceeded the antici- pated capacity of school facilities located within the affected district, and the overcrowding resulted in some other related physical impact, that caused a significant effect on the environment. j 4.13.3 PROJECT IMPACTS Based upon Section 15131(a) of CEQA and recent court interpretations, the analysis of environmental impacts resulting from a project must focus on the physical effects of the project. For schools, this means that potential classroom overcrowding and the potential cost of constructing new classrooms are not in themselves adverse environmental effects. CEQA applies only to activities that will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's social and eco- nomic effects can be relevant to an EIR's analysis if they are shown to lead to physical impacts on the environment. In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant envi- ronmental impact, the court in Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of the University of California noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for construction of new schools,not increased enrollment or potential overcrowd- ing,that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding is not a change in the physical environment and, therefore,should not be treated as an.impact f on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmen- tal impact under CEQA where a change in physical conditions,such as classroom or new school construction,will occur. In other words,there must be a chain of events caused by a project or program that causes a physical change to the environment. Overcrowding by itself is not an environmental impact. Because increased enrollment is not an environmental impact,the court held the Regents 7/19i964<I:VLSG63OWMCC$ECT4-13 WD» 4.13-4 had no duty under CEQA to commit additional funds to mitigate student enroIl- ment increases. Recently passed SB1287 amended State law to limit a public agency's ability to levy fees, charges or dedication against a development project for the construc- tion or reconstruction of school facilities. Under this amended State law, only fees that can be established to help finance school facilities are the developer fee funding, described below,and community facilities district financing. The current State statutory development fees levied for residential development is$1.84 per square foot and$0.30 per square foot for commercial development. The elementary school districts (grades K-8),including HBCSD,OVSD,and WSD, receive 61 percent of the developer fees. The high school district, HBUHSD, receives the remaining 39 percent. This EIR describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment. This EIR analysis also recognizes that the school district will decide which solu- tion to implement. It is not the purpose of this document to dictate policy to the school districts to select a specific implementation program to address needs created by the students generated by the Amendment/Merger or to suggest that the districts employ a particular mitigation approach. As the Merged Project Area is developed and student numbers increase, it is anticipated that the school districts will make decisions regarding the placement of the students on the basis of policies then in effect on and current circumstances and options. The analysis that follows concentrates on the predicted student population generated from the Amendment/Merger, possible measures that could be implemented to pro- vide adequate facilities for that population, and the potential adverse impacts that could result from those choices. High Schools Huntington Beach Union High School District HBUHSD uses a student generation factor of .1159 per dwelling unit. This is based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell- ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000 square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 4,500 square feet,to account for additional bedrooms. Huntington Beach High School According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FAT), HBHS has a total capacity of 2,266 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,145 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 121 students. As indicated in the FMP,the total number of permanent classrooms at HBHS is 80, with no portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms is 7/19i96<<I.\RSG630%U R�.SECT4-13.WM>> 4.13-5 multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity 11 has a range of 2,400 to 2,640 students. Therefore, the school's total student b" capacitywould increase by 255 to 495 students. HBHS is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the Distract were to make the decision to put HBHS on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity U would increase by approximately 25 percent. Yorktown-lake and Main-Pier are within the attendance area of HBHS. There are no planned residential areas associated with redevelopment actions within 4 Yorktown-Lake;however,based upon the anticipated redevelopment actions in � . Main-Pier, 563 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of �,< units by the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase o approximately 65 students to HBHS. This addition to HBHS will not signifi- cantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capac- ity- Ocean View High School According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), Ocean View High School (OVHS) has a total capacity of 1,989 students. The District reports that _,l !'ry current enrollment is at 1,640 students,leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 349 students. As indicated in the FMP,the total number of permanent class- rooms at OVHS is 53,with 16 portable classrooms. When the number of perma- nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes,the total school capacity has a range of 2,070 to 2,277 students. There- fore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 81 to 288 students. OVHS is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the decision to put OVHS on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Oakview and Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of OVHS. There are no planned residential units associated with redevelopment actions within Oakview; however, based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert- Beach,43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of approxi- mately five students to OVHS. This addition to OVHS will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity. Marina High School According to the District's 1995 FMP,the Marina High School has a total capacity of 2,367 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,055 stu- dents,leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 312 students. As indicated in 7n9,9C«I:vRsc63m=RI,sEcr4-13 wrn) 4.13-6 the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at MHS is 75,with 7 porta- ble classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the'total school capacity has a range of 2,460 to 2,706 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 93'to 339 students. Marina High School is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put Marina High School on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. i There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center; therefore,no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Marina High School from additional students generated by the project. Westminster High School According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Westminster High School has a total capacity of 2,563 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,322 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 241 students. As indicated in the FMP,the total number of permanent classrooms at Westminster High School is 89,with no portable classrooms. When the number of perma- nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,670 to 2,937 students. There- fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 107 to 374 students. The school is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put it on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center; therefore,no additional students will be generated,upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Westminster High School from additional students generated by the project. Middle Schools Huntington Beach City School District The HBCSD uses a student generation factor of.3095 per dwelling unit. This is based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell- ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000 square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 4,500 square feet,to account for additional bedrooms. 7/19i96KI=\RSG630\EUtN$ECT4-13 WMN 4.13-7 Dwyer Middle School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report(DFFR) prepared in March, 1996,Dwyer Middle School (DMS) has a total capacity of 1,080 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 870 students,leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 210 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of per- manent classrooms at DMS is 45,with 1 portable classroom. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity increases to 1,380 students. Therefore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 300 students. DMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put DMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no planned residential areas within Yorktown-Lake; therefore, no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend- ment/Merger. There is no impact to DMS from additional students generated by the project. Sowers Middle School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report(DFFR) prepared in March, 1996,Sowers Middle School (SMS) has a total capacity of 1,110 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 1,146 students,leaving an approximate capac- ity deficit of 36 students. As indicated by the District,the total number of perma- nent classrooms at SMS is 31,with 10 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 1,230 students. Therefore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students. SMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A small segment of Main-Pier is within the Sowers Middle School attendance area; however, this segment is composed of a neighborhood commercial strip. There are no residential projects included in this area; therefore,no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SMS from additional student generated by the project. Westminster School District Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of Stacey Intermedi- ate School (SIS), the area is not anticipated to generate additional students to SIS. Currently, the area does not have any residential areas nor does it propose any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment 7/19i96<.\RSG630WMECT4-13 M> 4.13-8 actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SIS from additional students generated by the project; however,a discussion on the total capacity at SIS is provided below. Stacey Intermediate School According to the District, total student capacity at Stacey Intermediate School (SIS) is 764 students. Currently, SIS has a student enrollment of 709 students, with a surplus capacity for 55 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SIS is 30,with 1 portable classroom. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class- room loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 930 students. There- fore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 166 students. SIS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put SIS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated,Huntington Center neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Stacey Intermediate School. Ocean View School District OVSD uses a student generation factor of.30 for single family dwelling units and .04 for multifamily dwelling units. Mesa View Middle School According to the District, total student capacity at Mesa View Middle School (MUMS) is 740 students. Currently, MUMS has a student enrollment of 701 students,with a surplus capacity of 39 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at MUMS is 24, with 4 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34 students, the total student capacity is increased to 952 students. Therefore,the school's total student capacitywould increase by 212 students. 1 MUMS is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the decision to put MUMS on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Oakview and all of Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of MUMS. As stated earlier, redevelopment actions within Oakview will not result in new housing units. However, based upon anticipated redevelopment in Talbert-Beach., 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.30 results in an increase of t` approximately 13 students to MUMS. The addition to MVMS will not significantly 7/1"6KI:\RSG63ONM;OSECT4-13 VPD» 4.13-9 affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity,to serve the addi- tional students using either method of calculating the surplus capacity. There- "`'•'✓ fore,the number of students to MUMS resulting from anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert-Beach is incremental and considered less than significant. Spring View Middle School According to the District, total student capacity at Spring View Middle School (SUMS) is 850 students. Currently, SUMS has a student enrollment of 826 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 24 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SUMS is 26, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to 986 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 136 students. SUMS is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the decision to put SVMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of SVMS, the area is not anticipated to generate any additional students to SVMS. There are no existing or planned residential areas within this area; therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment action's upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SUMS from additional students generated by the project. Elementary Schools Huntington Beach City School District As identified above, the HBCSD uses a student generation factor of:3095 per dwelling unit. Kettler Elementary School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report(DFFR)prepared in March, 1996, Kettler Elementary School (KES) has a total capacity of 690 stu- dents. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 686 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity of four students. As indicated by the District,the total number of permanent classrooms at KES is 22, with 6 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 840 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 150 students. 7/19i96«I:\RsG63o\E=EcT4-13 WPD» 4.13-10 KES is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the l decision to put KES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Main-Pier(the area southeast of 1st Street) is within the attendance area of Kettler Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this part of the area, approximately 350 residential units are expected with the Waterfront Project. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.3095 results in an increase of approximately 77 students to KES. This addition to KES will not significantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore, the impact to KES is considered less than significant. Smith Elementary School According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report(DFFR) prepared in March, 1996, Smith Elementary School has a total capacity of 690 students. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 770 students, leaving an approximate surplus deficit of 80 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma- nent classrooms at Smith Elementary is 23,with 6 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class- room loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 870 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 180 students. Smith Elementary is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the decision to put Smith Elementary on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. A portion of Main-Pier(the area north west of 1st Street) is within the attendance area of Smith Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this part of the area,approximately 213 residential units are expected (150 with the Chevron Project and 63 with the Third Block West Project). Multiplying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of.3095 results in an increase of 66 students to Smith Elementary. This addition to Smith Elementary will not significantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore,the impact to Smith Elemen- tary is considered less than significant. Westminster Scbool District Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of both Clegg Ele- mentary School (CES) and Schroeder Elementary School (SES), Huntington Center will not generate any additional students to CES or SES. Currently, the area neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no addi- tional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementa- tion of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to CES or SES from addi- 7/19/96«I:\'RSG630\E ZeSECT4-13 VM>> 4.13-11 tional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the school's capacities is provided. Clegg Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Clegg Elementary School (CES)is 420 students. Currently, CES has a student enrollment of 481 students, with a surplus deficit for 61 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at CES is 16, with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 540 students. Therefore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students. CES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the decision to put CES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, Huntington Center includes no residential land uses. The AmendmenvMerger proposes no change in land use for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in no impact to Clegg Elementary School. Schroeder Elementary School According to the District,total student capacity at Schroeder Elementary School Schroeder Elementary is 420 students. Currently, Schroeder Elementary has a student enrollment of 449 students, with a surplus deficit for 29 students. As indicated by the District,the total number of permanent classrooms at Schroeder Elementary is 15,with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 510 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 90 students. Schroeder Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the decision to put Schroeder Elementary on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated, the Amendment/Merger proposes no residential land uses for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area,resulting in no impact to Schroeder Elementary School. Ocean View School District As identified above, OVSD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single family dwelling units and.04 for multifamily dwelling units. 7/19j96«I.\RSG639MR�.SECT4-13 WPD» 4.13-12 Oak View Elementary School According to the District,total student capacity at Oak View Elementary School (OVES) is 617 students. Currently, OYES has a student enrollment of 617 stu- dents, with no surplus student capacity available. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at OVES is 19,with 6 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the,total student capacity is increased to 850 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 233 students,resulting in a surplus student capacity. OVES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the decision to put OVES on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. There are no planned residential uses within Oakview; therefore,no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to OVES from additional students generated by the project. Sun View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Sun View Elementary School (SVES) is 470 students. Currently, SVES has a student enrollment of 440 stu- dents, with a surplus capacity of 30 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at SVES is 15,with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 578 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 108 students. SUES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the decision to put SVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of SVES,the area is not anticipated to generate any additional students to SVES. Currently, the area does not have any residential land uses,nor does it propose any. Therefore,no additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon imple- mentation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVES from addi- tional students generated by the project. Hope View Elementary School According to the District,total student capacity at Hope View Elementary School (HVES) is 620 students. Currently, HVES has a student enrollment of 593 stu- dents,with a surplus capacity of 27 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of permanent classrooms at HVES is 23, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to 7/19/96«I:\RSG63"-U;R SECT4-13 WPDN 4.13-13 884. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 264 stu- dents. HVES is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the decision to put HUES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25,percent. Talbert-Beach is within the attendance area of HUES. Based upon the proposed redevelopment actions in this area, 43 new housing units are projected. Multi- plying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30 results in an increase of approximately 13 students to HUES. This addition to HVES will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity. Golden View Elementary School According to the District, total student capacity at Golden View Elementary School(GVES)is 620 students. Currently, GVES has a student enrollment of 561 students,with a surplus capacity of 59 students. As indicated by the District,the total number of permanent classrooms at GVES is 22, with 3 portable class- rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to 850. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 230 stu- dents. GVES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the decision to put GVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent. As previously stated,residential land uses associated with redevelopment actions are not proposed. Therefore,no additional students will be generated from this area,resulting in no impact to GVES. Summary of Impacts In summary,the potential impacts to schools serving the Merged Project Area are considered less than significant. Table 4.13.A indicates student .enrollment approaching and sometimes exceeding the student rapacity at several schools,as stated by the school districts. However, the districts did not calculate their potential student capacity by multiplying the number of classrooms and portables by the classroom loading capacity,and may have inadvertently under- stated actual capacity. When student capacity is calculated,the student capacity figure increases substantially. Based upon this method of calculation, implementation of the Amendment/ Merger will not generate students beyond the total student capacity at any school. Therefore, there appears to be adequate space available to serve addi- 7/19/9&xI.\RSG630\MZ$ECT4-13.WM>> 4.13-14 l tional students. When a year-round school schedule and increased usage of ` portable classrooms are considered,adequate capacity is assured. In regard to potential project demands for school facilities, the districts collect school impacts fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. With the excep- tion of the establishment of community facility districts for specific develop- ments,no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are possible,pursuant to State law(SBA 1287).; In addition,the districts will receive Average Daily Attendance financing to fund district teacher salary and other general education expenses. Furthermore, school districts will be entitled to a share of the tax increment revenue generated by the Merged Project. As discussed in the Project Descrip- tion, Section 3.0, the Amendment/Merger will amend the Merged Plan as such; therefore, statutory payments provided by Section 33607.7 will be remitted to any affected taxing agency with whom the agency has not entered into a pass through agreement prior to January 1, 1994;the Agency will continue to remit payments in accordance with such pass through agreement in lieu of statutory payments. Such statutory and pass through payments are designed to alleviate any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing agencies may incur as a result of the Amendment/Merger. Because there is no physical impact to any of the schools and because construc- tion of a new school is not justified, there are no physical consequences that result from the AmendmenVMerger. Impacts to the schools serving the Merged Project Area are considered less than significant. 4.Z3.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Although the General Plan Update EIR identifies that a cumulative increase in the number of students generated would result in cumulative impacts to all of the school districts and their facilities that serve the City of Huntington Beach, the number of additional students resulting from the Amendment/Merger does not exceed any affected school's existing facitilities and capacities. HBCSD will experience an increase of 143 students as result of the Amendment/Merger; however,this amount is only slightly higher than the student growth projections for HBCSDI. Using the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity specified by HBCSD, the number of students does not exceed HBCSD's capacity. There- fore, as previously stated, there are no physical consequences that result from the Amendment/Merger; therefore, there is no physical impact to any of the schools and construction of a new school or a portion of a school is not justified. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts resulting from the Amendment/ Merger. 1 Community Systems Associates,Inc.,Development Fee Findings Report, March 14, 1996. 7/19/96HI:\RSG630\EUL�sECT4-13 WYD» 4.13-15 4.135 GENERAL PLAN POLrCLES The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Land Use Element and the Public Facilities and Public Services Element of the General Plan Update that will lessen impacts to the affected school districts. The policies are listed below. • Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre- lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser- vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele- ments) (Policy LU2.1.2). • Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts to review measures alleviating some school's over- crowding while other school's have available capacity(Policy PF 4.1.1). • Continue communication and cooperation efforts between City officials and the local school districts, especially in the areas of population pro- jections, funding sources, and through annual monitoring of develop- ment activities in order to promote a better quality of life for existing and future residents (Policy PF 4.2.1). • Require that new development projects to pay appropriate school im- pact fees to the local school districts (Policy PF 4 2.2). 4.13.6 MITTGATIONMEASURES Mitigation measures are not warranted. 4.13.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AF7M MHTGATTON In regard to potential project demands on school facilities, expected increases in students are consistent with the General Plan Update. In addition,pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et.seq,statutory and pass through payments to school districts are considered adequate mitigation for financial burden and detriment incurred as a result of the Amendment merger. No unavoidable adverse impacts to schools are expected to result from the project. With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the addi- tional demands to the school districts that serve the City of Huntington Beach will be lessened to a level below significance. 7/19i960I:\RSG630\E=ECT4-13.WM>> 4.13-16 5.0 ALTERNATIVES In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d), an EIR must discuss a reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project. This chapter discusses the following alternatives: 1) No Project, 2) Alternative Financing, 3)Alternative Project Location, 4) Increased Development Alternative,and 5) Reduced Development Alternative. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmen- tal effects or reducing them to a less than significant level of impact, while still meeting most project objectives. The alternatives considered in this EIR were selected because they represent reasonable alternatives for the project area that potentially could achieve the objectives of the project,and because they have the potential to reduce unavoidable impacts of the project, or cumulative impacts of the project and reasonably foreseeable projects. The individual impacts associat- ed with each alternative are discussed in relation to changes in existing condi- tions and their relative severity compared to the impacts of the Amendment/Merger. 