Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJoint Public Hearing Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project P 1987 1 � BEACH BOULEVARD PAC - Table of Contents (.5 Folders) - Chronological FILE I. Agendas Minutes Membership (Applications & Roster), FILE II. Correspondence Memoranda FILE III. Bylaws Mapping Resolutions FILE IV. Reports -Council -Katz-Hollis -Keyser-Marston -Miscellaneous FILE V. COMPLETED DOCUMENTS RETAINED BY COUNSEL -Super Streets Demonstration Project-Final Report -Super Streets Demonstration Project-Final Program EIR -H