5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 -NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative consists of maintenance of existing environmental conditions as a baseline for comparison to the project. This alternative would t entail no changes in the existing and planned uses of the project areas, and would maintain existing land use patterns and conditions. This alternative contemplates development continuing at its current pace as allowed under existing City regulations and the General Plan. This alternative is very similar to the proposed Amendment/Merger, since the build out would be exactly the same. The difference is that without the financing mechanism provided by the Amendment/Merger, the build out under this alternative is likely to occur more slowly, and may be dependent on other factors (such as market forces or other funding sources) to achieve the ultimate build out. The pattern of development and existing land uses is described in Section 4.1, Land Use. Because this project is primarily a program for economic development,elimina- tion of blight, and financing of infrastructure within the Merged Project Area, there are implied redevelopment activities that would affect the long-term condi- tions within these areas. Therefore, the No Project Alternative will include a sub- set called the No Build condition,wherein there would be no growth, no addi- tional financing for infrastructure and public facilities,and no growth/changes in land use or any other physical changes to the baseline environmental conditions. It is important to note that the No Build condition is not a realistic condition. It has been included here to comply with CEQA requirements to address the No Project scenario,where no additional development occurs. This is not a realistic scenario for two reasons: 1) the AmendmenvM. erger does not include develop- ment of private property!within the Merged Project Area; even with the No Project Alternative,it is unlikely that all development within the Merged Project ' Area would cease; and 2) the General Plan provides for future growth in the 7/1"&1ARS"30\EMSECT5-O.WPD)> 5-1 Merged Project Area, so if growth does not occur as a future outcome of the E Amendment/Merger,growth is still provided for in the General Plan. 4✓ Land Use No Project Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations would remain as they are proposed in the General Plan. These designations primarily include commercial, industrial and residential. The potential land use related impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be of no significance, as the current land uses within the project boundaries would continue un- changed due to the Redevelopment Plans' adoption of the current land use designations of the General Plan and all future amendments to the General Plan. In this way, the Redevelopment Plans will always be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update. However, the eminent domain powers that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to maintain in the project area would lapse,preventing the Agency from converting existing commercial and industrial properties to land uses that may be more beneficial to the City as a whole. No Project/No Build The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in current land uses remaining exactly the same as those evident today,and no new development or redevelop- ment would occur on currently vacant or degraded parcels. This alternative would essentially freeze land,use as it is today; no physical improvements would be made, no economic development would occur, and existing infrastructure deficiencies would remain. Population and Housing No Project Under the No Project Alternative, economic growth and the construction of affordable housing would occur at a slower rate than under the proposed pro- ject due to the lack of tax increment financing and a coordinated economic development program for the project areas. The No Project Alternative would consequently result in the same ultimate employment and population as pro- jected in the General Plan,but slower employment and population growth than would occur without the Amendment/Merger. The development of general commercial and general industrial properties would proceed before the con- struction of additional affordable housing units,resulting in a negative impact to the jobs/housing balance. In addition, the Agency's powers of eminent domain would expire for Huntington Center and Oakview, thereby limiting the ability of the Agency to make space available for constructing affordable housing. Because the No Project Alternative would prolong the City's shortage of affordable hous- ing,failure to implement the proposed Amendment/Merger would not allow the 7/19/96<(I:\xsc,630\EUt�SEcr5-0.WPD)> 5-2 Agency to assist in providing a range of housing available to all economic seg- ments of the community. No Project/No Build The No Build Alternative would prohibit the construction of any additional assisted housing and would further worsen the City's housing shortage. Moder- ate employment growth would still occur, but no additional housing would be provided for future workers within the City. Geology/Seismicity No Project Under the No Project Alternative, funding for redevelopment in the Merged Project Area would remain limited. Housing development, commercial develop- ment, and economic growth would occur at a slower pace, resulting in slightly fewer residents and employees moving into the City. From a seismic hazards standpoint, there is no measurable difference in impacts of this alternative. The replacement of older buildings (not built according to more stringent seismic design requirements) with newer buildings (for those projects relying on rede- velopment funds) would not occur, thus potentially increasing risk. Overall, impacts relating to the identified seismic hazards would be similar to the Amend- ment/Merger, since the minor amount of new buildings will not result in a statistically significant decrease in risk exposure. No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no new development would occur. Older buildings would not be replaced through redevelopment actions, result- ing in continued occupancy of some buildings that may be seismically unsound and could be at risk. For this reason, impacts due to geology and seismicity would be greater than with the Amendment/Merger. Water Resources No Project As with the Amendment/Merger, the No Project Alternative would result in less than significant impacts to water quality and water resources. The funding available for water quality control and new drainage improvements would be more limited than under the proposed project. 7/19i9&1-\RSr,630V-Ut\SECT5-0 VM>> 5-3 No Project/No Build 4 Impacts to water resource for the No Project/No Build Alternative would be the same as those under the No Project Alternative. Air Quality No Project Under the No Project Alternative, existing uses and densities would remain in place, with incremental increases in density occurring as allowed under the City's General Plan. Air quality impacts of the No Project Alternative are the same as those identified for the project. Since the No Project Alternative would generate the same amount of traffic as the Amendment/Merger,with development occurring at pace that would poten- tially be slower, the No Project Alternative would ultimately generate the same quantities of pollutant emissions associated with vehicle operation. However, it may take a longer time to reach the same emission and pollution levels as pro- jected in the General Plan Update EIR under this scenario. No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario,no additional vehicular traffic would be generated within the project areas, and vehicular emissions would remain the same as present-day conditions. Transportation and Circulation No Project The No Project Alternative would result in traffic impacts similar to those experi- enced under the Amendment/Merger. The land uses designated in the City's General Plan would remain the same,and would result in similar traffic volumes being generated at build out. The No Project scenario would result in slower growth, delaying the effect of traffic and circulation impacts. This would be offset by the fact that improvements planned to be funded by the Amend- ment/Merger would not occur. Over the long-term, the impacts are essentially the same as for the Amendment/Merger. No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario,traffic conditions would be expected to remain the same because build out according to the General Plan will continue. Currently vacant parcels and lower density developments would continue to produce little or no traffic,while some street improvements would be made with non-redevelopment related funds. 7/l9i96KL•\RSG630\EMSECT5-0.WPDN 5-4 Biological Resources No Project Because the Redevelopment Plans implement the City's General Plan land uses and because the No Project Alternative does essentially the same but at a slower pace without tax increment financing and eminent domain,the effects on open space lots and adjacent resource areas are identical. Under the No Project Alter- native, impacts to biological resources would be the same as those experienced under the Amendment/Merger(i.e.,less than significant). No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario, currently vacant areas would remain vacant and would serve as urban/disturbed open space. Since no important biological resources are within the project areas, no significant biological impacts would be avoided. Public Health and Safety No Project The No Project scenario would allow for further development of commercial, industrial,and residential land uses that may use toxic and hazardous materials and/or generate hazardous waste. However, as with the Amendment/Merger, compliance with existing City, County, State, and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials would reduce potential impacts to below a significant level. No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario, petroleum extraction activities would be allowed to continue. Continuation of oil and gas extraction would prolong the potential for hazardous materials and soil contamination to occur. The existing industrial and commercial uses would remain, and would not be re- placed with residential uses, which generate smaller qualities of hazardous materials. Noise No Project Under the No Project Alternative,similar volumes of traffic would occur due to General Plan build out. As a result, significant increases in noise levels will be expected to occur along specific roadway segments as reported in the General Plan Update EIR. These increases in ambient noise levels would be comparable to those resulting from implementation of the Amendment/Merger. 7/19/96«I:\RSG630VM$ECT".WPD» 5-5 No Project/No Build V ; Under the No Project/No Build scenario,vehicular traffic and associated ambient noise levels would be incrementally less than those levels reached under the Amendment/Merger andNo Project scenarios. Public ServicesJUtilities No Project The No Project Alternative would have relatively the same impact on utilities and services as the Amendment/Merger,since build out would be the same as under the General Plan. Lack of funding may slow the growth rate to ultimate build out within the Merged Project Area. Funding for infrastructure improvements that would be generated by the Amendment/Merger would not be available under the No Project Alternative. If development did proceed without infra- structure improvements,increases in the demand for public services and utilities could potentially exceed the City's ability to supply funding. This will be pre- vented by General Plan policies requiring provision of adequate public services and utilities. No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario, the demand for public services and utilities would not increase. Alternative forms of funding would be needed to correct existing deficiencies. Visual and Aesthetic Resources No Project The No Project Altemative would result in the existing character of the project areas remaining the same.,Continuing the existing pattern of development will continue the blight and land use conflicts that currently exist within the project areas. Existing views would remain as they are, and the character and general appearance of the project areas would not be altered. The visual improvements that would occur with implementation of the Amendment/Merger would not be implemented. No Project/No Build The No Project/No Build Alternative would also allow the existing conditions of blight to remain unchanged. Although some views would be maintained, this would not represent an significantly important benefit. 7/191964(1-.WG630\EMI SECT5-0.WPD» 5-6 Cultural Resources l No Project The No Project Alternative would still allow for build out of land as allowed by the City's General Plan, and grading for future developments could potentially disrupt presently unrecorded cultural resources, having the identical potential impacts as the Amendment/Merger. The potentially historic structures within the City could still be subjected to the pressures of development, but would most likely be protected by existing State and federal laws (as with the Amend- ment/Merger). No Project/No Build Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no disruption of cultural resources would occur. 5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2-ALTERNATIVE FINANCING This alternative will require the City of Huntington Beach to seek alternative sources of revenue to fund needed redevelopment improvements and other projects instead of utilizing Redevelopment Agency funding. The City is in need �^ of specific public improvements included in the list of public infrastructure, (` storm drains and street improvements and public facilities such as the library expansion, all cited in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR. In order to fund these improve- ments without Redevelopment Agency participation, other sources of revenue the City could consider include infrastructure finance districts,industrial devel- opment bonds, community development block grant (CDBG) funds (which are declining and are considered unreliable), economic development administration (EDA) funds, assessment districts, and County, State and federal assistance programs. As the primary source for financing the Redevelopment Projects,this alternative will allow construction of projects only as financing sources are located and funds become available. The availability of funds would,in turn,be dependent upon such factors as the source;the marketability of bonds;the political climate at the time; whether or not local, State or federal agencies have made funds available; and other issues that may be unknown at this time. Under this alternative, the current list of projects within the existing Redevelop- ment Project Areas could be developed slowly or possibly not at all,depending upon the availability of funds and the success of the City at obtaining the neces- sary funds. Once funds were obtained,they could be restricted in use,used only for specific projects, which could affect some of the Redevelopment Projects. Generally,alternative financing sources are unreliable and rapidly disappearing. This alternative is very similar to the No Project Alternative. The only difference is that this alternative provides for alternate funding sources. 7/19i96«I:\RSG630\,E=ECT5-0.WPD» 5-7 Because one of the primary objectives of the Amendment/Merger is to finance infrastructure improvements, an infrastructure financing district should be considered as an alternative. Enacted by California Senate Bill 308 in 1990, the enabling legislation (Government Code Section 53395, et seq.) authorizes cities to establish infrastructure financing districts to purchase, construct,expand and improve infrastructure of"community-wide significance." Like the Amendment/Merger, an infrastructure financing district will be funded by property tax increment (although only from certain taxing agencies that consent to give up their increment),and will be able to issue bonds to finance infrastructure activities. However, a number of drawbacks make infrastructure financing districts of limited usefulness. First, the constitutionality of the districts is uncertain. The Legislative Counsel (attorney for the California Legislature) opined that the enabling legislation is unconstitutional because it authorizes tax increment financing without requiring blight, and because an infrastructure financing district is not a"district"entitled to allocation of property taxes'. Second, the requirement that taxing agencies must consent by resolution to donate their tax increment to the district severely limits the funds that can be obtained, particularly in comparison to the tax increment funds that would be generated by the Amendment/Merger. In addition, school districts and county boards of education are not authorized to consent to give up their tax incre- ments. Third, the legislative intent to Section 53395 is that infrastructure financing districts be used only in "substantially undeveloped areas." No portions of the Redevelopment Projects would qualify as such. Fourth, the creation of an infrastructure financing district and its issuance of bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all owners of property within the district. Obtaining such two-thirds approval would be very difficult. All-of the other revenue sources cited above may have a place in providing needed construction capital. However, they have several disadvantages such as availability, allowed use of the funds, and the duration the funds are available. The use of the above financing methods could result either in the delay of some or all of the ongoing list of projects in the five Redevelopment Project Areas well into the future,or in their abandonment. From an environmental standpoint, this alternative will have impacts similar to the Amendment/Merger due to similar, but possibly slower, construction im- pacts and similar, but,slower, growth inducing impacts. Alternative financing methods,if and when obtained,would fund similar but not necessarily the same Redevelopment Projects as the AmendmenVMerger. This would be due to potential "strings"attached to federal and State funding sources. If this alterna- tive did not fund affordable housing projects for many years, this alternative ' "Report on Enrolled Bill"dated September 24, 1990. 7/19/WI.\RSG630\EUt\SECT5-0.WPD» 5-8 ( could be environmentally inferior to the Amendment/Merger. If this alternative did not fund needed public works improvements in a timely manner, infrastruc- ture needs of the City in the Redevelopment Project Areas may not be funded. With the exception of public services/infrastructure and affordable housing, the Alternative Financing scenario would have impacts similar to those of the Amendment/Merger with regards to land use, geology/seismicity, water re- sources, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, public health and safety,noise,aesthetics, and cultural resources. 5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 -ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION The key question in determining whether alternative locations need to be con- sidered is "whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only loca- tions that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR' (Guidelines, Section 15 12 6 (A) (5) (B). The "rule of reason" and feasibility are also factors to consider in evaluating off-site or alternative locations. In order for any area to be considered a Redevelopment Project Area, it.must meet several conditions established by State law. The Redevelopment Law requires an extensive legal process involving the preparation of several docu- ments, the formal action of the Agency, the Planning Commission and the City 1, Council.Prior to City Council adoption of Redevelopment Plans for each of the five Redevelopment Project Areas, extensive assessments were conducted to determine whether the areas met the condition of blight as defined by the Rede- velopment Law,as well as other necessary criteria. The area within the City of Huntington Beach that is available as an alternative Redevelopment Project Area is very limited. There is little remaining land within the City that could be incorporated into a new project area that would satisfy the objectives of eliminating blight, providing commercial rehabilitation,eliminating land use conflicts and providing new housing opportunities. The primary areas within the City that meet the definition of blight, i.e., areas that are in need of commercial rehabilitation,are already included within the Merged Project Area. Therefore, there is no suitable alternative location within the City that could be incorporated into a new Redevelopment Project Area. Since the principal purpose of the Amendment/Merger is to merge five previ- ously established Redevelopment Projects to allow an increase in finance limits and to allow flexibility in expending tax increment on projects within any of the five areas, an alternative project location would not satisfy the objectives of the Amendment/Merger. Each of the objectives defined in the project description is site specific and could not be applied to an alternate location. Abandonment of the project in order to establish a completely new Redevelopment Project Area would result in the same situation as the"No Project/No Build"alternative. 7n9A6<(I.\RSC�63o\Em,SECTs-o.wrn» 5-9 5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4-INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The Increased Development Alternative would result in a Redevelopment Pro- J ject that provides strategies for encouraging new development and redevelop- went within the Redevelopment Project Areas to its theoretical capacity (i.e., greater than the development intensity allowed under the General Plan). Strate- gies that could be employed to increase development intensities within the Redevelopment Project Areas include 1) density bonuses for projects that incor- porate particular land uses such as affordable housing or public recreation areas, or 2)transfer of development rights between parcels located within the Redevel- opment Project Areas. Although encouragement of density in excess of that allowed under the General Plan will result in larger tax increment revenue, this development would be inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan and would require greater infrastructure improvements than currently identified in the Amendment/Merger or the General Plan. In direct conflict with Objective No. 2 (consistency with the City's General Plan) and No. 3 (provision of funds to assist implementation of infrastructure improvements) of the Amend- ment/Merger, as outlined in Section 3.4 of this EIR, the alternative fails to meet the majority of the Amendment/Merger objectives, and is considered infeasible. 5.5 ALTERNATIVES-REDUCED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE The Reduced Development Alternative would result in Redevelopment Projects that reduce programs to fund capital improvement projects within the Redevel- opment Project Areas, and that focus on assistance with building rehabilitation and construction within the Redevelopment Project Areas. Elimination of capital improvement funding that corrects existing and planned deficiencies will result in new and redevelopment projects bearing an increased burden for the costs of upgrading infrastructure; in some cases, this may require downscaling of pro- jects or may make them infeasible from an economic prospective. This addi- tional, economic burden is expected to reduce the level of development/ redevelopment that will occur within the Redevelopment Project Areas. Particu- lar capital improvement projects that may not be financed include the following: • Maintenance and refurbishment of infrastructure in Talbert-Beach, in- cluding necessary replacement • Storm drain improvements throughout the Redevelopment Project Areas • Completion of storm drain improvements in Oakview • Improvements to the interchange,roadways and intersections at Center Avenue,Interstate 405 and Edinger Avenue • Completion of a new accessway into the Huntington Center Plaza, di- rectly across from the Interstate 405 southbound ramp at Center Drive • Improvements at the Gothard Street/Hoover Street connection • Completion of the Oakview branch library • Various other improvements associated with community and neighbor- hood improvement programs, commercial rehabilitation projects and economic development. Without implementation of these capital improvement projects, development sponsors will be required to shoulder the economic burden for construction of 7n9Arx<I:ussG63o7-m�sscrs-o.WPD» 5-10 improvements that accommodate not only their incremental demand but also existing deficiencies in the system. This additional cost may create a hindrance to economic development within the Redevelopment Project Areas, and may have a corresponding negative effect on tax increment revenues within the Redevelopment Project area. This loss of revenue will inhibit the ability of the Redevelopment Agency to meet the objectives of the Amendment/Merger, as identified in Section 3.4 of this EIR. In particular, Objective 3 (provision of funds to assist implementation of infrastructure improvements) could not be met with this alternative. Since this alternative would produce development possibly at a slower rate than expected with implementation of the Amendment/Merger, environmental im- pacts associated with this alternative are anticipated to be incrementally slower, but not necessarily fewer,than for the AmendmentJMerger andAltemative 1 (No Project),and greater than the impacts identified for Alternative 1 (No Project/No Build). Implementation of Alterative 5 will result in incrementally slower, but not necessarily fewer, environmental impacts than the Amendment/Merger, how- ever,this alternative fails to meet one of the main Amendment/Merger objectives (Objective No.3) and,therefore,is considered infeasible. 5.6 CONCLUSIONS A reasonable range of project alternatives to potentially reduce significant envi- ronmental impacts, which would otherwise occur under the Amendment/ Merger,was analyzed in this chapter. These alternatives include the No Project Alternative, No Project/No Build sub-set Alternative,Alternative Financing,Alter- nate Location Alternative, Increased Development and Decreased Development. The No Project/No Build alternative was determined to be infeasible,as it would not allow for build out of the City's adopted General Plan. While this alternative would avoid significant increases in ambient noise levels, it would not be envi- ronmentally superior to the Amendment/Merger overall. The No Project Alternative would result in environmental effects similar to the Amendment/Merger, but would not have its beneficial effects on housing and infrastructure. It is therefore not considered to be environmentally superior. The Alternative Financing Alternative,if feasible/successful,would have the same environmental impacts as the Amendment/Merger. However,due to the uncer- tainty of funding for this Alternative and because it does not reduce significant environmental impacts,it is not considered an environmentally superior project. The Alternative Location, Increased Development and Decreased Development Alternatives were deemed to be infeasible, as they would not achieve Amend- ment/Merger objectives. r 7/19)9CwI..\RSG630\EIR\SECT5-0.WPD» 5-11 parr✓ In conclusion, the Amendment/Merger would,have the fewest environmental 4 impacts among all the feasible alternatives, and it is considered to be the envi- ronmentally superior alternative. 7/1"6«I:WG630EWsEcr5-o.WPD» 5-12 6.0 LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT This chapter has been prepared in conformance with Sections 15126(e), (f) and (g)of the CEQA Guidelines,which require EIRs to address long-term effects of a project. This section also provides a summary and classification of the environm- ental impacts of the Amendment/Merger, which are identified in analyses con- tained in Chapter 4 of this EIR. 6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALY7.ED IN THE SIR 6.1.1 Impacts Found Not to Be Significant Land Use and Planning;Population and Housing The impacts associated with land use and planning were determined to not be significant. Adoption and implementation of the Amendment/Merger will actually result in positive land use impacts to the City and its residents. It is the intent of the Amendment/Merger to facilitate the elimination of incompatible land uses and blight,and to encourage new development that is compatible with surrounding uses. Additionally, the Amendment/Merger does not propose changes in the land use designations defined the City's General Plan. and will not result in land use conflicts or changes in the land use mix nor will it add substantially to population and housing in the City. The Amendment/Merger (� will facilitate future development on a limited number of currently vacant ` parcels contained within the Merged Project Area;however,these parcels do not have significant scenic value,and are designated for development (i.e. non-open space) in the General Plan. Earth Resources As with most development in the region, implementation of the Amendment/ Merger will place future residents at a potential risk due to the potential for regional seismic activity. However, the effect has been determined to be insignificant based on modern building codes and foundation requirements used by the City of Huntington Beach. Implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update EIR'(pages'1 5.6-26through 5.6-29), now incorporated into the General Plan as policies,will further reduce the effects of fault rupture and ground shaking to a less than significant level. Lands in the vicinity of the Merged Project Area have been known to be subject to subsidence and/or liquefaction. Also,Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier are within a Methane Overlay District, where the likelihood of methane gas exposure is prominent. Adherence to existing geotechnical engineering reporting requirements, municipal and building codes, State Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resource requirements, federal regulations, and the mitigation measures identified in the General Plan Update EIR will reduce potential impacts associated with subsidence, liquefaction, and methane to below a significant level. 7/19/96«Ic\RSG630\EIR\SECT".VPD>> 6-1 Water Quality The potential impacts to water resources within the City and surrounding areas were determined to be less than significant. None of the Merged Project Area currently has or is expected to have land uses or activities that could contribute to a decline in water quality within coastal waters,bays, estuaries,or man-made lake features within the City. The Amendment/Merger will not significantly impact water quality. Policies contained within the Environmental Resources/ Conservation Section of the General Plan are directed specifically at ensuring that adverse impacts to water quality do not occur. Transportation and Circulation Implementation of the AmendmentM` erger will result in a marginal increase in traffic on local and regional roadways. However, the Amendment/Merger will not result in significant traffic or circulation impacts. Policies contained in the General Plan will ensure that implementation of the Circulation Plan and TDNI/TSM strategies will occur, and therefore the potential impacts associated with the General PIan build out will be avoided in most cases. Increased traffic levels on PCH,however,will represent an exception,as discussed in Section 6.2 below. Biological Resources y Indirect, less than significant effects to biological resources may occur due to intensification of human usage of open space areas located near the Merged Project Area. No direct impacts to important biological resources are expected as a result of the Amendment/Merger. Public Heap$ (Hazards) The Amendment/Merger may result in further development of commercial, industrial, and residential lands uses that may use toxic and hazardous materials and/or generate hazardous waste. However, compliance with existing City, County,State,and Federal regulations regarding hazardous materials will reduce potential impacts to below a significant level. Public Services and Utilities The impacts associated with public services and utilities were determined to be insignificant. Build out of the Merged Project Area will increase the demands placed on all public services -and utilities, including police services, fire and emergency medical services, schools, parks and recreation, road maintenance, utility services, water systems, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, storm drainage,electricity,natural gas,and telecommunications services. Although the AmendmentM. erger will require the addition of facilities and expansion of ti j service agencies,.the increase in.the tax base created by future development, 7/19i9 l.\RSG630VMIISECT6-0.'WPD>> 6-2 coupled with fees paid for services, will facilitate the required increases in services. By expanding the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the Redevelopment Agency may undertake, the Amendment/Merger will improve the City's ability ,correct existing service deficiencies and provide adequate services in the future. Implementation of the policies outlined in the General Plan will further ensure that no significant impacts to public services and utilities will occur. Aesthetics The Amendment/Merger would promote economic development and new development in a previously developed area. Any potentially negative visual im- pacts will be reduced with application of standard City setbacks, landscaping, and design requirements, along with recommended mitigation measures to be included in future Specific Plans and policies contained in the General Plan. Overall, the Amendment/Merger is anticipated to have positive and beneficial aesthetic impacts. The use of tax increment revenue will allow the Redevelopment Agency to use monies for improving and updating dilapidated and blighted buildings, ultimately having positive visual impacts. Noise Because the Amendment/Merger does not include any changes to the General Plan land uses, there are no new significant impacts not already reported in the General Plan Update EIR. Schools There are no physical impacts to the environment resulting from the small number of students projected,to attend public schools. 6.1.2 Long-Term Impacts Avoided or Lessened By Mitigation Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce potential environmental impacts to levels that are less than significant, or may even produce long-term environmental benefits. Impacts initially found to be potentially significant but that can be mitigated or lessened to avoid significant impacts are listed below. Biological Resources There are no significant impacts reported to biological resources reported in the Merged Project Area. 4 7/19/96KI:\KSG630\EIR$ECT6A.WPD» 0-3 Cultural Resources Grading for development could disrupt presently unrecorded cultural resources. Analysis of sites at the time subsequent environmental documents are prepared, as required by CEQA and by mitigation included in this EIR,will result in avoid- ance of impacts to any unrecorded cultural resources. A list of potential histori- cal structures is included in Appendix B. Mitigation required in this EIR ensures that any structure that is a potential historic resource will be assessed to deter- mine the significance of the resource and provide further mitigation if war- ranted. Air Quality Air pollutant emissions from Merged Project Area projects could result in poten- tial impacts. Mitigation is included to lessen and avoid these impacts. 6.1.3 EIR Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures are included in their entirety in two sections of this EIR. Section 1.0 of this document includes a listing of impacts and mitigation to offset or avoid these impacts. Section 7.0 is the Mitigation Monitoring Program,which includes each of the EIR's mitigation measures and implementing actions and responsibilities. As discussed in each of the impact sections of this EIR, compli- ance with the policies and mitigation measures contained in the General Plan �.. and General Plan Update EIR, respectively, will serve to mitigate potential im- pacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the Amend- ment/Merger. 6.2 SIGNLFICANI'IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE LWOLVED TN TBE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED Specific mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate adverse impacts associated with the Amendment/Merger. There are no unavoidable adverse impacts remaining after application of the mitigation measures, as ex- plained in Chapter 4. 6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION It is the intent of the Amendment/Merger to continue programs of economic development and specific projects, including infrastructure improvement pro- jects and housing programs, to alleviate conditions of blight within the Merged Project Area. Through continuation of these projects and continuing funding of these projects, the Agency will be improving and upgrading the existing infra- structure, improving the level of public services, and also increasing the eco- nomic viability of the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger will con- tinue and create new economic incentives that will attract commercial,residen- tial, and industrial,development into the Merged Project Area, resulting in em- 7/19/96<<I.\RSG630\EUDSECT6-0.WPD» 6-4 in employment opportunities for the local community. A small amount of additional growth will occur through additional demand for goods,services,and housing as a result of the new commercial and/or industrial uses on the site. However, housing demand will be offset by the housing assistance projects included in the Agency's list of potential projects, enumerated in Section 3.0, Project Description. The Amendment/Merger will not change the existing land use designations in the Merged Project Area as defined in the General Plan. The land use designa- tions described in the General Plan will remain unchanged, and the Amend- ment/Merger will implement the General Plan. The adoption and implementa- tion of the Amendment/Merger will not result in an increase in development intensities above General Plan land use designations and, therefore, will not induce growth causing impacts beyond those accepted by the City with General Plan build out. t 7/1"6«I:\ItSG630\Em\sscr6-o.wrD» 6-5 i 7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 7.1 MTIYGATIONMONITORING REQUII EMENTS Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill 3180) requires that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or mitigation monitoring programs: "(a) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoringprogram shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural re- sources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency,prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoringprogram. (b) If there is a project for which mitigation is adopted, a public agency shall comply with subdivision (a) by, among other things, adopting mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. Those con- ditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents which address required mitigation measures. t (c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural re- sources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the pro- ject shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applica- ble to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural re- sources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law. (d) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the docu- ments or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based." 7l19/96«I.\RSG630\EIMECI7-0 WPn» 7-1 7.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compli- ance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the Amendment/Merger will be car- ried out as described in this EIR. Table 7.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this EIR, and identi- fies the party(ies) responsible for implementation and monitoring of each mea- sure. 7/i9/96«I.\RSG630\Ent'$ECT7-0 wPn» 7-2 Table 7.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure 4.2 Population and 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any per- Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any Housing sons or families of low and moder- Director (or designee) ment Director(or project requiring removal - ate income displaced by a redevel- designee) or displacement of hous- opment project. The Agency shall ing. adopt and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The relo- cation plan ensures that no families or single persons of low and mod- erate income are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for_occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and must be decent,safe,sanitary,and other- wise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of hardship. 7/19/96 I:ARSG630\EEIRISEC17.O.WPD» 7-3 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure 4.5 Air Quality Construction Exhaust Emissions 4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equip- Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any ment and vehicle travel is limited. Director(or designee) ment Director(or grading or building permits However,exhaust emissions from designee) associated with the Merged construction equipment shall be Project Area. controlled by the applicant's con. tractor in a manner that is consis- tent with standard mitigation mea- sures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The mea- sures to be implemented are as follows: • Use low emission on-site mobile construction equip- ment; • Maintain equipment in tune,per manufacturer's specifications; • Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equip- ment; • Use reformulated,low- emissions diesel fuel; • Substitute electric and gas. oline powered equipment for diesel powered equip- ment,where feasible; 7/19/96«I:VtSG 630\EIR\S CCT7-O.WPD» 7-4 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure • Where applicable,do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods (i.e., more than five minutes);and • Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during peri- ods of high ambient pollut- ant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts). The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site inspections. Fugitive Dust 4.5-13 The applicant shall implement Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of standard mitigation measures in Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits accordance with SCAQMD Rules designee) associated with the Merged 402 and 403,to control fitgitive Project Area. dust emissions and ensure that nui- sance dust conditions do not occur J during construction.These mea- sures may include the following: • Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads,and in parking areas; • Water the site and equip- ment in the morning and evening; 7/19/96<<I:VtSG630\IIR4SL<CT7-O.WPD» 7-5 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure • Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and wa- tering; • Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over ex- tended periods of time; • Schedule activities to mini- mize the amounts of ex- posed excavated soil dur- ing and after the end of work periods; • Dispose of surplus exca- vated material in accor- dance with local ordi- nances and use sound en- gineering practices; • Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in coordina- tion with local public agen- cies; • Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public thor- oughfares or occurs as a result of hauling; 7/19/'96«1:VtSG630\EIR\SECI7.O.WPD» 7-6 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure • Suspend grading opera- tions during high winds in accordance with Rule 403 requirements; • Wash off treks leaving site; • Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks;and • Cover payloads on haul trucks-using tarps or other suitable means. Volatile Organic Emissions 4.5-C The application of paints and coat- Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of ings and asphalt paving material Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits will raise significant quantities of designee) associated with the Merged VOC emissions during their appli- Project Area. cation. • Where feasible,emulsified asphalt or asphaltic ce- ment shall be utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided when- ever possible. 7/1"64<I:\RSG630\EIR�SEC17.O.WPD» 7-7 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure • Where feasible,low VOC paints, primers,and coat- ings,as well as precoated materials,shall be speci- fied. Contaminated Soils and Dusts 4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of subsurface contamination,a site Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits assessment will be conducted be- designee) associated with the Merged fore any construction takes place at Project Area. that locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petro- leum extraction process has oc- curred, the soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Re- moval of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies,which would "sign off'on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforseen C, areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during excavation activities,these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate. 7/19/96«L•\RSG630\BI"EC17-O.WPD)> 7-8 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure 4.5-E Any structures to be demolished Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of will have an asbestos survey per- Director(or designee) ment Director (or building or grading permits formed by personnel trained and designee) associated with the Merged certified in asbestos abatement. Project Area. Any existing asbestos will be re- moved and disposed in accordance with sound engineering practice and federal regulations. Imple- mentation of these measures will reduce potentially significant con- tamination issues to a level that is less than significant. 4.12 Cultural 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any Resources construction that would displace Director(or designee) ment Director (or entire structure demolition, or require demolition of poten- designee) grading or building permit. tially significant resources,a com- plete assessment shall lie prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum,this assess- ment shall include the following documentation: A) A full description of each building including archi- tectural style,roof design, window design,type of foundation,exterior wall treatments,special archi- tectural features,etc. 7/19i96ut:VRsG630\EMt$E'C77-O.WPD» 7-9 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure B) Black and white photo- graphs showing one or more facades of each building. C) A determination of con- struction date from exist- ing records such as build- ing permit record books on file in the Planning De- partment at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members of the local his- torical society or other in- dividuals who may have relevant data to share. D) A competent architectural historian should be con- sulted prior to the demoli- tion of any of the poten- tially historic buildings identified in the present study. Additional mea- sures maybe implemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an adverse impact. 7/19//96«I..\RSG630\EMR SEC17-O.WPD» 7-10 Responsible Party for Timing for Mitigation Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,ar- Community Development Community Develop- During demolition and chaeological resources or Director(or designee) ment Director(or grading associated with the paleontological resources be un- designee) Merged Project Area. covered during grading or excava- tion,a County of Orange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Commu- nity Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such re- sources,3)ascertain the presence of additional resources,and 4) pro- vide additional monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate. 4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil Community Development Community Develop- During demolition and recognition, fossil recovery and Director(or designee) ment Director(or grading associated with the heavy equipment monitoring shall designee) Merged Project Area. be on site during grading opera- tions. 4.12-D A copy of the present report shall Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any be placed in the collection of his. Director(or designee) ment Director(or demolition,grading,or toric documents on file at the Hun- designee) building permits associated tington Beach Central Library or with the Merged Project another suitable local archive. Area. 7/19/96<<[.\RSG630\EtR\5EC17.O.wPD» 7-11 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS The following persons contributed to the preparation of this EIR. LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Project Manager Rob Balen Cultural/Scientific Resources Steve Conkling Bill McCawley Staff Bill Mayer Carollyn Lobell Rick Harlacher Julie Cho John Staight Todd Brody Eric Rubery Michael Amling ROSENOW SPEPACEK GROUP INC. Project Manager Frank J.Spevacek Associate Jim Simon CnYOFHUNTINGTON BEACH Department of Economic Development David Biggs Stephen V. Kohler Michael Hennessey Department of Community Development Linda Niles Julie Osugi 7n8t96«i:NRSG630\EE;t�sECT".wPD» 8-1 9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED The following organizations and persons were consulted in the preparation of the Draft EIR: Organization Person Consulted/ritle General Telephone and Electric Mr.Robert Mazzola (GTE) Engineer-Telephone Operations Huntington Beach Public library Mr.Ron Hayden System Library Services Director The Gas Company Mr.Robert S.Warth Technical Supervisor Southern California Edison Co. Mr.Wayne Pitzer Supervising Engineer Time Warner Mr.Michael McDonald Vice President Technical Operations Municipal Water District of Orange Mr.Stanley Sprague County General Manager T' Orange County Transportation Mr.Stan Oftelie Authority Chief Executive Officer Metropolitan Water District of Mr.John Wodraska Southern California General Manager Orange County Water District Mr.William R.Mills,Jr. General Manager Huntington Beach City School Mr.Jerry Buchanan District Asst.Superintendent of Administra- tive Services Orange Coast Community College Ms.Nancy A.Pollard District President,Board of Trustees Ocean View Elementary School Dr.James Tarwater District Superintendent Westminster Elementary School Ms. Barbara Winars District Deputy Superintendent Huntington Beach Union High Dr.Patricia Koch School District Asst.Superintendent of Business Services City of Huntington Beach Bruce Gilmer Department of Public Works 7l18/96«I.WC7630\EmrnsEc'I9-o.WPD» 9-1 10.0 REFERENCES Bean, Lowell J. 1974. Social Organization in Native California. In 'Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by Lowell John Bean and Thomas King, p. 13-34. BP-AP No. 2, Lowell John Bean,series editor. Ballena Press, Ramona, California. Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited by Robert F.Heizer,pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. Bean, Walton. 1968.' California:An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill, New York. (Reprinted,McGraw-Hill, New York, 1973)• Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi:Missionary Explorer on the Pacific Coast, 1769-1771. University of California Press, Berkeley. (Reprinted,AMS Press,New York, 1971). Boscana, Father Geronimo. 1933. Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historical Account of the Beliefs, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. (Reprinted, Malki Museum press,Banning, California, 1978.) Buchanan Associates. 1995. Huntington Beach Union High School District 1995 Master Plan. Cleland, Robert Glass. 1941., The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California 1850-1880. The Huntington Library, San Marino California. (Revised edition with a preface by Robert G.Cleland, 1951). Clevenger, Joyce M. 1986. Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA 287: A Multicomponent Site on Newport Bay. WESTEC Services, Ms. on file, Ogden Environmental Services, Inc. Community Systems Associates,Inc. 1996. Development Fee Findings Report of the Huntington Beach Union High School District. Community Systems Associates,Inc. 1996. Development Fee Findings Report of the Huntington Beach City School District. Community Systems Associates, Inc. 1994. Feasibility Study for Year-Round Education in Huntington Beach City School District. Cowan, Robert G. 1956. Ranchos of California: A list of Spanish Concessions 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822-1846. Academy Library Guild, Fresno,California. (Reprinted, Historical Society of Southern California, Los Angeles, 1977). 7/18/96«I:NRSG63ONEn;4SEC O-O.WPD» 10-1 Crownover, C. Scott, Beth Padon and E.Jane Rosenthal. 1989. Archaeological Investigations at CA-ORA 121, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman Associates. Ms.on file, South Central Coastal Archaeological Information Center,UCLA,Los Angeles,California. Demcak, Carol R. 1981. Fused Shale as a Time Marker in Southern California: Review and Hypothesis. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University,Long Beach. Drover, Chris E., Henry C. Koerper and Paul Langenwalter H. 1983. Early Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA 64), Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(3&4):1-84. Elsasser, Albert B. 1978. Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 37-57. Handbook of North American Indians,vol. 8,W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,Washington,D.C. Engelhardt, Zephyrin. .1922. San Juan Capistrano Mission. The Standard Printing Company,Los Angeles. —. 1927a. San Gabriel Mission and the Beginnings of Los Angeles. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. 1927b. San Fernando Rey: The Mission in the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago. Envicom Corporation. 1995. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices Huntington Beach, California. Copy on file at City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Envicom Corporation. 1995. City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Huntington Beach, California. Hall, Matt C. 1988. For the Record: Notes and Comments on "Obsidian Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County." Pacific Coast Arcbaeological Society Quarterly 24(4):34-48. Harrington, John P. 1933• Annotations. In Cbinigcbinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. (Reprinted, Malki Museum Press,Banning, California, 1978.) 1942. Culture Element Distributions: )OX Central California Coast. University of California Anthropological Records 7(1):1-46 7/18/96 l:WG630\EMR SECT10-0 WPD» 10-2 - 1986. John Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: Southern California/Basin. Smithsonian Institution,National Anthropological Archives,Washington. Microfilm edition,Kraus International Publications, Millwood,New York. Hudson,Dee Travis. 1971. Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 7(2)51-76. Koerper, Henry C. 1979. On the Question of the Chronological Placement of Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69-84. —. 1981. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and Environs, Orange County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Riverside. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Koerper, Henry C. and Chris E.Drover. 1983. Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County, the Case from CA ORA-119A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34. Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution,Washington,D. C. (Reprinted,Dover Publications, New York, 1976.) MacLeod, Kaye H. And Barbara Milkovich. 1988. Huntington Beach. In: A Hundred Years of Yesterdays: A Centennial History of the People of Orange County and Their Communities. The Orange County Centennial,Inc.,Santa Ana. Mason,Roger D.,Nancy A.Whitney-Desautels and Mark L. Peterson. 1987. Test Plan for National Register Evaluation of Archaeological Sites on the Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property, Orange County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys. Ms.on file, Orange County Integrated Waste Management Department. Mason,William M. 1975. Fage's Code of Conduct Toward Indians, 1787. The Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):90-100. McCawley,William. 1996. The First Angelinos. The Gabrielino Indians of Los Angeles. Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press,Banning, California. Merriam, C. Hart. 1968. Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records. University of California Archaeological Survey Report 74. Berkeley. Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Oxendine,Joan. 1983. The Luiseno Village During the Late Prehistoric Era. Ph.D.dissertation,University of California,Riverside. 7/1"60(I:\RSG63OW,Ut`SECT10-0.wPD» 10-3 Padon, Beth. 1987. A Cultural/Scientific Assessment of the Waterfront Project, } City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles. Rosenthal,E.Jane and Beth Padon. 1986. Archaeological Research Proposal for CA-ORA-123 and ORA-221/222. Ms. on file, LSA Library and Caltrans District 7. Rosenthal,Jane, Patricia Jertberg, Steven Williams and Susan Colby. 1991. CA- ORA-236, Coyote Canyon Cave Data Recovery Investigations, Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman Associates, Inc. Ms. on file, South Central Coastal Archaeological Information Center, UCLA, Los Angeles. South Coast Air Quality Management District,April 1993. 1993 CEQA Air Qual ity Handbook. STA Planning Incorporated. 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of Huntington Beach FIR No. 894, State Clearinghouse No. 89060711. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of Archaeology,Los Angeles. Strudwick, Ivan H. 1986. Temporal and Areal Considerations Regarding the Prehistoric Circular Fishhook of Coastal California. Unpublished M. A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach. y Wagner, Henry R. 1941. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo:Discoverer of the Coast of �•�s� California. California Historical Society,San Francisco. Wallace, William J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. SouthwesternJournal of Anthropology 11(3):214- 230. (Reprinted in The California Indians:A Source Book,edited by R. F.Heizer and M.A.Whipple,pp. 186-201. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1971). —. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California,edited by Robert F.Heizer,pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington,D. C. Warren, Claude N. 1968- Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-4. White, Raymond C. 1963. Luiseiio Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194. Wright,Doris Marion. 1977. A Yankee in'Mexican California:Abel Steams 1798- 1848. Wallace Hebberd, Santa Barbara, California. 7n8/96«r:\RsG630\MSEcnO-0.wPD» 10-4 f� Young,Pamela,Loretta Berner and Sally Woodbridge. 1989. Historic Structures l Report: Overview Chronology of Alteratioris, Ranch House and Outbuildings. Master Planning Program for Rancho Los Alamitos. Report on file,Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens. L 7n"6«I.\xsG630\EMECTl0-0.wPD>> 10-5 APPENDIX A NOP/INITIAL STUDY/COMMENT LETTERS 7/19/96«I.\rSG630,XM'TOC.wPD» April 16, 1996 To: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties Subject: Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Attached is a Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on the proposed amendments and project consolidations to form the Huntington Beach Redevel- opment Project. The purpose of the Notice of Preparation is to describe the proposed changes to the already adopted Redevelopment Plans and Project Components, to solicit input regarding the scope and content of the analysis in the EIR, and to describe the potential environmental impacts that the EIR will evaluate. It should be noted that the project area amendments and merger would not add property or delete property from the current Redevelopment Project boundaries. The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency would appreciate your comments, suggestions or concerns regarding potential environmental impacts related to the proposed actions. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please submit your comments by May 17, 1996. Written comments regarding the EIR can be sent via regular mail or fax to the follow- ing: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fax: (714) 375-5087 Thank you in advance for any comments. If you have any questions about the proposed Redevelopment Project, or the environmental review process, please contact Mr. Stephen Kohler at (714) 536-5582. Sincerely, avid Biggs Economic Development Director Attachment: Notice of Preparation/Initial Study 04/15/96(l.-,RSG630\NOP••.COVER.LTR) J NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. PROJECT INFORMATION BACKGROUND The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach activated the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency on March 1, 1976. Since that time, the Rede- velopment Agency has created five (5) redevelopment projects within the City: Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project; Main- Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment Project; Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project. Each of the five existing (Constituent) projects (described in more detail below) is included in the proposed Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger. Certain limitations exist with each of the existing redevelopment projects that hinder the Agency's ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. Thus, a Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger is proposed by the Agency to allow the Agency to more comprehensively attain these purposes by expand- ing the Agency's financial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect residential uses and neighbor- hoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. PROJECT LOCATION The Project Area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. Figure 1 illustrates the regional location of the redevelopment areas. The Project Area is composed of five constituent Project Areas, total- ling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the five existing redevelopment Project Areas is non-contiguous within the City boundaries, as shown in Figure 2. The profile of each of the Constituent Projects is described as follows. Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project Established via Ordinance No. 2743 adopted by the City Council on Novem- ber 26, 1984, the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project encompasses 160 acres of retail and office commercial uses, and is located in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and the San 04/16/96(I:-+RSG630\NOP-,NOP.TXI) Los Angeles County San Bernardino County so 57 Riverside 91 County 91 � t 5 55 1 i l 405 22 I � ♦ Cleveland k"/ ♦ National v� 1 39 ♦♦ Forest I 405 55 133 1 l 5 1 74 1 Pacific 1 1 1 Ocean San Diego County 4/4196(RSG630) LEGEND Figure 1 City of Huntinaton Beach N LS— Scale in Miles 0 5 Regional Location m O tL tyiJ LU SEAL I WESTMINSTER BEACH o Y 2 BOI.SA> - f g g e m aj�FADDEN £ EDINWR --- HELL 2 - WARNER FOUNTAIN VALLEY t„ f 'SLATER �A�r �+''� ``•� � s9ij'O�FG' COUNTY OF TALBERT of 'a v ORANGE WLSACHM) •mow ELUS wV-:fib•`n ::' ;' sQ CC GARFELD YORKTOWN ADAMS 4:A yvyv�h,..-.�•r,•.`: ItiDIANAPOLIS LEGEND <•4.V S F ! ATLANTA �. City Boundary RHuntington Center edevelopment Project District :•-•>'��•��::'��rx��x`•�»•�,^ r� c:. 2® Oakview Redevelopment Project :; '` BANNING ®3 Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project roy .tiN ^`.... COSTA `: f MESA Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Main-Pier Redevelopment Project �'•wJ�k•Y.vifiY:th`:^:::�iw.v v>>Y:it:i:. Source:City of Huntington Beach.Department of Community Development 4/15/%=C,630) Figure 2 N LSDScale in Miles O 0.5 1 Redevelopment Project Areas Diego Freeway (1-405). The redevelopment area is shown as Area 1 on Fig- ure 2. The Huntington Center Commercial District Project Area includes the existing Huntington Beach regional mall. Oakview Redevelopment Project The Oakview Redevelopment Project of 68 acres was initially established on November 1, 1982, by City Council Ordinance No. 2582. The Oakview Rede- velopment Project Area is generally located between Warner Avenue and Slater Avenue, from Oak Lane to Beach Boulevard (Area 2 on Figure 2). On July 5, 1989, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 3002 to extend certain time and financial limits. The Oakview Project Area includes existing general commercial, medium density and high density residential land uses. Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project was established via Ordinance No. 2577 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project Area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive, west of Beach Boulevard., The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project encompasses 25 acres of existing low, medium, and high density residential, and general industrial land uses (Area 3 on Figure 2). Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project was established by Ordinance No. 2576 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Yorktown- Lake Redevelopment Project encompasses 30 acres of existing medium den- sity residential and public land uses such as the Huntington Beach Civic Center and Police Department. The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project Area is located in the vicinity of Main Street, Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street, and Utica Avenue (Area 4 on Figure 2). ' Main Pier Redevelopment Project On September 20, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578, which created the original five block Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. On September 6, 1983, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No.2634, enlarging the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area to 336 acres. The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area is located along Main Street, between Palm Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along Pacific Coast Highway, between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Area 5 on Figure 2). The Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area includes existing retail, tourist recce- ` 04/16/96(I:,.RSG630VHOP-,NOP.TXr) 4 ational, public, and residential land uses, including the Huntington Beach Pier. The Amendment/merger does not propose to either add property to, or delete property from any of these Project Areas. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The subject Redevelopment Project has been proposed to initiate redevelop- ment plan amendment/merger proceedings to effect the following. Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Constituent Projects into a Single Redevelopment Plan ("Plan') and Establish the Merged Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ("Project") and Project Area The Agency's current redevelopment programs have been frustrated by an imbalance of resources and needs between the Constituent Projects. In order to move funding resources between the Constituent Project Areas, the Agency proposes to merge the Constituent Projects into the,single Project. Establish a New Dollar Limit on the Amount of Tax Increment Revenue the Agency { May be Allocated from the Project Presently, the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project exceeds its annual $250,000 tax increment cap. Given moderate growth projections, it is pro- jected that the Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project will also exceed its tax increment limit prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan. Without an increase in the tax increment limits, the additional tax increment revenue will not be available to the Agency to fund redevelopment projects and pro- grams. In conjunction with tax increment revenue limit amendments, bond indebt- edness limit increases are needed to permit the Agency to raise additional capital and invest in new redevelopment projects and programs. Extend the Time Frame Within Which the Agency May Incur Indebtedness on Behalf of the Project and Establish New Time Periods Within Which the Agency May Incur Debt, Undertake Redevelopment Activities, and Receive Tax Increment With the exception of the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelop- ment Project, generally the Agency is prohibited from incurring debt after 2002; 2004 for the Huntington Center Commercial District. In the event that the Agency wishes to pursue new projects and/or incur debt after these time frames, an amendment is necessary. 04/16/96(I-.,.RSG6j0\NOP-.NOP.TXT) 5 On a Selective Basis, Extend the Time Frame Within Which the Agency May Employ Eminent Domain Proceedings on Nonresidential Properties in the Main Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District Area In order for the Agency to implement redevelopment projects involving land acquisition, eminent domain authority may be a useful tool to acquire non- residential property. Presently, the authority to use eminent domain has expired in all but the Huntington Center Commercial District and,Oakview Redevelopment Projects. Through the Amendment/Merger, the Agency pro- poses to establish a new 12 year time frame within which the Agency may employ eminent domain on nonresidential properties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas only. Expand the List of Infrastructure and Public Facility Projects That the Agency May Undertake Within the Project Area When adopted, the Plan will amend and merge all existing redevelopment plans' for the Constituent Projects, and will guide all future redevelopment activities, infrastructure and public facility projects and programs in the Amended/Merged Project Area. However, the Amendment/Merger will not affect the Agency's outstanding obligations or indebtedness. CONFORMANCE WITH THE G NFMAL PLAN Redevelopment Land Uses The land uses permitted in the Project Area are in conformance with the City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any other state and local building codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended. Principal Streets The principal streets within the Project Area include Beach Boulevard, Eding- er Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Main Street, Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street, Warn- er Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended. Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the General Plan. 04116/96(I:%PSG630\NOP-,NOP.TXI) 6 f 1 1 Proposed Population Densities Permitted densities within the Project Area shall conform to the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and shall conform to applica- ble ordinances and local codes. Proposed Building Intensities Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: 1) the percentage of the building site covered by the building (site coverage); 2) the ratio of the total floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area ratio); 3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site; and 4) the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are here- after amended. Proposed Building Standards Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive re- quirements and may incorporate such requirements into the Plan in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. Potential Public Infrastructure and Facilities Projects Funding of infrastructure improvements and public facilities projects may occur within the Amended/Merged Project Area. The list of possible projects would be expanded to include, but not be limited to: 1) maintenance and refurbishment of infrastructure in the Talbert-Beach area; 2) storm drain improvements throughout the Project Area; 3) completion of storm drain improvements in the Oakview area; 4) street improvements, street lights, signal lights, alley improvements and landscaping in the Oakview area, Cen- ter Avenue, Interstate 405 and Edinger Avenue, the Gothard Street/Hoover Street connection, and 5) completion of a branch library. Various other _ programs and projects, all competing for a limited amount of revenue gener- ated by the Redevelopment Project, could be considered in connection with community and neighborhood improvement programs, commercial rehabili- tation projects-and economic development. SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The EIR to be prepared for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will /^ function as a Program EIR, as specified in CEQA Statutes Section 21090. A Program EIR is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as applying to 04/16/96(I:%RSG630\NOP••.NOP.TXr) 7 related or sequential projects or programs that may be environmentally cleared in one EIR The Program EIR concept is further discussed in Section III of this Initial Study. The EIR will describe the environmental consequenc- es of the plans, programs, policies and projects contemplated to be carried out in the Redevelopment Project Area. Subsequent redevelopment projects will be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Redevelop- ment Agency, Planning Commission and other appropriate decision-making bodies and may require additional environmental review if it is demonstrated that there are significant environmental impacts not fully documented in the original Redevelopment Project EIR. After input has been solicited from affected residents, property owners, businesses, public agencies and other interested parties, and prior to approval of subsequent projects under this program, an assessment will be made by the Agency or the City regarding whether the individual subsequent projects require additional environmental analysis. 04/16/96(I:-,RSG63"OP•-.NOP.TXT) 8 II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics Water Hazards Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I 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 the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date Steahen Kohler Printed Name 04/16/96(1:•,RSG630\NOP•,NOP.TXT) 9 i EVALUATION OF ENVIROENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each questions. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6) Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? X SOURCE(S): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? SOURCE(S): c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X _ SOURCE(S): d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts _ X to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land f uses)? SOURCE(S): 04/16/96(I:-,RSG630\NOP,.NOP.TM) 10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant mitigation Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X _ established community(including a low-income or minority community)? SOURCE(S): II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population _ _ X projections? SOURCE(S): b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or i X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(S): c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? _ X SOURCE(S): III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(S): X b) Seismic ground shaking? SOURCE(S): X c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X SOURCE(S): d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S): X e) Landslides or mudflows? SOURCE(S): X f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil _ X _ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? SOURCE(S): g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): X h) Expansive soils? SOURCE(S): i X i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCE(S): X W. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? SOURCE(S): b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards i X _ such as flooding? SOURCE(S): c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of X _ surface water quality(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? SOURCE(S): d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water _ X body? SOURCE(S): e) Change in currents,or the course or direction of water X movements? SOURCE(S): f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? SOURCE(S): 04/16/96(I: .RSG630\NOP•-.NOP.TM) 11 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact' No Impact ( j g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? _ X _ > SOURCE(S): h) Impact to groundwater quality? SOURCE(S): _ X i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? SOURCE(S): V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an _ _ X existing or projected air quality violation? SOURCE(S): b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCE(S): X c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause _ X any change in climate? SOURCE(S): d) Create objectionable odors? SOURCE(S): X _ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? SOURCE(S): X _ b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves _ X _ or dangerous intersections)"or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? SOURCE(S): c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X SOURCE(S): d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? _ _ X SOURCE(S): e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? _ _ X _ SOURCE(S): f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? SOURCE(S): g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(S): X VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or tare species or their habitats X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds)? SOURCE(S): b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? X _ SOURCE(S): c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, _ X _ coastal habitat, etc.)? SOURCE(S): d) Wetland habitat(e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X SOURCE(S): e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? SOURCE(S): _ X 04/16/96(I:••.RSG6301NOP••.NOP.TX'I) 12 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VHI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X _ SOURCE(S): b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? SOURCE(S): c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral _ X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? SOURCE(S): IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous _ X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? SOURCE(S): b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or _ X _ emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S): c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? SOURCE(S): d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential _ X _ health hazards? SOURCE(S): e) Increased fine hazard in areas with flammable brush, X _ (� grass, or trees? SOURCE(S): \ X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S): X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(S): X _ XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? SOURCE(S): X _ b) Police protection? SOURCE(S): X c) Schools? SOURCE(S): X _ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? i X _ SOURCE(S): e) Other governmental services? SOURCE(S): X _ XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? SOURCE(S): X b) Communications systems? SOURCE(S): X c) Lost or regional water treatment or distribution _ X _ facilities? SOURCE(S): t d) Sewer or septic tanks? SOURCE(S): i X _ e) Storm water drainage? SOURCE(S): X _ 04/16/96(I_••.RSG630\NOP,,NOP.TXT) 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant r� Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): X _ g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): X XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): X _ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? _ X _ SOURCE(S): c) Create light or glare? SOURCE(S): X _ )IV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S): X b) Disturb archaeological resources? SOURCE(S): X _ c) Affect historical resources? SOURCE(S): X d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? SOURCE(S): e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X potential impact area? SOURCE(S): XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks _ X _ or other recreational facilities? SOURCE(S): b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? SOURCE(S): X _ XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this case a discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Not applicable. 04/16/96(I:••.RSG630`NOP%NOP.TXr) 14 b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe, on attached sheets, the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Not applicable Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVH. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the _ X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a tare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major proceeds of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but _ X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 04/16/96(I.-•.RSG630\NOP-,NOP.TXT) 15 III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES The Redevelopment Agency has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to assess the environmental effects of the Redevelop- ment Project, and to identify mitigation measures that will lessen or avoid potentially significant impacts. The EIR to be prepared for the Redevelop- ment Project is a Program EIR, wherein all public and private activities or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan consti- tute a single project (CEQA Statues, Section 21090). A Program EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are: 1) logical parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically; 3) a plan, set of regulations, or a set of contemplated actions that are part of a continu- ing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the same authoriz- ing authority (CEQA`Guidelines, Section 15168). The proposed Redevelop- ment Plan is a program made up of various components that include poli- cies, land use plans, public infrastructure improvements, construction of public facilities, development of affordable housing, and actions to promote commercial rehabilitation and promote economic development. The pro- posed Redevelopment Project qualifies as a "Program" as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized above, and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168. The following explanation of environmental effects of the Redevelopment Project is provided to help guide the analysis in the forthcoming EIR docu- ment. Because the project being discussed is a "Program" that includes, various plans, policies and projects as described above, the discussions below, are not specific to any individual subsequent project, but are addressed to the "Program" as a whole. This section provides the reasoning underlying the findings and conclusions identified in the Environmental Checklist.Form. The discussions below also provide direction to the EIR preparers during the EIR preparation period. The conclusions are based upon a preliminary assessment of the proposed Redevelopment Project as described in the Preliminary Plan for the Hunting- ton Beach Redevelopment Project. The Environmental Checklist identifies four categories of project impact: "potentially significant impact", "potentially significant unless' mitigation incorporated", "less than significant impact" and "no impact". A response of "potentially significant impact" indicates that there is the potential for signifi- cant impact resulting from the proposed project. . "Potentially significant , unless mitigation incorporated" applies where incorporation of mitigation measures could reduce an effect from a "potentially significant impact" to a "less than significant impact." A response of"less than significant" appears if there is substantial evidence that the potential effect of the project is below a level of significance. A response of"no impact" indicates that the project will not have any significant impact on the environment. 04a6/96(I:-,RS"30\N0P•,N0P.TXT) 16 tom`' REFERENCES USED IN COMPLETING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The following documents were used in completing the Environmental Check list4nitial Study and the discussion provided below, and are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Develop- ment, Fifth Floor, 2000 Main Street. Where appropriate these reference documents have been cited in the explanation of checklist responses. 1. City of Huntington Beach Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, as amend- ed, December 12, 1995. 2. Final Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project Area EIR (EIR 84-4). 3. Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? No impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amendment/Merger con- forms to the City's General Plan and by extension to the zoning, which is generally consistent with the General Plan. The Redevelopment Project proposes land uses, streets, highways and public facilities consistent with the existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan, and has provisions that make it consistent with future amendments. Because the project is consis- tent with the General Plan and, in turn, the underlying zoning, there are no specific environmental impacts associated with the project. b) Conflict u*b applicable environmental plans or policies adopt- ed by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? No impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project conforms to the existing policies and environmental plans pertaining to the Project Area, either in their existing form or as may be amended hereafter. The EIR will address the potential compatibility aspects of the Amendment/Merger with relevant juris- dictional policies and plans. c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. The programmatic components of the proposed Redevelopment Project will not directly physi- cally affect existing land uses in the vicinity of the Constituent Projects. The EIR will analyze the potential for land,use incompatibilities, and will deter- mine the need for mitigation that would reduce or eliminate land use im- pacts from the future specific redevelopment proposals within the Constitu- ent Project areas. 04/16/96(I:-••RSG630\NOP%NOP.TXD 17 I d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts toi soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? No impact. Some agricultural land uses are still active in Huntington Beach; however, to a large extent, they have been replaced by residential, commer- cial and industrial development and related infrastructure. A total of 69.1 acres of land is currently under agricultural production, representing less than one percent of the City's total acreage (General Plan Draft EIR, Decem- ber 12, 1995). None of the areas currently in agricultural production are within or adjacent to the Constituent Project Areas comprising the Redevel- opment Project Area. Therefore, the proposed Redevelopment Plan will not affect existing agricultural resources or operations, nor propose incompatible land uses in the existing agricultural production areas. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Less than significant impact. The Constituent Project Areas (existing Rede- velopment Areas) were created based on the desire to improve blighted conditions that prevail in those areas. The proposed Redevelopment Project is intended to facilitate the Redevelopment Agency's ability to correct blight- ed conditions, finance infrastructure improvements, foster rehabilitation and economic growth and construct affordable housing. The proposed merger of } the Constituent Projects under one Redevelopment Plan and other program- matic' components do not include any large-scale infrastructure improve- ments or major reconfiguration of streets or roadways that are typically associated with division of communities. In addition, the land uses and infrastructure improvements will be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, and would not disrupt the arrangement of established communi- ties. The EIR shall describe the potential physical changes resulting from implementation of project components and address the issues of those physi- cal changes that could potentially effect land use arrangements. II. POPULA770N AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population pro- jections? No impact. The programmatic components of the proposed Redevelopment Project do not include substantial development of either housing or commer- cial uses that would bring about substantial change in population or employ- meet. The land uses,-and by extension the growth anticipated for the Project Areas, are the same as included in the City's General Plan. Because the incremental growth within the Project Area is the same as is planned within the City's General Plan, the population/employment projections for the Project Area are included within City wide projections,which form the basis 04/16/96(I:••.RSG630\NOP%NOP.'IXT) 18 for regional projections. The,Redevelopment Project is designed to improve existing commercial areas, thereby improving the vitality of businesses and supporting local economic growth. Subsequent gains in employment oppor- tunities may draw workers from surrounding communities, but would not result in a significant influx of permanent residents to Huntington Beach. Because there are no specific development projects included in the Redevel- opment Plan that would affect housing availability or creation of significant numbers of jobs, there are no significant population increases, overcrowding, or other population impacts anticipated from project implementation. Poten- tial population increases due to build out of General Plan designated land uses are addressed in the City's General Plan EIR. This will be addressed in the EIR. b) induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indi- rectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or exten- sion of major infrastructure)? Less than significant impact. Redevelopment Project improvements include expansion of limited infrastructure and incentives programs designed to induce economic growth. Because the programs and projects included in the Redevelopment Project are distributed between housing, commercial rehabilitation, economic development, and infrastructure including sewer, storm drains, alley improvements, street improvements and landscaping, incremental improvement of entire project areas is anticipated. The project would not induce substantial growth. The EIR shall address the effect of induced growth of implementation of infrastructure in the project area in conjunction with planned infrastructure development to determine whether there are potentially significant impacts that require mitigation. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? Less than significant impact. The proposed project will establish new 12- year eminent domain provisions within the Huntington Center Commercial District and Main-Pier development areas. However, these proposed provi- sions are restricted to nonresidential properties and therefore will not result in the displacement of existing housing. The EIR will address the potential effects of Redevelopment Project implementation on housing and affordable housing. III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? b) Seismic ground shaking? 04n6/96(I:,.RSG630\NOP••.NOP.TXI) 19 c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seicbe, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudfflows? J) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? i) Unique geologic or physical features? The following explanation responds to the geologic topics listed above (III a- i): Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amend- ment/Merger will not affect geologic conditions within the Project Area. As with any other development in the City, Redevelopment projects will be required to conform to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable soils, grading and structural foundation requirements, codes and ordinances such that any potential geologic impacts are reduced to less than significant j levels. The EIR will identify the existing geologic conditions within the `�•""' Project Area and will determine the potential effects on programmed and possible future redevelopment proposals. N. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoffl Potentially significant unless mitigation implemented. The proposed Rede- velopment Project will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or runoff absorption rates except those areas affected by infrastructure projects that include storm drain reconstruction or alteration. Certain specific storm drain projects and unknown drainage projects can be anticipated to be pro- posed within the Constituent Project areas. The EIR will evaluate the poten- tial for those and other specific redevelopment projects to affect stormwater runoff volumes, rates and drainage patterns. The Huntington Center, Oakview and Main-Pier Constituent Redevelopment Areas are subject to flooding (Draft General Plan EIR). The Redevelopment Project EIR will address potential flooding impacts in these areas. i 04/16/96(I:,.RSG630\NOP%NOP.TXT) 20 b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such f` as flooding? c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Change in currents, or the course or direction of water move- ments? fl Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqui- fer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impact to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amend- ment/Merger will not physically affect water resources within the Project Area. The EIR will identify the existing hydrologic conditions in the Project Area and the vicinity, and determine, at a programmatic level, the potential for their modification by implementation of specified infrastructure improve- ments and of future potential redevelopment proposals. Future redevelop- ment projects will be required to conform to City standard conditions for flood control and for provision of adequate storm drain facilities to serve projected projects. The EIR will address the potential effects of the Redevel- opment Project upon existing water resources, groundwater aquifers and subsidence within the Main-Pier area. Given that the redevelopment project areas are currently developed, and that redevelopment will conform to exist- ing General Plan, zoning ordinance and other jurisdictional plans or pro- grams, or as otherwise amended in the future, less than significant impacts to these resources are anticipated from the facilitation of redevelopment pro- cesses. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or prajected air quality violation? (� b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 04/16/96(1:••.RSG630\NOP,.NOP.ZXZ) 21 `err' c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? The following response addresses checklist items V a) through d): Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project will not increase land use intensities beyond those allowed by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as amended. Any potential impacts to air quality related to growth, including increased vehicle emissions, are addressed in the envi- ronmental documentation in the General Plan EIR. The project does not propose creation of incompatible land uses that could subject sensitive re- ceptors to pollutants or objectionable odors. These issues will be further discussed in the EIR W. TRANSPORTA770N/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? Potentially significant impact. The programmatic components of the pro- posed Redevelopment Project will not physically affect the number of trips on the local or regional circulation network. The EIR will evaluate the po- tential for increased trip generation, on a general Project Area basis, within the Constituent areas in conjunction with reasonably foreseeable future redevelopment projects. Mitigation measures may be required to ensure that future redevelopment adheres to city standard levels of service and operating capacities. b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg. sharp, curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.farm equip- ment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transpor- tation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The following response addresses checklist items VI b) through f): Less than significant impact. Precise identification of impacts from future redevelopment projects is speculative at this program level. However, the 04/16/96(I- 22 EIR will state that future redevelopment proposals will be required to comply with the City's existing General Plan land use designations and zoning ordi- nance, or as amended in the future. Specific mitigation related to significant traffic generation and levels of service impacts on roadway segments and intersection will be determined in subsequent environmental analyses for specific redevelopment projects.'General development within the Redevelop- ment Project Area will be described and potential traffic impact will be identi- fied based on the analysis provided in the Draft General Plan EIR g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? No impact. No impacts to rail, water or air traffic are foreseen by the pro- posed Redevelopment Project in that the project proposes to facilitate com- mercial rehabilitation, housing opportunities,street improvements and public infrastructure projects within the constituent Redevelopment areas, and the project will not create specific physical effects on these transportation facili- ties. Because the Redevelopment Project and infrastructure projects, in particular street improvements, are consistent with the City's General Plan, there are no effects beyond those discussed in the Draft General Plan EIR This discussion will be included in the Redevelopment EIR VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (in- cluding but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds)? Less than significant impact. According to the Draft General Plan EIR, the areas that include valuable biological resources are not included in the pro- posed Redevelopment Project Area (Figure BR 1). The Redevelopment Pro- ject EIR will describe those areas of biological resources and discuss poten- tial effects, should they exist, within these resource areas. Visual reconnais- sance of the Constituent Areas will be performed to determine the condition of properties in the Redevelopment Project Area and to provide indicators of the pressure (or absence) of sensitive species habitats. b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais- sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR 04/16/96(I:•,RSG630\NOP--.NOP.TXT) 23 c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc)? Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais- sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR. d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais- sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR. e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors? Less than significant impact. Each of the five Constituent Redevelopment Areas are currently developed and are located within a central development spine of the City. No significant wildlife movement corridors are located within the combined Project Area. The Program EIR will address potential impacts of redevelopment on wildlife and wildlife habitat; however, signifi- cant impacts are not anticipated. YIIL ENERGYAND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? Less than significant impact. Due to the programmatic nature of the project and the known list of infrastructure, housing and public facilities projects included in the Redevelopment Plan, there are no known projects that would potentially conflict with such plans. This issue will be further explained and addressed in the EIR b) Use non-renewable resources.in a -wasteful and inefficient manner? Less than significant impact. As with a) above, there are no projects con- templated in the Redevelopment Plan that would cause an impact on non- renewable resources. 04/16/96(1:•,RSG630\.NOP,.NOP.TXI) 24 c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Less than significant impact. The only known resource in the City is oil and gas production. Due to the decline in active fields in Huntington Beach, properties that were formerly producing fields are converting to other uses. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. M HAZARDS Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous sub- stances (including, but not limited to: oil,pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or em- ergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health bazard? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with,flammable brush, grass, or \ trees? The following is an explanation of responses to checklist items IX a) through e)- Less than significant impact. The Redevelopment Project does not propose changes in land uses that would result in a significant exposure of the public to hazardous materials or other potential health hazards. The project will facilitate future improvement of residential and commercial areas within the Constituent Project areas. The financing large-scale industrial operations that typically handle hazardous substances is not proposed as part of the project. Future buildings constructed within the Constituent Project areas will be required to comply with existing State and local requirements for emergency evacuation plans. There is one known hazard that would affect potential development projects within the Redevelopment Areas. Methane gas migration hazards will be discussed in the EIR for Talbert-Beach, Main-Pier and Yorktown-Lake project areas. o4/16/96(1:•,RsG63o\.�NOP••.NOP_TXI) 25 x NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? The following is an explanation of responses to checklist items X a) and b): Potentially significant impact. The EIR will address the potential for in- creased noise generation through future redevelopment of the constituent project areas. Both short-term construction noise and long-term operational noise effects will be evaluated from a general qualitative perspective. Specific construction-level noise analysis cannot be conducted until redevelopment plans are submitted for review after the proposed Redevelopment Pro- ject/Amendment/ Merger is adopted by the City. The EIR will include miti- gation that future construction projects will need to conform to City noise ordinances that delineate thresholds for the various land use types that are proposed as part of redevelopment. M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? The following response addresses items M a) through e). Less than significant impact. The Project Area is currently within the service areas of the City police and fire departments, and is within several school districts. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts to public services and school districts in the Project Area from future redevelopment programs. %II. UZZLITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? i 04/16/96(I:••.RSG630\NOP-,NOP.'IXT) 26 c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? t d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? J) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? The following response addresses items MI a) through g). Less than significant impact. The Project Area is already served by public utilities and related infrastructure. The proposed Redevelopment Project does not project significant population or employment increases within the constituent project areas. There is potential for needed improvements in certain areas where deficiencies are identified in the Draft General Plan EIR. Any such deficiencies for service to the future redevelopment plans will be addressed by Redevelopment Agency funding and the list of infrastructure and public facilities improvements in the Preliminary Plan. The EIR will address the potential impacts to public utilities and systems and/or the ability to provide adequate service to future redevelopment areas. AM. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? Potentially significant impact. ,There are significant scenic vistas and scenic corridors at and near the beach in the Main/Pier area. The EIR shall address this important resource and the potential effects of the projection this re- source. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? Less than significant impact. One of the primary objectives of the Redevel- opment Project is the elimination of blight and rehabilitation of commercial properties. This will have a positive effect on the overall Redevelopment Project Area. c) Create light or glare? Less than significant impact. There are no specific proposals in the Redevel- opment Project Preliminary Plan that would create light or glare. Therefore, this issue will not be further discussed. 04/16/96(I:-..PSG630\NOP%NOP.TXT) 27 MV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? The following response addresses checklist items XN a) through e). Less than significant impact. The Redevelopment Project Area is primarily built out or has been highly disturbed due to urban development and human activity. However, as reported in the Draft General Plan EIR, there are histor- ic structures and other potential historic and cultural resources within the Redevelopment Project Area. An historical and cultural resources records check and visual survey will be performed to identify potential sensitive resources. This issue will be addressed in the EIR. XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project is a programmatic project and includes no specific housing or commercial devel- opment proposals for evaluation. The EIR will analyze the potential for future redevelopment activities to increase the demand for recreational facili- ties based on projected land uses and density of development included in the Redevelopment Plan, as also reflected in the Draft General Plan EIR Signifi- cant population increases are not anticipated with the redevelopment of these areas in that possible future development proposals are intended to be in conformance with the adopted City General Plan and associated jurisdic- tional plans and ordinances, or any future adopted amendments thereto. This issue will be further addressed in the EIR b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? Less than significant impact. The EIR will evaluate, at a program level, the potential for future redevelopment within the constituent project areas. The locations of eadsting recreational facilities will be described in the EIR, and 04/16/96(I:,.RSG630\NOP-•.NOP.TXT) 28 4 � �^ potential effects will be described. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan does not include any encroachment on recreational sites or potential physical effects on any public recreational site. XYI. EARLIER ANALYSES No earlier analyses have been utilized to prepare this Initial Study. Please see the references cited in the introduction to this section. 04/16/96(l.-%RSG630\NOP••.NOP.TX7) 29 STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON.Governor CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION s ROBERT C.HIGHT,Executive Officer 100 Howe Avenue, Suite 100 South F•, (916)574-1800 FAX(916)574-1816 Sacramento, CA 95825-8202 =ti - .California Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800-735-2922 a from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929 Contact Phone:(916)574-1892 Contact FAX: (916)574-1925 July 1, 1996 File Ref: PRC 6616/SD 96-05-07.7 W 503.1699 RECEIVED BLA 84 Stephen V. Kohler Project Manager J U L $ 1996 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Kohler: SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report(EIR) on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project ' Staff of the State Lands Commission(SLC) has reviewed the subject NOP. Under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA), the City's Redevelopment Agency is the Lead Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands,their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses,and the public easement in navigable waters. We apologize for the lateness of our comments and would appreciate their consideration by the City. iThe SLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands, submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers, sloughs,lakes, etc. (e.g. Public Resources Code §6301.) All tide and submerged lands, granted or ungranted, as well as navigable rivers, sloughs, etc.,are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust. The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne commerce,navigation, fisheries, open space,recreation, or other recognized Public Trust purposes. A lease from the Commission is required for any portion of a project extending onto State-owned lands which are under its exclusive jurisdiction. The proposed redevelopment project, specifically the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project, includes: (1)the Huntington Beach Pier,located on sovereign lands under the jurisdiction of the SLC,and under lease (PRC 6616)to the City; (2) an area up coast of the pier subject to I /^l R Stephen V. Kohler July 1, 1996 Page Two Boundary Line Agreement 84 dated November 17, 1966,which fixed the boundary between public and private land; and(3) an area southeast of the pier subject to an implied dedication for public access and recreation use,and an express restriction of land uses found in a deeded easement for public recreational uses held by the City of Huntington Beach in trust for the' statewide general public since 1932, as stipulated in the case of City of Huntington Beach v. Hunting on Beach Co., San Diego County Superior Court Case#65537,recorded in Book 432, page 537, Official Records of Orange County. The City, as trustee of these lands for all the people of the State,has an obligation to maintain public access and recreational rights acquired by or granted to the public. The City has an obligation to ensure that any uses proposed for the area described in (3)above are consistent with the land use restrictions on the property. With regard to the Huntington Beach Pier, our file reflects that Lease PRC 6616 was issued in 1984, and also authorized three subleases for the Tackle Box,Neptune's Locker, and Captain's Galley. In 1990,the SLC authorized the demolition and reconstruction of the pier to include restrooms and lifeguard stations,and the termination of the three subleases. No other construction was authorized at that time. It does not appear that the amendment approved by the SLC was ever executed by either the SLC or the City. In 1994, the City applied for a coastal development permit(45-93-294)to construct a restaurant, snackshop, and bait and tackle/snackshop on the pier. SLC authorization was not obtained. Any development and/or sublease(s)proposed for the pier other than that authorized by the SLC in 1984 and 1990 will require SLC authorization and an amendment to Lease PRC 6616. Please advise as to the present status of pier development. If you have any questions,please contact Jane E. Smith,Public Land Management ' Specialist, at(916) 574-1892. Sincerely, MARY G GGS Environm tal Services Division of Environmental Planning and Management cc: Dwight E. Sanders Jane E. Smith v V .•. JV V V• JLa•4 a a.V1o. rUL Stets of Co8fon" THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNiA Memorandum To Mr. Stephan Kohler, Project Manager Date : May 22, 1996 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency From D*PWVftM of Commmadon•DlvWan of Off,Gas,and 4eethermd Reeowose-Long Wsets Ed Santiago Subject: NOP for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Qas and Geothermal Resources (Division) has reviewed the NOP for the proposed project and submits the following comments for your consideration. The project is located in Huntington Beach oil field. Our records show that there are active and abandoned oil wells within or in close proximity to the project's boundaries. To ensure proper review of building projects within the subject area, the Division has available an informational packet entitled, "-Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure." The packet outlines the information that a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should contact the local building department for a copy of the site review packet. If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned welt, there is the possibility that the well may need to be plugged and abandoned to current Division specifications. Section 3208.1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of mabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located. Although the possibility for future problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and abandoned or reabandoned to the Division's current specifications are remote,we, nevertheless, suggest that a diligent effort be trade to avoid building over any abandoned well. If construction over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an approved gas venting system be placed over the well. Because the proposed development is"located in an oil field, development of this area will remove available surface land needed to recover oil resources. Therefore,provisions should be made to designate and set aside an adequate amount of land for future drilling sites so that both shallow and deep oil resources can be recovered. Please refer to Division publication TR31, "Land Use Planning in Urban Oil Producing Areas", before making land use planning decisions u�-ci-yo UJ:Rfx revel D1STP1Cl I DOG p � 04 NOP on Amendments and Merger for Huntington Beach Projects Areas Page two The Division is mandated by Section 3106 of the Public Resources Code(PRC)to supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing: 1) damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; 2) damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic.use; 3) loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and 4) damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes. Furthermore, the PRC vests in the State Oil and Gas Supervisor the authority to regulate the manner of drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to conserve, protect, and prevent waste of these resources, whie at the same time encouraging operators to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of oil and gas. No building intended for human occupancy should be looted near any active well unless suitable safety and fire protection measures and setback are approved by the local fire department. Also, there should be adequate clearance and access to the active wells for well workover equipment. The roads for the well workover equipment should have a minimum 12-foot width of clearance, and be designed for heavyweight use. The developer must provide adequate clearance and access to the wells for well workover equipment. The wells should be provided with safety shut down devices. Also, we recommend that all wells and associated equipment, within the project site, be enclosed by an 8-foot, block wall with barbed wire on the inside at the 7-foot level. Suitable gates should be provided which are capable of allowing large workover equipment access into the well sites. The grade within the enclosed area should be constructed so that potential spillage will be confined to the enclosure. To restrict access, the placement of climbable landscaping around the perimeter of the oil field facility should be avoided. Methane gas can accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the atmosps ere. If this occurs, and a crack develops in the concrete or asphalt at some time later, the gas could migrate into the interior of the overlying structure and create the potential for an explosion or fire. "fbercforc, it may be necessary to include a study of the area to determine the likelihood of this type of occurrence. If the study indicates that gas accumulation is a possibility, it may be necessary to drill some shallow, pressure-relief wells within, or adjacent to the site. Also, gas detectors, gas migration barriers, or venting systems should also be considered. It is possible that during excavation, old wells, netltane gas, or oil seeps may be encountered. if any unrecorded wells are uncovered or abandoned wells damaged during a cr4zdc r. o: grading,remedial plugging operations may be required. If wells are uncovered or damaged,the Division's district office in Long Beach must be contacted to obtain information on the requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. Please consult with the Huntington Beach Fire Department for specific recommendations for this area. uo-cI-yo US:UIfM! f(uifl DISTRICT i DOG p03 NOP on Amendments and Merger for Huntington Beach Projects Areas Page three Written approval from the Supervisor is required prior to drilling, reworking, injecting into, plugging and abandoning any well. Therefore, we recommend that prior to commencing operations the project applicant should consult with the Division district office in Long Beach to obtain information on the wells located within or adjacent to the project area and for the requirements and approval to conduct any of the work mentioned above. If you have any questions regarding this information,please contact Richard K.Baker or Edward Santiago at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 475, Long Beach, CA 90802; or telephone 3101590-5311. STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY PETE WILSON, Gowrmr DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION --- - - j"'•RICE 12 ( 'PULLMAN STREET m '—.TA ANA, CA 92705 May 20 1996 11AY Stephen Kohler File: IGR/CEQA Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency SCH # none 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Subject: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Kohler: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The proposed project is to merge 5 redevelopment plans into a single Redevelopment Plan. In respect.to this Notice of Preparation, Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has the following comments for your consideration: District 12 requests the Program Environmental Impact Report contain a detailed traffic study report that includes existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation (including peak hour), and traffic distribution along Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). Also, District 12 requests that future individual, sequential projects be made available for future review and comment. Finally, if any work is required within the State right of way, an Encroachment Permit from Caltrans will be required. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions concerning these comments, please contact Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239. Sincerely, Robert F Joseph, Chief Advance Planning Branch cc: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning Tom Persons, HDQTRS Traffic Operations T.H. Wang, Traffic Operations Judy Heyer, System and Public Transportation f J a J53 U NTY O F MICHAEL M.RUANE DIRECTOR,EMA 2 1 . '•••• THOMAS B.MATHEWc �: RAN G E _ _ _ '_ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING LOCATION: ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N.FLOWER ST. PLANNING THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA,CA ff MAILING ADDRESS: MAY 17 1996 P.O.BOX 4048 NCL 9 6-3 7 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048 TELEPHONE: (714)834.4643 FAX#:834-2771 DPC:834.4772 Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: NOP to Amend & Merge Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Kohler: The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The proposed project would merge five existing non-contiguous redevelopment projects (totaling 619 acres) to more comprehensively attain the ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic development and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The County of Orange had reviewed the NOP resulting in the following comments- 1. Section XV. RECREATION should address recreational programs, including opportunities for riding and hiking trail facilities, and on-road and off-road bikeways. 2. The Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) identifies a regional Class I (paved off-road) bikeway along the railroad right-of-way easterly of Gothard Street. The EIR draft should address this bikeway, which will connect Golden west College, Huntington Center, Old World Center, and Park & Ride facilities to residential areas. It will also link at least three of the five redevelopment areas. 3. It is also suggested the City consider a greenway (linear recreation corridor) along the railroad right-of-way. Greenways typically include bikeways and riding and hiking trails. Greenway corridors are an important amenity for communities with redevelopment areas. `rwn° ` Mr. S. Kohler Page 2 4. The CBSP also identifies a regional Class I bikeway along the west side of Pacific Coast Highway within the pier section of Redevelopment Area #5. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. Please send one complete set of the draft EIR to Charlotte Harryman at the above address when they become available. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call Ms. Harryman at (714) 834-2522. very truly yours, George ritton, Manager Environmental & Project Planning Division t CH:sf 6051508244629 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 20451 Crairner Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 l p i aOARD OF TRUSTEES •� �. � f � �� May 17, 1996 Brian E.Rechsteiner APR 4 1 49,98 President Brian Garland Stephen P. Kohler Clerk Project Manager' Shirley Carey HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Member 2"Main Street Robert Mann,Ed.D. Huntington Beach, California 92648 Member Catherine McGough SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report Member on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. ADMINISTRATION Scope and Content Comments from the Duane A.Dishno,Ed.D. Huntington Beach City School District Superintendent Alan Rasmussen,Ed.D. Dear Mr.Kohler. Assistant Superintendent Person ne tonal Servicesrvices HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") is in receipt of Jerry Buchanan the Notice'of Preparation ("NOP") for the Environment Impact Report ("EIR") of the Assistant Superintendent Amendments and Merger of existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Administrative Services Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project") dated April 16, 1996. Huntington Beach City School District has reviewed the proposed Project, and is prepared to provide public hearing testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), City Council ("City Council"), and Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") in order to protect and preserve the District's administrative and legal remedies,to provide the City of Huntington Beach ("City") with information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Project on the District, and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate in the Project adoption and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's response to the NOP. The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5.,Definitions, Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines,in that the District is a public agency,other than the Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out) public services (education) and facilities (schools) for a portion of the area within and directly affected by the Project. Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the process for a Responsible Agency including its role in Response to Consultation. Section 15096 Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall respond to consultation by the Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental documents for the project. By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the documents it will use will comply with CEQA. "We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer" (2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 30 days after receiving a Notice of Preparation from the Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written reply by certified mail or any other method which provides the agency with a record showing that the notice was received The reply shall specify the scope and content of the environmental information which would be germane to the Responsible Agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. The Lead Agency shall include this information in the EIFL(emphasis added) The District emphasizes that the use of the word "shall" identifies'a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow according to Section 15005 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City must include the scope and content specified by the District in the EIR. The District is in receipt-of the Notice of Preparation regarding a Draft Environmental Impact Report('DEIR")for the proposed Project. Pursuant to the Notice,the District may provide a response to the Notice within 30 days after receipt of the Notice. The Notice was received by the District on April 17, 1996. In order to facilitate the District's early response to the Notice of Preparation,even though the District believes that the Notice of Preparation is invalid,the District hereby submits and presents the following list of scope and content for mandatory inclusion into the DEIR: 1) The average building square footage and type(i.e.,single family detached homes, townhomes,apartments,mobile homes,etc.)of anticipated typical dwelling units and the total building square footage and type(i.e.,retail,office,industrial, regional mall,etc.)of projected non-residential uses shall be identified. 2) The phasing of development(residential and non-residential)over time from the present to buildout of the Project shall be identified with appropriate,incremental intervals(preferably not greater than five(5)years). 3) The location of all existing school sites,school bus stops,student pedestrian movement patterns to the school sites,bus routes,etc., (located within the District whether in the City or County)shall be identified and mapped 4) The anticipated designation of schools that will be attended by students generated based upon present District attendance areas shall be identified 5) The District's existing conditions relative to the location,size,quality,and condition of all existing schools,administrative, and operation facilities (within and outside of the City)shall be discussed. 6) The District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment,including facility utilization and capacity of permanent and relocatable facilities,shall be identified. 7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis shall be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes,and potential conflicts with school pedestrian and bicycle movement,school transportation, and busing activities. S) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis shall be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms,and outdoor school areas. 9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis shall be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within and outside the District as a result of overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies. . 10) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated residential development potential on the District,including projected enrollments,student generation factors,projected space requirements,projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements,projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities(MOT,Administration,etc.,) and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified 11) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated non-residential development potential on the District,including projected enrollments,student generation factors,projected space requirements,projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements,projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities(MOT,Administration,etc.),and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified Of particular importance is the conversion of non- residential square footage to projected employees who will reside in existing and new residential units,and the effect the estimated non-residential development potential will have on inducing,facilitating,and/or accommodating residential growth within the District, and the impacts such residential growth will have on the District. 12) The physical impact as represented by the fiscal costs to the District,including projected cost of land acquisition,school construction,and other facilities,shall be identified;present and projected capital facility,operations,maintenance,and personnel financing and funding sources shall be analyzed; and personnel, operational,and maintenance costs shall be identified 13) Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures shall be identified,including a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code,as follows: a) Chapter 22(commencing with Section 17700)of Part 10 of the Education Code. b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785)of Part 10 of the Education Code. c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327)of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311)of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. g) Chapter 4.7(commencing with Section 65970)of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. Additionally,the decisions of Mtra•Ham tr and Murriera shall be discussed as vehicles for impact mitigation consideration. 14) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No.'s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be identified and discussed. All planned,projected,and approved projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the District, along with an analysis of the buildout under the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange General Plans shall be included in the cumulative analysis and should be identified by development name,unit size,timing and location. 15) Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed,particularly,as they relate to the quality,quantity, and present and future condition of the Districfs'enrollments,space utilization,curriculum,financial and fiscal condition,transportation,operational and maintenance activities, administrative activities,and asset management activities. 16) An estimate of the amount of development fees to be generated by estimated development potential in accordance with implementation of the Project shall be made using the Districts 61% share of$1.84($1.12)per square foot for residential uses and$0.30($0.18)for non-residential uses (inflated according to State Law over time). 17) The nominal and net present value of statutory tax increment revenues to be provided to the District under A.B. 1290 shall be identified. 18) The amount of physical space and the resultant cost for provision of capital facilities to accommodate new students shall be identified and expressed in a per student and per square foot format. 19) The shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated and the cost for provision of capital facilities shall be identified 20) The impact of the project on the District in terms of the public use of school facilities and grounds for recreation(parks)and open space purposes(i.e.,for uses other than District directed educational activities)caused by a shortage of City owned facilities and open space shall be assessed- In particular,existing quantities of City owned park,recreation,and open space lands shall be identified and the degree of satisfaction of the General Plan level of service standards for City owned and non-City owned land shall be determined-The implications of any General Plan policies or implementation of the Project on school district facilities shall be discussed and mitigated if significant. 21) The adequacy of the existing infrastructure,including sewer,water,gas,electricity, cable television,and telephones serving existing schools shall be determined and considered before recommendations for increasing student loading at any existing school is made. 22) A site feasibility analysis identifying the nature and extent of all existing facilities (permanent and relocatable),existing and proposed site utilization,and impacts on curriculum and operational activities,shall be performed prior to the recommendation for the addition of relocatable facilities on any school as a mitigation measure. 23) An analysis and presentation of mitigation measures shall be identified in relation to measures set forth in Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code. 24) Appropriate alternative projects,including,but not limited to: a)the inclusion of blighted school properties and facilities within the project area;b)the Agency's financial assistance towards the improvement,modernization,and expansion of existing school facilities which serve the project area;and c)the Agency's financial assistance towards the acquisition of property and the construction of new school facilities required to serve the project area,should be considered and evaluated,and the items and issues set forth herein as No.'s 1 through 22 should be determined for each alternative. 25) If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the .District's development utilization,physical,and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts,the text of the statement,along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation,shall be identified and made available for public inspection. The substantiation shall also provide a comparison to the mitigation of other public services and facilities (such as police, fire,water supply,sewer services,etc.) with schools,with detailed explanations should there be differences in the level or types of mitigation proposed. 26) Inclusion of those topics with regards to the Project's re-evaluation pursuant to the provisions of Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code. The District further understands that 20% of the annual tax increment generated from the proposed Project is required to be used within the Project Area or elsewhere in the community for the purpose of increasing, improving, or preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing. The Agency's expenditure of such revenues would have an impact on the District,particularly,if the expenditures resulted in increasing the number of low and moderate income residential units within the community. Experience has provided evidence that affordable housing units, units which are specifically set aside for families which,are low or moderate income, and subsidized housing for many times minority and/or certain ethnic groups,result in households which generally have larger family sizes with'higher student generation rates than other market rate housing types. Therefore, the DEIR,should specifically address the Agency's intent and commitment towards the expenditure of the housing set-aside funds, identify the impacts on the District, andiprovide appropriate mitigation measures to off-set the impacts to the District from these activities. Based upon the significance of the impacts of the Project,designation and/or dedication of school site(s)and specific mitigation measures which provide for the full impact mitigation of the developments' which will occur following the adoption of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan,such as an Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement between the City and the District,may have to be made part of the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. The District is prepared to provide additional information and review any materials as may be prepared as a part of the environmental process. We further hereby request that all notices and documentation with regard to this Project be specifically mailed to the following representatives of the District: Dr.Duane Dishno Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Post Office Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 Mr.Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent,Administrative Services Huntington Beach City School District Post Office Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 and Marshall B.Krupp,President COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 730 El Camino Way, Suite 200 Tustin; California 92680 Should you require any additional information at this time or during the preparation of the DEIR,or if we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call either the District or Community Systems Associates,Inc. The adequacy and accuracy of the existing setting, project impacts and their significance, and the mitigation of impacts resulting from the Project as they relate to Huntington Beach City School District are of extreme importance to the District. Therefore,we will be more than happy to provide you with any materials you may need to assist you in the preparation of an adequate environmental analysis of the Project Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Sincerely, Jerry Buchanan r Assistant Superintendent,Administrative Services W. Dr.Duane Dishno, Superintendent Marshall B. Krupp,President i o OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent James R.Tarwater,Ed.D. Board of Trustees Charles Osterlund,President Pam Walker,Clerk Carol Kanode, Member Pellma Tracy Pellman,Member Nancy Stuever,Member 'INQUEST 17200 PINEHURST LANE• HUNTINGTON BEACH •CALIFORNIA•92647•714/847-2551 - FAX 714/847-1430 OFEXCELLENCE" We are An Equal Opportunity Employer.This District does not discriminate on the basis of age,gender or handicap. May 16, 1996 Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Response to Notice of Preparation of EIR on Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; Our file 5400.1.000 Dear Mr. Kohler: The Ocean View School District has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of EIR and proposed project information, and conclude that the EIR must address the impact any commercial and residential development might have within the Redevelopment Project Area. Our reasons are set forth below. The project, which is described as a merger, contemplates commercial and residential development of substantial magnitude in areas located within the District's boundaries. Each of the five projects to be merged included these uses; in fact two are all residential uses. The checklist included with the notice of determination states that the impact on schools will be "Iess than significant". Recently the Ocean View School District adopted an increase in the fees that it may impose on new development pursuant to Government Code section 53080. The Board has concluded that new development will generate at least 55 new students, for which the District has no facilities. The District's share of the maximum statutory fee that it may collect (61% of $1.84) will produce far less than the approximately $3.00 per square foot of assessable new construction (residential) required to provide sufficient housing for these students. The District invites the Agency to confer regarding its needs in these areas. Stephen V. Kohler -2- May 16, 1996 -Project Manager Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Because of the impact of any new development on the District's ability to provide the facilities necessary for students who will be generated by housing development in the Redevelopment Plan Area, the District believes that the impact should be considered "significant" and that appropriate mitigation should be called for. Very truly yours, v games R. Tarwater, Ed.D. District Superintendent Ocean View School District JRT:gb Board of Trustees: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION ; f " ' Bonnie Bruce ?btOt, eF 4' ' Bonnie Castrey HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Barbara Johnson Curt Jor + + = Michael Simc i 10251 Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach,California 92646-2999 — oy (714)964-3339FAX(714)%3-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools G'H SCMO�' May 15, 1996 VIA FAX AND CERTIFIED MAIL Stephen P. Kohler Project Manager HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. Scope and Content Comments from the Huntington Beach Union High School District Dear Mr. Kohler: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") of the Amendments and Merger of existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project") dated April 16, 1996. Huntington Beach Union High School District has reviewed the proposed Project and is prepared to provide public hearing testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), City Council ("City Council"), and Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") in order to protect and preserve the District's administrative and legal remedies, to provide the City of Huntington Beach ("City") with information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Project on the District, and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate in the Project adoption and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's response to the NOP. The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5., Definitions, Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines, in that the District is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out) public services (education) and facilities (schools) for a portion of the area within and directly affected by the Project. Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the process for a Responsible Agency including its role in Response to Consultation. 77ze mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educational progranz which develops responsible, productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership. Stephen P. Kohler ' HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 15, 1996 Page 2 Section 15096 Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall respond to consultation by the Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental documents for the project. By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the documents it will use will comply with CEQA. (2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 30 days after receiving a Notice of Preparation from the Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written reply by certified mail or any other method which provides the agency with a record showing that the notice was received. The reply shall specify the scope and content of the environmental information which would be germane to the Responsible Agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. The Lead Agency shall include this information in the EIR. (emphasis added) 'The District emphasizes that the use of the word "shall" identifies a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow according to Section 15005 of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, the City must include the scope and content specified by the District in the EIR. The District is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation regarding a Draft Environmental Impact ' Report ("DEIR") for the proposed Project. Pursuant to the Notice, the District may provide a response to the Notice within 30 days after receipt'of the Notice. The Notice was received by the District on April 17, 1996. In order to facilitate the District's early response to the Notice of Preparation, even though the District believes that the Notice of Preparation is invalid, the District hereby submits and presents the following list of scope and content for mandatory inclusion into the DEIR: i 1) The average building square footage and type (i.e., single family detached homes, townhomes, apartments, mobile homes, etc.) of anticipated typical dwelling units and the total building square footage and type (i.e., retail, office, industrial, regional mall, etc.) of projected non-residential uses shall be identified. 2) The phasing of development (residential and non-residential) over time from the present to buildout of the Project shall be identified with appropriate, incremental intervals (preferably not greater than five (5) years). 3) The location of all existing school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement patterns to the school sites, bus routes, etc., (located within the District, whether in the City or County) shall be identified and mapped. 4) The anticipated designation of schools that will be attended by students generated based upon present District attendance areas shall be identified. 5) The District's existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of all existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities (within and outside the City) shall be discussed. Stephen P. Kohler HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 15, 1996 Page 3 6) The District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including facility utilization and capacity of permanent and relocatable facilities, shall be identified. 7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis shall be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes, and potential conflicts with school pedestrian and bicycle movement, school transportation, and busing activities. 8) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis shall be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas. 9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis shall be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within and outside the District as a result of overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies. 10) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated residential development potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student generation factors, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities (MOT, Administration, etc.,) and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified. 11) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated non-residential development potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student generation factors, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities (MOT, Administration, etc.), and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified. Of particular importance is the conversion of non-residential square footage to projected employees who will reside in existing and new residential units, and the effect the estimated non-residential development potential will have on inducing,facilitating, and/or accommodating residential growth within the District, and the impacts such residential growth will have on the District. 12) The physical impact as represented by the fiscal costs to the District, including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction, and other facilities, shall be identified; present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources shall be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs shall be identified. 13) Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures shall be identified, including a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows: a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. Stephen P. Kohler HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 15, 1996 Page 4 b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division I of Title 7 of the Government Code. Additionally, the decisions of Mira, Hart, and Murrieta shall be discussed as vehicles for impact mitigation consideration. 14) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No.'s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be identified and discussed. All planned, projected, and approved projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the District, along with an analysis of the buildout under the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange General Plans, shall be included in the cumulative analysis and should be identified by development name, unit size, timing and location. 15) Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to the quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition,transportation,operational and maintenance activities,administrative activities, and asset management activities. 16) An estimate of the amount of development fees to be generated by estimated development potential in accordance with implementation of the Project shall be made using the Districts 39% share of $1.84 ($0.72) per square foot for residential uses and $0.30 ($0.12) for non-residential uses (inflated according to State LaWover time). 17) The nominal and net present value of statutory tax increment revenues to be provided to the District under A.B. 1290 shall be identified. 18) The amount of physical space and the resultant cost for provision of capital facilities to accommodate new students shall be identified and expressed in a per student and per square foot format. 19) The shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated and the cost for provision of capital facilities shall be identified. Stephen P. Kohler HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 15, 1996 Page 5 20) The impact of the project on the District in terms of the public use of school facilities and grounds for recreation (parks) and open space purposes (i.e., for uses other than District directed educational activities) caused by a shortage of City owned facilities and open space shall be assessed. In particular, existing quantities of City owned park, recreation, and open space lands shall be identified and the degree of satisfaction of the General Plan level of service standards for City owned and non-City owned land shall be determined. The implications of any General Plan policies or implementation of the Project on school district facilities shall be discussed and mitigated if significant. 21) The adequacy of the existing infrastructure, including sewer, water, gas, electricity, cable television, and telephones serving existing schools shall be determined and considered before recommendations for increasing student loading at any existing school are made. 22) A site feasibility analysis identifying the nature and extent of all existing facilities (permanent and relocatable), existing and proposed site utilization, and impacts on curriculum and operational activities, shall be preformed prior to the recommendation for the addition of relocatable facilities on any school as a mitigation measure. 23) An analysis and presentation of mitigation measures shall be identified in relation to measures set forth in Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code. 24) Appropriate alternative projects, including, but not limited to: a) the inclusion of blighted school properties and facilities within the project area; b) the Agency's financial assistance towards the improvement, modernization, and expansion of existing school facilities which serve the project area; and c) the Agency's financial assistance towards the acquisition of property and the construction of new school facilities required to serve the project area, should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No.'s 1 through 22 should be determined for each alternative. 25) If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District's development utilization, physical, and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation, shall be identified and made available for public inspection. The substantiation shall also provide a comparison to the mitigation of other public services and facilities (such as police, fire, water supply, sewer services, etc.) with schools, with detailed explanations should there be differences in the level or types of mitigation proposed. 26) Inclusion of those topics with regards to the Project's re-evaluation pursuant to the provisions of Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code. Stephen P. Kohler HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 15, 1996 Page 6 The District further understands that 20% of the annual tax increment generated from the proposed Project is required to be used within the Project Area or elsewhere in the community for the purpose of increasing, improving, or preserving the community's supply of,low- and moderate-income housing. The Agency's expenditure of such revenues would have an impact on the District, particularly if the expenditures resulted in increasing the number of low- and moderate-income residential units within the community. Experience has provided evidence that affordable housing units, units which are specifically set aside for families which are low- or moderate-income, and subsidized housing, result in households which generally have larger family sizes with higher student generation rates than other market rate housing types. Therefore, the DEIR should specifically address the Agency's intent and commitment towards the-expenditure of the housing set-aside funds, identify the impacts on the District, and provide appropriate mitigation measures to offset the impacts to the District from these activities. Based upon the significance of the impacts of the Project, designation and/or dedication of school site(s) and specific mitigation measures which provide for the full impact mitigation of the developments which will occur following the adoption of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan, such as an Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement between the City and the District, �^ may have to be made part of the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR. S\ The District is prepared to provide additional information and review any materials as may be prepared as a part of the environmental process. We further hereby request that all notices and documentation with regard to this Project be specifically mailed to the following representatives of the District: David Hagen, Ed.D. Superintendent Huntington Beach Union High School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646 Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach Union High School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646 and Marshall B. Krupp President COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 730 El Camino Way, Suite 200 Tustin, California 92680 Stephen P. Kohler HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May 15, 1996 Page 7 Should you require any additional information at this time or during the preparation of the DEIR, or if we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call either the District or Community Systems Associates, Inc. The adequacy and accuracy of the existing setting, project impacts and their significance, and the mitigation of impacts resulting from the Project as they relate to Huntington Beach City School District are of extreme importance to the District. Therefore, we will be more than happy to provide you with any materials you may need to assist you in the preparation of an adequate environmental analysis of the Project. The District appreciates the opportunity to work with the Agency to ensure the mutual benefits that have ensued from the other joint activities. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Sincerely, HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services cc: David Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Marshall B. Krupp, President COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. M\HBMerger.Red `ar► STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 Long Beach, California 90802 (310) 590-5113 7- May 14, 1996 Mr. Stephen V. Kohler Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Kohler: Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report Amendments and Merger of EAsting Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Orange County '` The Department of Fish and Game'(Department) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we recommend the following information be included in the draft Environmental Impact Report: 1. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area, with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique species and sensitive habitats. a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1). b. A complete assessment of sensitive fish, wildlife, reptile, and amphibian species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed. Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. C. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition �, (see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). Mr. Stephen V. Kohler ' May 14, 1996 Page Two d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should be contacted at (916) 327 5960 to obtain current information on any previously reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game'Code. 2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts. a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region. b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided. C. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and i g anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on �.�✓ similar plant communities and wildlife habitats. 3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included. Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource sensitivity where appropriate., a. Litigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere should be addressed. b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts (Attachment 2). C. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage, and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or `I-W endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful. Mr. Stephen V. Kohler May 14, 1996 Page Three 4. If the project has the potential to adversely affect species of plants or animals listed under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), either during construction or over the life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU) must be obtained under § 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOU's are issued to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CF.SA-MOU. a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements for a CESA-MOU. b. A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act. 5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations. a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code § 1600 et seq. in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources. b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff, sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such impacts must be included. Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Scott Harris, Wildlife Biologist, at (310) 590-5100. Sincerely, Patricia Wolf Acting Regional Manager Region 5 ti Attachments cc: See attached list Mr. Stephen V. Kohler May 14, 1996 Page Four cc: Mr. Scott Harris Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Ray Ally Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Richard Nitsos Department of Fish and Game Long Beach, California Mr. Jim Dice Department of Fish and Game San Diego, California Ms. Terri Dickerson Department of Fish and Game Laguna Niguel, California U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicep Carlsbad, California U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles, California . J State of California THE RESOURCES AGENCY l Department of Fish and Game May 4, 1984 GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES 11 w r mmenda ions are intended o help those who r w environmental The fo o Ong, eco t d i e p o prepare and review a ironmental documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and what information should be contained in the survey report. 1. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been "listed" by state and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown to be rare and/or endangered under the following'definitions. A species, subspecies or variety of plant is "endangered" when the prospects of its survival and reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition or disease.' A plant is "rare" when, although not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens. Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution., These communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the �^ California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be t* used as a guide to the names of communities. 2. 't is sppropr`ate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine.if, or the,extent that, rare plants wiii oe affected by a proposed project when: a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential rare V'3nt habitat; b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information for impact assessment is lacking; or C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare plants or their habitat exist on the site. S. ar mica► consu'tar.-,z should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications (in order cf importance): a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience in field sampling design and field methods; b. Taxonomic experience and a knowledge of plant ecology; C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and d. Famil;arity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant collecting. 4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that may be present. Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be: a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both "evident` and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coincide with known flowering periods, and/or (2) during periods of phenological development that are necessary to identify the plant species of concern. b. Floristic in nature. 'Predictive surveys" (which predict the occurrence of rare species based on the occurrence of habitat or other physical features rather than actual field inspection) should be reserved for ecological studies, not for impact assessment. Evers species noted ' in the field should be identified to the extent necessary`to determine whether it is rare or endangered. C. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics. Collections of rare or suspected rare species (voucher specimens) should be made only when such actions would not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot withstand collection of voucher specimens. d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas. e. Well documented. When a rare or endangered plant (or_rare plant community) is located, a California Native Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written form should be completed and submitted to the Natural Diversity Data Base. 5. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments, negative declarations, EIR's and EIS's, and should contain the following information: a. Project description, including a detailed map of the project location'and study area. b. A written description'of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used and a vegetation map. C. Detailed description of survey methodology. d. Dates of field surveys. e. Results of survey (including detailed maps). �. An assessment of potential impacts. g. Discussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby p-pulations and total species distribution. h. Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts. List of all species identified. j. CUpies of all California Native Species Field Survey Forms or Natural Community Field Survey Forms. k. Name of field investigator(s). 1. References cited, persons contacted,,herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher specimens. 2 • i ATTACHMENT 2 Sensitivity ,of Top Priority Rare Natural Communities in Southern California* Sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game, z._ifornia Natural Diversity Data Base and based on either number of known ccurr.ences (locations) and/or amount of habitat remaining (acreage) . The ' -ee rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities are as llows: Less than_ 6 known locations and/or on less than 2 , 000 acres of habitat remaining ;2.- Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2, 000-10, 000 acres of habitat remaining 33.- Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10, 000-50, 000 acres of habitat remaining The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to -�- �-iegree of threat posed to that natural community -regardless of the ranking. example: S1.1 = very threatened S2.2 = threatened S3.3 = no current threats known Sensitivity Rankings (February 1992) an Community Name sl.l Mojave Riparian Forest Southern Dune 'Scrub Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Southern Coastal Bluff 'Scrub Mesq=ite Bosque Maritime Succulent Scrub Elephant Tree Woodland Riversidean Alluvial Fan --Sage Scrub Crucifixion Thorn Woodland Southern Maritime Chaparral Allthorn Woodland Valley Needlegrass Grassland Arizonan Woodland Great Basin Grassland Southern. California Walnut Forest Mojave Desert Grassland Mainland Cherry Forest Pebble Plains Southern Bishop Pine Forest Southern Sedge Bog Torrey Pine Forest Cismontane 'Alkali Marsh 'i Desert Mountain White Fir Forest -2- Sy R ki Q ensitivit ari 'n s (Cont. ) Community Name .2 Southern Foredunes Mono Pumice Flat Southern Interior Basalt F1. Vernal Pool .1 Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub S. Arroya Willow Riparian' Forest Riversidean Upland Coastal ,Sage Southern Willow Scrub Scrub Riversidean Desert Sage Scrub Modoc-G.Bas. Cottonwood Willow Rip. Sagebrush Steppe Modoc-Great Basin Riparian Scrub Desert Sink Scrub Mojave Desert Wash Scrub., Mafic Southern Mixed Chaparrel Engelmann Oak Woodland San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. Open Engelmann Oak Woodland San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland Alkali Meadow Island Oak Woodland Southern Coastal Salt Marsh California Walnut Woodland Coastal Brackish Marsh Island Ironwood Forest Transmontane Alkali Marsh Island Cherry Forest S. Interior Cypress Forest Bigcone Spruce-Canyon Oak Forest .2 Active Coastal Dunes Active Desert Dunes Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Dunes ' Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Sandfield Mojave Mixed Steppe Transmontane Freshwater Marsh Coulter Pine Forest S. California Fellfield Write Mountains Fellfield .3 Bristlecone Pine Forest Limber Pine Forest ELEMENT RANKING ..•.•.•...•.•.....•.••••••.•..•..••.••.•.••.....•....•.•.•.•.•...••.....•...••..••........... CLQ1AL RANKING Thi p/op`✓font IG•rankl Is s reflection of the e+vsratt condition of an*torrent tivovphout Its global trance. SPECIES MILL Cl an Lass then I viable EDs OR toss than 1000 indviduals OR less than 2000 ogres. Cr2• 5•20 EOs OR 1000-3'JCD indvidLsle OR 2000.10.000*trot. C30 21-UDO EOs OR 300:�-10.000Ind-v4dvats OR 10.D00-S0.000 acres GAM Appsrsntiy secure:thi$ rarA is esoriy tower than G3 but factors exist to crust to-no toncsrm i.e.there is sorr►o threat. or somewhat narrow habitat. Cif+ Population demonstrably secure to ineradicable due to being commonly found in the world. SUaSPECIES LFYEL Subspecies receive a T-rank snschtd to the G•rank. With the subspecies.the G-rank reflects the condition of the emir► s_rr*es, wheress the T•rank teflocts the global situstion of just the tvDspeties• For exorrtpto: Choritanthe robwste war.Aartwepn. This p:ant is ranked G2T1. The G•ronk refers to the whole species range of CAorizonM►robust*. The T-rank refers only to the, global condition of war.Aertwepu• STATE RANKING The state rant is assignod rrwch the rem$ way as the Vobet rank,except state ranks in C41ornis often also contain•Itroat e*rmber attschod to the 5-rank. Lost than 6 EOs OR less then 10DO individuals OR Fast then 2000 acres a S 1: S I A . wry threatened $1.2 • threatened S 1.3 • no tur►ont Waste known 6•20 E0s OR i00D•3000 individuals OR 200o-10.000 acres S2.1 . very threatened 52.2 m threstened S2.3 + no current threats known 21.100 EOs OR 3000.10.000 individwo!s OR 10.000-S0.ODO acres ea 93: S.3.1 . very threatened $3.2 w threatened S3.3 . no current threats known St AtDarently securc w:tNr.Calfornia:toil tank is clearly lower than$3 bvt factors exist to cause some concern:there is some threat. or somewhat narrow habitat. NO THREAT NUMBER. SS Demonstrably**curs to inoredicsble in California. NO THREAT NUMBER. .....:...............................•....••.•.........•..••..•.••..•.•.•.••...•.••...•.•..•.. - r Motes: • r Unce►tinty about the rank of on otoment is expressed in Other sretbols: tars/najer wars: i By exprsssing the rank as a tonge of we"s: Le. CK AJ sites ore-Materkel;the ofoenent has mot been 92S3 msons th*rent is sar"wiNnl►t,tweori t2 seen for at bast 20 years bR suitabts Mbitot sun and S3. osists tsm a As Co0orn:s aineo are hiete�eatl. OX Ag site$ are axtirpaled•ois sfa+neftt b*stint iA the By adding o'I"to the tank: evil tsX . A*"hernia okes Me e=t;epanodl. i.e. SI? Tte$represents mare certainty than OXC gatinct in the wild.estate in ek'i1drrsnten- 52S3. 010 The olarnent Is very tare.rut then[s•to," �►esn:e"►ssooxistet with It. NODE rare cocrvnunhies R-S Feb.IW2 Page 1 Top Priority Rare Natural-Communities `• From Region Five Code Number Fn4 Records Name r - S1.1 F,an1c: 21330 Cis Sou"xT Dune Scrub 31200 Cis Sovthom Costal Ba ,,Scrub 324M Gs Maritime Sv=rient Scrub 32720 Gs Rvetidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 37= Gs Y Sovihem Maritime Ctuparml A2110 Cis Way Needleg•ass Grassiand 43= Des Y Great Basin Grassland 43777 Des Y Mojava Desert Grassland 47WO Cis Pebble Plains 511?7 Cis Y Sov:»rm Sedge 902 52310 Cis Cismomtane/Utcati Marsh 61700 Des Mojaw Riparian Forest 61E10 Des $onoran CotL-,mw:od Wilbur Riparian elm Des Mesquite 80sque 75100 Des Y ElephantTree Woodland 752*J0 Des Y Crv-,4uion Thom Woodland 753J0 Des Y Alltho.rn Woodland 73s00 Des Y Arizonan Woodland . 151615D Cis Sow*wn CaUtornia Walnut Forest 81920 Cis Y Mainiand Cherry Forest i t33122 Cis Y SovtMm&shop P+ne Forest ' 63140 Cis Torrey Pime Forest am:) Des Y Desert Wpuntain White Fa Forst S 12 Rank: 21230 Gs Sovtlwn Foredunes 35410 Des Mono Purriae Fist 4-`310 Crs So rdorn Interior Basalt FL Vomit Pool S21 Flank. 32300 Cis Y Venturan Coasts?Sage Scrub 32500 Cis Dieg:n Coastal Sage Scrub 3276.0 Ca Y Riversidian Upland Coastal Sage Sax. 12730 Cis Y Rvers dean Desalt Sage Savo is Des Y Sagebnrsh Steppe 3612%) Des Y 1L*"n Sink Savo 27122 Ca Y Wfic Southern mmw Chaparral Lunt Cis San Diego'Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. 44= Cis San Diego Meta Ciaypan vwnai P. . 45310 Des "of Meadow 52120 Cm iouthem Coastal Soft mwvh 92= Cos Coastal Brackish Marsh - 62410 Des Tmnsrnonlane ithai Marsh 'ccd•d as enh*r ca (lot osmontsrw)or data(%w dew - f'l NDDB rare=cnrsmtties PtrS Peb.1992 p7e 2 Fiets�rtic CrrSa N,ss�bet Lcc� Lunn FewtName 52410 Cis Coast&'and Whey Freshwater Marsh e 1320 Crs - S.Arroyo Wilow Riparian Forest t'53320 Crs 6otitL m Willow Srtub 61610 Des Modx•C Bag Cottonwood Kuc w ftp. 63i0O Des Y Madx•Crsal Basin Riparian Scrub 63700' Des Y Mojave DeseZ Wash S=vb TiS60 Cis Y Enge�:mann Oak Woodland 71181 Cls Y Open ErV.,ra-in Oak Woodland 71152 Gs Y Cksad Errehrsann Oak Woodwind 711p:) Cis Y Island Oak Woodland 71210 Os Carifomia Watrnrt Woodland 8170O Cis Y Wand Iromwo,od Forest 81810 cm Wand Cherry Forest V230 Cis S. Interior Cypress Farast 84150 Cis Y Spew*-Canyon Oak Forest 92.2 F;Ank: 2110O Oils Y Acbve Coastal Dunes 22100 Des Azlive Desert Dunes 222M Des Stab.and Part Sub.Desen Dunes 22300 Des Y Sub and Part Sub:Desert Sareketd 34220 Des Y Mojave Mixed Steppe 52420 Des Y Tranrnontans Freshwater Marsh SA 140 Cis Y Cosner Pu»Forest V1130 Cis Y S Cati!ornia Felti+etd 91140 Des Y Wtlite Mountains Felt ld 15x,477 Des &ist+'exne Pm Forest ' d67L�0 Des Y Unber Pr»Forest 'coded as ear»r•as (tor asmontane)or des Vat desert) b P,Oa10.1C15pp94yCFOG COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA -9or�CJIHG inE ENNRON�i�• - - .... May 1, 1996 phone: (714)962-2411 Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager _ V - "' '`� mailing address: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Po.Box 8127 2000 Main Street Fountain Valley,CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 92728-8127 street address: SUBJECT: Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Huntington Beach D844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley,CA Redevelopment Project 9270&7018 This is in response to your notice dated April 16, 1996 that the City of Huntington Beach will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for amendments to and merger Member of five redevelopment projects within the city: Huntington Center Commercial District Agencies Redevelopment Project; Main Pier Redevelopment-Project; Oakview Redevelopment Project; Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Cities Project. The areas are within County Sanitation District Nos 3 and 11. Anaheim Brea You are requested to calculate the expected sewage to be generated from the Buena Park proposed development and compare it to the Districts' previous plans. For your Cypress Fountain valley calculations, use flow coefficients of: Fullerton Huntington Beach Irvine La Habra - 100 gallons per day per acres (gpd/acre) for estate density residential La Palma (1-3 d.u./acre); Los Alamitos Newport Beach - 1615 gpd/acres for low density residential (4-7 d.u./acre); Orange - 3880 gpd/acre for median density residential (8-16 d.u./acre); Placentia Ana 5880 d/acre for medium-high density residential 17-25 d_u./acre Santa Ana - 9P 9 tY ( ) Seal Beach - 7945 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre); Stanton - 3230 gpd/acre for commercial; Tustin Villa Park - 4520 gpd/acre for industrial; rorba Linda - 200 gpd/1,000 sq.ft. gross floor area (GFA) for high intensity office or runty of Orange high-rise commercial; - 150 gpd/room for hotels and motels; ;amid y Districts - 50 gal./seat for restaurants, and - 200 gpd/acre for recreation and open space usage. Costa Mesa Garden Grove Midway City Water Districts Wastewater generated within the Districts' service area is processed at treatment plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts operate under Irvine Ranch an NPDES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS), which are affected by the flow received for treatment. Increases in flow require additional, costly increases in pumping energy, secondary treatment and solids disposal. ._ Industrial users should take on-site measures to reduce the load strength of the A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954 apsta¢rsCFC � 1 / F e� r _ x` n ✓�CrrNC THE EyP��F�• i Stephen V. Kohler Page 2 May 1, 1996 sewage. Commercial users should incorporate all practical and mandated water conservation measures. All users should use ultra-low flow water,fixtures to reduce the volume of sewage to the system. Other regulations such as those adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) pursuant to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) may also impact the proposed project_ Therefore, you should also review th' ject in light of the rules and requirements of other regulating agencies. A. ud in, E. Director of Engineering TMD:dl Engltmd\042596.11 April 23, 1996 APR 5 �5 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency _ Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager 2000 Main Street ....... Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach response to "Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project", dated April 16, 1996 Dear Mr. Kohler: The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced NOP and has several areas of concern which should be more thoroughly discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed project. The first concern is that the NOP does not clearly indicate that the following areas of concern have been identified as having a "Potentially Significant Impact": Transportation/Circulation; Noise; and Aesthetics. To the casual reader of the document, this oversight may lead individuals to believe that the project does not have many potentially significant impacts which would be discussed in the DEIR. Secondly, the following concerns should be addressed in the discussion regarding the following environmental area of concerns: ■ Transpoi-tation and Circulation The DEIR should clearly set forth "Impact Significance Criteria", which would set forth criteria for both "Roadway Segments" and "Intersections". The above discussed impact significance criteria should be utilized to insure that all identifiable impacts are mitigated. Said analysis should extend from the project D:\W P511RDA1H BNOPHIR.LTRIL.W 104-22-96 NOP-Merger of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Areas Cary of Seal Beach Response Letter April 23, 1996 areas along all major transportation/circulation routes until the significance criteria are no longer exceeded. A "Percent Trip Distribution Map" should be provided, indicating percentage of project generated trips allocated to various roadway segments. A "Project Trip Generation Summary" should also be provided, which would summarize the following information: ■ Project Element ■ Number of Units and/or Acreage of Project Element Facilities ■ Estimated number of Daily Trips per Analysis Unit ■ AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total ■ PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total The potential for extreme congestion in the area, coupled with the increased traffic generation from the Bolsa Chica Project and other residential projects in Huntington Beach should be carefully explored and discussed in the DEIR. Congestion Management criteria should be incorporated into this analysis. ' ■ Noise The DEIR needs to discuss the concern of exposure of people to severe noise levels. The major construction-related impacts of the proposed project, including demolition operations, need to be adequately analyzed as to the potential impacts upon both construction workers on the subject site and workers of adjoining employment sites, and residents on adjoining residential sites. Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, at telephone (310)431-2527 if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide five (5) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report to his office for distribution to the City Council when it is available. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR in detail when it is available for public comments. t� ` D:XVMIUWAUiBNOPOR.LTRILVA04-22-% 2 NOP-Merger of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Areas City of Seal Beach Response Letter April 23, 1996 q ely, ce Has ngs, City of Seal Beach cc: City Council City Manager Planning Commission Director of Development Services Environmental Quality Control Board D:1WP511RDAUHBNOPEIR.LTR1LW104-22-96 3 APPENDIX B CULTURAL RESOURCES 7/j"6uIc\VSG630\EMTOC WPD,> LSAA%=iates,Inc. Appendix B-Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area �^ Street Address I Est. Date Description/Comments 602 7th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 616 7th Street 11930s residence-bungalow Main,Palm&7th intersect. 1930s? Smith's Mortuary 619 Main Street 11930s residence-bungalow 617 Main Street 11930s residence-bungalow 609 Main Street 11930s residence-bungalow 607 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow 605 Main Street 11930s residence-Spanish Revival 603 Pecan Street 1930s Iresidence-Spanish'Revival 523 Pecan Street 1940s? Iresidence-"ranch"style 519 Pecan Street 1930s? Ir+esidence-"farm'style 515 Pecan Street 1930s 1 residence-"fame"style 509 Pecan Street 1930s residence-bungalow 501 Pecan Street 1920s residence-bungalow 417 6th Street 1940s residence-bungalow 415 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 411 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 409 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 410 6th Street Church,const.'1906 (HBGP) 323-327 6th Street 1930s apartment row 317 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 313 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 301 6th Street 1930s residence-'farm'style 225 6th Street 1940s? residence-"ranch"style 217 6th Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow 211,211 1/2 6th Street 1930s Iduplex,2-story Walnut&6th intersec. 1940s? commercial 121 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow,2-story 119 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 6th St. &PCH intersec. ? restaurant 520 Pacific Coast Hwy 1950s? commercial 128 6th Street 1930s Helm-Worthy House,const. 1880s (HBGP) 220 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 308 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 310 1/2,312 1/2 6th St. 1930s duplex-bungalow style 328 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 5th&Orange intersec. . 1930s bungalow, no address visible 321 5th Street constructed 1905 (HBGP) 317 5th Street Iconstructed 1910 (BBGP) 313 5th Street 1930s residence-bungalow 311 5th Street Iconstructed 1930s (HBGP) 71.18196(7 VUG630�F1R1fILS7ZlST:AM I LSAAawiates,Inc Appendix B -Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area Street Address Est. Date Description/Comments 309 5th Street ? residence 305 5th Street 1930s-40s? residence 5th&Olive intersec. ? commercial brick building 215 5th Street ? 2-story residence 213 5th Street ? Irestaunant 211A 211C 5th Street 1940s stucco apartments 205 5th Street 1930s Iresidence,bungalow 201 5th Street 1930s-40s (residence,"ranch"style 502, 506,510 Walnut 1 1930s laparEments 513,517 Walnut I I Helm House Furnishing Co.,const. 1904 (HBGP) 508 Pacific Coast Hwy 11930s restaurant 204 5th Street I Shank House,const. 1912 (HBGP) 210 5th Street 1930s? commercial,2-story 218,218 1/2,220 5th St I City Hall&Jail,const. 1918 (HBGP) commercial,2-story,perhaps the H.B. 470 Pacific Coast Hwy 11920s Company/Exchange 401 Main'Street 11950s? (commercial 217 Main Street ( Pioneer Feed and Fuel,const. 1904 (HBGP) 215 Main Street 1920s-30s commercial, 2-story 213,213 1/2 Main St. I H.B. Sheet Metal,const. 1919 (HBGP) 211-201 Main Street 205 Main St.,H.B.News,const. 1904 (BBGP) 207 Main St.,Princess Theater,cons. 1910 (BBGP) 127 Main Street 1930s commercial 123 Main Street Huntington Cafe,const. 1906(HBGP) 121 Main Street 1930s commercial 119, 119 1/2 Main St. 1930s commercial 117 Main Street 1930S commercial,2-story 116, 116 1/2 Main St. ? commercial 120 Main Street ? commercial 122 Main Street Pacific City Hall,coast. 1903 (HBGP) 124 Main Street Obarr Drugs, const. 1910 (HBGP) 126 Main Street Standard Drugs,const. 1928(HBGP) 316 Olive Street U.S.Post Office,const. 1936(HBGP) 411 (7)Olive Street Dr. Hawes Medical Bldg. ,const. 1936 (HBGP) 316-328 Main Street 1930s-40s? commercial 410 Main Street 1940s? commercial,2-story 424 Main Street 1940s? commercial 419 Main Street 1940s commercial Terrys Garage,const. 1933 (BBGP)wooden 610 Main Street warehouse in rear 533 Lake Street 11930S residence-bungalow y 529 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow 7/I8196(T.WSG6301EIRWIS7=..API 1) 2 LSAAssnciates Inc. Appendix B-Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area Street Address Est. Date Description/Comments Lake&6th St. intersec. "Brewsteis Ice, 1945-1995" 505 Lake Street Higgins House,const. 1915 (LBGP) 201,203, 205 Pecan St. 1930s triplex 343 Pecan Street 1930s residence-bungalow 431-435 Lake Street Poss.const. 1915 (HPD17 A small complex of(5)bungalow-style buildings, 421A,421B,421C Lake 1925 const.date (7) (HPDF) 409 Lake Street 1930S residence-bungalow 407 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow 405 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow 401 Lake Street 1930s-40s residence-bungalow 310 Orange Street 1930s residence-bungalow 220 Walnut Street 1940s? 2-story apartments ? Walnut Street 1940s Icommercial 216 Walnut Street 11940s commercial 214 3rd Street 1930S residence-bungalow 218 3rd Street 1930s residence-bungalow 211,217 Olive Street 1930s-40s duplex 302 3rd Street 1930s residence-bungalow 306 3rd Street 11930s residence-bungalow ? 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow 318 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow 320 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow 322 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow 324-328 3rd Street 1930-40s (5)-plex 325 Orange Street 1930s residence-bungalow 400 3rd Street 1930-40s residence-bungalow ?3rd Street 1930s-40s residence-bungalow 321 2nd Street 1940s-50s residence 317 2nd Street 1940s-50s residence 313,315 2nd Street 1940-50s duplex 309 2nd Street 1940-50s residence 305 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow 215 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow 112-116A 2nd Street 1930s? (3)duplexes,bungalow-style 117 Walnut Street ? residence 121 Walnut Street 1930s residence-bungalow 208 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow 222 2nd Street 1930S residence-bungalow 230 2nd Street const. 1940 (HPDF) 302 2nd Street ? residence 7118196(1.V?SG630%EOWISTUS..APT) 3 LSAAmciates Inc Appendix B -Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area Street Address, Est. Date Description/Comments 304 2nd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow . I 308 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow 310 2nd Street 1940s? residence-bungalow 316, 318 2nd Street ? Iduplex 106 Olive Street 1930s? residence-bungalow 321 1st Street 1prob.1950s 110 Pacific Coast Hwy Iconst. 1910 (HPDF) 114 Pacific Coast Hwy I Cramer House,const. 1905 (HBGP) Store faces street, (2)bungalows are situated 508, 510 PCH 1930s behind (north of)the store 17201 Ash Street 1920s-30s Iresidence-bungalow 17171 Ash Street 11930s Iresidence-Spanish Revival 17142 Ash Street 1920s-30s residence-bungalow 17132 Ash Street 1920s-30s Iresidence-bungalow 17131 Ash Street 11920s-30s residence-bungalow 7761 Sycamore 1920s-30s residence-bungalow 7822 Sycamore 1920-30s residence-bungalow 7842 Sycamore 1920s-30s residence-bungalow ?Sycamore 1920s-30s residence-bungalow, no address visible 17061 Elm 1930-40s residence-bungalow 17113 Elm ? residence-bungalow 17141 Elm 1930s? residence-bungalow 17221 Elm I1930s? residence-bungalow residence, arm"style,house and associate 17242 Elm ? buildings are hidden behind a tall fence 7772 Cypress 1930s residence-bungalow ? Cypress 11930s residence-bungalow, no address visible 7862 Cypress 1930s? residence-bungalow 7622 Warner St. 1930s? Church and"fame'style residence 7642 Warner 1930s residence-bungalow 17038 (or 17028?) Oak 1930s residence-bungalow 1802 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow,const. 1927(HPDF) 1812 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow 1816 Main Street 1930s Craftsman style bungalow,const. 1917(HPDF) 1837 Park Street 1930-40s? residence-bungalow 1817 Park Street ? residence-Spanish Revival 1815 Pine Street 1930s residence-"farm"style 1718 Alabama 1930s residence-bungalow 2311 Florida Street ? residence-"farm'style 2307 Florida Street 1930s residence-bungalow 7118196(TV?SG6301E kWS=T.AP1) 4 F California Regional Information Center Kistoric ` Resottrcas Las Andes.Oraaga VeaWra Cocaties Inventory s�996. May 9, 1996 Deborah McLean LSA Associates, Inc. One Park Plaza, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92714 RE: Records Search for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Orange County, CA Dear Ms McLean, As per your request of May 8, 1996, we have conducted a records search for the above referenced project. This search includes a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within the project area as well as a review of all known cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, we have checked our file of historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places, the California State Historic Resources Inventory, the California Points of Historical Interest, and the listing of California Historical Landmarks in the region. The following is a discussion of our findings for the project area. PREHISTORIC RESOURCES: Four prehistoric sites have been identified within a one-quarter mile radius of the project areas (see enclosed map). These are: CA-ORA-276, CA-ORA-296, and CA- ORA-359. One prehistoric site, CA-ORA-149, is located within the project area. This site record is enclosed. HISTORIC RESOURCES: No historic archaeological sites have been identified within a one-quarter mile radius of the project area. Inspection of our historic maps -- Las Bolsas (1896 and 1941) and Santa Ana (1894 and 1901) 15' series -- indicates that by the turn of the century the community of Huntington Beach consisted of a light street grid pattern. The area surrounding Bolsas Creek, to the west of Huntington Beach (on the Seal Beach Quad), was a marsh. Many intermittent streams, two intermittent lakes, and Bolsas drainage ditch were also present in this area. A primary road ran east-west to the north of the project areas on the Seal Beach Quad. The eastern part of the project area along the coast of Huntington Beach consisted of a submerged marsh. The Southern Pacific Railroad, Smeltzer Branch, had been constructed following the coast (between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach) and traveling away from the coast to Las Bolsa, Talbert and Smeltzer. Light street grids and scattered structures were concentrated around Talbert, Smeltzer, and Wintersburg. A marsh was also present in the Wintersburg area. By 1941, the coastal area of Huntington Beach consisted of a moderately dense street grid pattern. US 101, Pacific Coast Highway, had been constructed. The.Pacific Electric Railroad had been constructed following the coast. Reservoir Hill had been named. South Central Coastal Inf"=tion Center-UCLA Institute of Archae010¢V-Fowler Sri„«..,..,of(ntn,.,t u:,...,.r..c A r 1... r.r::-..:.omnc The National Register of Historic Places lists one property within a one-quarter mile radius of the project areas. This is NR# 89001203, Huntington Beach Municipal Pier, Main St. and Ocean Ave.,Huntington Beach, declared 8124/89. The California State Historic Resources Inventory lists numerous properties within a one-quarter mile radius of the project areas. A copy of the listing is enclosed. Properties that fall within the one-quarter mile radius of the project areas are highlighted. Most of these fall within the radius of the project area in downtown Huntington Beach, in the vicinity of the coast. The listings of the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, indicate that there are no California Historical Landmarks within a one-quarter mile radius of the project area. The California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties within a one- quarter mile radius of the project area. PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS: Five surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one-quarter mile radius of the project areas (see enclosed map and bibliography). Two, 0-880 and 0-998, are located within the project areas. Please forward a copy of any reports resulting from this project to our office as soon as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of site location data, we ask that you do not include record search maps in your report. If you have any questions regarding the results presented herein,please feel free to contact our-office at(310) 825-1980. Invoices are mailed approximately two weeks after records searches. This enables your firm to request further information under the same invoice number. Please reference the invoice number Iisted below when making inquires. Requests made after invoicing necessitate the preparation of a separate invoice with a$15.00 handling fee. Sincerely, Scarlett Hite Staff Archaeologist Enclosures: N Map (X) Bibliography ( ) Site list (X) Site records ( ) Survey reports (X) Confidentiality Form ( ) Invoice#6131 APPENDIX C BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 7/l8N&l-.\RSG630WZZ\T0C.WPDn- Appendix C-Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the City of Huntington Beach Element Name Level of Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment NATURAL COMMUNITIES Southern Foredunes Along PCH between Beach Blvd. High Some natural re-establishment occurring along and the Santa Ana River, Hunting- PCH; restoration efforts in effect for mitigation for ton Beach Wetlands widening of PCH by Caltrans. Southern Dune Scrub Babbitt Island in Bolsa Chica, High Very little left in the region.as suitable habitat is also Huntington Beach Wetlands prime development land. Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Present at Bolsa Chica and Hun- High Protection and restoration efforts are on-going in tington Beach Wetlands the City. Southern Mixed Riparian Forest Extirpated because of channeliza- Low Restoration of this community would require exten- tion sive changes to the flood control facilities of the City. PLANTS - - Los Angeles Sunflower Last seen in Orange County in Low Species likely extinct because of modification of Helianthus nuttallii parishii 1933 habitat. Ventura marsh milk vetch Listed in"La Bolsa", not recorded Low Likely extinct,small possibility that it is on the Seal Fanosissimus in recent surveys (last seen 1882) Beach Weapons Station. Salt marsh bird's-beak - All known Orange County popula- Moderate While surveys have not found this species,the salt Cordylanthus m. maritimus tions at Newport Back Bay marsh habitat restoration projects offer opportunity for its reintroduction. * Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach: High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element. Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should support preservation/restoration activities. Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element. 6/28/964<I:\RSG630\EIR\BIOLOGY.APP» 1 Appendix C -Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the City of Huntington Beach, Continued Element Name Level of Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment aphanisma Not seen in Orange County since Moderate While not seen,potential for occurrence in the Aphanisma blitoides 1932 coastal bluffs of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands. _ Gambel's bittercress In"swampy sites"of Huntington Low Extirpated from Orange County. Unlikely candidate Rorippagambelii Beach,last seen in 1908 for reintroduction. Orange County Turkish rugging Known from Newport Beach Low Lack of suitable habitat in the City for this species. Chorixantbe staticoides chrysacantha Southern spikeweed Known from flood control chan- Moderate Although habitat has been destroyed by channeliza- Hemixonia parryi australis nels,mouth of the Santa Ana tion there is a potential for this species to occur in River,formerly in Westminster the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and elsewhere in the City. and Garden Grove Southwestern spiny rush Found in Bolsa Chica,and else- High Threatened by reduction of habitat by urbanization. Juncus acutus lopaoldii where in the City Gairdner's yampah,Squaw root Formerly found near the Bolsa Low Presumed extirpated from Orange County. Petideridiag.gairdneH Chica Gun Club (1932) Sanford's arrow-head Freshwater areas of Huntington Moderate Least seen in 1975,chance that with preservation of Sagittaria sandfordii Beach and East Garden Grove- habitat,the plant will be maintained. Wintersburg channels Estuary sea-blite Present at Bolsa,Chica Salt Marsh High Threatened by reduction of habitat by urbanization. Suaeda esteroa * Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach: High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element. Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should support preservation/restoration activities. Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element. 6(28/96<cI:VtSG630\[?=lOLOGY.APP» 2 C C, Appendix C-Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the City of Huntington Beach, Continued Element Name Level of Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment crown-beard Found near Arch Beach (outside N.A. Without further studies as to whether plants are Verbesina dissita - Planning Area) found in the Planning Area,the level of concern is unknown. ANIMALS - _ - Monarch butterfly Roost trees found in the vicinity of High Proposed development of Bolsa Chica may threaten Danausplexippus Bolsa Chica roost trees. Oblivious tiger beetle Bolsa Chica High Proposed restoration projects may create short Clcindela latesignata obliviosa term disruptions during implementation, but in- creases in habitat are beneficial. Gabb's tiger beetle Locational information sup- High Proposed restoration projects may create short Clcindela gabbi pressed,but likely in coastal term disruptions during implementation,but in- saltmarsh habitats. creases in habitat are beneficial. Gravid tiger beetle Only known location has been High Proposed restoration projects may create short- Clcindela hirticollisgravida extirpated;may occur in other term disruptions during implementation,but in- saltmarsh habitats. creases in habitat are beneficial:- ---- Frost's tiger beetle "IIuntington Beach"Salt Marsh High Proposed restoration projects may create short- Cicindela senilis frosts (exact location suppressed by Cal- term disruptions during implementation, but in- ifornia Fish and Game) creases in habitat are beneficial. California brackishwater snail Shells collected in Bolsa Chica High Threatened by habitat modification, either by devel- Tryonia imitator Wetlands and at Bolsa Chica opment or flood control projects. Beach * Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach: High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element. Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should support preservation/restoration activities. I.ow: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element. 6128/96«I.\RSG630\EIRIHIOLOGY.APP» 3 Appendix C - Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the City of Huntington Beach, Continued Element Name Level of Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment tidewater goby Found in shallow areas of bays, Moderate Potential candidate for introduction as part of wet- Eucycloglobius newberryi lagoons and estuaries. Unknown land restoration projects. if populations extirpated or ex- isted in the past. San Diego coast horned lizard No recorded occurrence in the Moderate Probable resident in the upper mesa areas (Sea- Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei Planning Area, found from cliff), Seal Beach and West Seal Beach Ventura County to lower Califor- nia Silvery (California) legless lizard Not recorded in the Planning Area Moderate Because of the existence of suitable habitat (sand Aniella p.pulchra dunes) may be a resident. Great blue heron Common forager at Bolsa Chica, Iligh While there are no rookery areas, threats to forag- Ardea berodias no known rookery sites in the ing areas by development are possible. Planning Area Snowy egret Foraging at Bolsa Chica and Santa Iligh While there are no rookery areas, threats to forag- Egretta Chula Ana River ing areas by development are possible. Black-crowned night-heron Foraging in Talbert lake area Moderate Restoration of the freshwater marsh and riparian Nycticorax nyctiorax areas near Central Park may provide new foraging areas, but nesting unlikely. Cooper's hawk Common fall transient Moderate The Planning Area lacks nesting habitat; but this Accipiter cooper! species can use the grassland and marsh areas to forage. * Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach: High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element. Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should support preservation/restoration activities. Law: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element. 6/28/961<I:\RSG630\EIR\BIOLOGY.APP» 4 I Appendix C-Sensitive Elements of Biological DIversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the City of Huntington Beach, Continued Element Name Level of Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment northern harrier Common winter visitant at Bolsa Moderate Preservation of foraging habitat is required to pre- Circus cyaneus Chica serve winter visits by this species. white-tailed kite Recorded at Bolsa Chica and High Possible nester in the Bolsa Chica Mesa area; threat- Elanus leucurus along the Santa Ana River drain- ened by development. age burrowing owl Sighted at the Seal Beach Naval High The species is likely in the Planning Area especially Atbene cunlcularla Weapon Station in 1988,and in bluff areas of Bolsa Chica Mesa and Huntington along bluff of Huntington Mesa in Beach Mesa where it was reported in 1993 1993. (CNDDB, 1994). Light-footed clapper rail Common in Newport Back Bay. Moderate Lack of dense pickleweed and cordgrass habitat Rallus longirostris levlpes Probable former resident of both reduces chances of this species nesting in Hunting- Bolsa Chica and Huntington ton Beach wetland areas. Does occur in Bolsa Beach Wetlands. Chica. Candidate for reintroduction in wetland res- toration projects. California black rail One sighting in 1974 at Bolsa Low Unlikely except as migrant. Laterallus famalcensis coturniculus Chica Western snowy plover Nesting in the freshwater marsh High Nesting areas are heavily-disturbed and subject to Cbaradrlus alexandrinus nlvosus near Newland Ave.And Beach red fox predation. Blvd. California least tern Nesting on islands in Bolsa chica High Nesting areas are now protected but changes in the Sterna antlllarum browni Reserve and colony at the mouth wetland areas either by development my disrupt of the Santa Ana River foraging habitat. * Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach: High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element. Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should support preservation/restoration activities. Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element. 6/28/'96«I.\RSG630\E[R\I3IOLOGY.APP» 5 Appendix C - Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the City of Huntington Beach, Continued Element Name Level of Common Name/'Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment Bank swallow Last seen in [tie Seacliff area in Low Unlikely except as a migrant Riparia riparia 1918 black swift Seen regularly in the Planning Moderate Unlikely except as a migrant "' pszfnides niger Area as transient least Bell's vireo No known occurrence in the Plan- Low Unlikely except as a migrant Vireo bell!pusillus ning Area California gnatcatcher No known occurrence in the Plan- Low No suitable habitat in the Planning Area Polioptila californica ning Area western yellow-billed cuckoo No known occurrence in the Plan- Low Unlikely except as a migrant Coccyxus americanus occidentalis ning Area Belding's savannah sparrow Nesting areas in pickleweed High Threatened by changes in tidal regimes in wetlands Passerculus sandwicbensis beldingi marsh of Bolsa Chica, Huntington areas from channelization and stream inflow regula- Beach Wetlands,and Talbert tion. Restoration projects may create new habitat. Marsh Pacific pocket mouse Believed extirpated north of the Low Habitat may be present; however, large-scale resto- Perognatbus longimembris pacificus San Joaquin L fills in southern Or- ration would be required to reintroduce this spe- ange County cies. I I I Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach: High: Policies and actions by the City should he used to preserve the element. Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should support preservation/restoration activities. Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element. I 6/28i96«I:\RSG630\EIR1PIOLOGY.APP» 6 (13) 10/07/96 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 13 F-3. (City Council/Redevelopment Agency) Resolution No. 962' )Certification Of The Final Environmental Impact Report For The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Pro'ec (410.05) Communication from the Economic Development Director informing Council that in conjunction with the consideration of the proposed Amendment and Merger of the five existing redevelopment projects to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (Project), the Agency has prepared, circulated and completed a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Recommended Action: Motion to: Adopt Resolution No. 96-93 - "A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Huntington Beach, California, Certifying That The Final Environmental Impact Report (No. 96-2) For The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Has Been Prepared, Circulated And Completed In Compliance With CEQA And State Guidelines For CEQA And That The City Council Has Reviewed And Considered The Information Contained Therein." [Adopted 7-0] F-4. (City Council) City Council Policy Regarding Amicus Curiae Briefs (100.10) Communication from the City Attorney requesting Council direction regarding whether the City Council should review Amicus Curiae briefs and decide whether the City of f Huntington Beach should join in support of them. i � 7nnnnwme.nrn_d Anfinr. .n,4net�in,n�fn.• „AUt ferize the Gi�3- A ttaney-ta: 1. R e I t:e14� AMiGU� r., C 4a refs 2. determkie whet tsn-Geasft-s44oulel join n suppoit of them; and 3. respond to the agenGy requesting the suppeFt [Approved Alternative Action as outlined in the City Council Legal Affairs Committee recommendation and direct staff to follow said procedure -- 7-0] G. Ordinances G-1. Ordinance for Adoption Recommended Action Motion to adopt, by roll call vote, the following ordinance after City Clerk reads by title. " G-1a. (City Council) Ordinance No. 3335 - Creates The Citizen Participation Advisory f Board By Consolidating The Citizen's Advisory Board And The Human Resources Board (640.10) -Adopt Ordinance No. 3335 - "An Ordinance Of The City Of Huntington Beach Creating The Citizen Participation Advisory Board By Consolidating The Citizen's Advisory Board And Human Resources Board And Repealing Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapters 2.99 And 2.103." Creates The Citizen Participation Advisory Board By Consolidating The Citizen's Advisory Board And The Human Resources Board. Ordinance introduction approved on September 16, 1996. Submitted by the Economic Development Department > [Adopted 7-0] (13) " 1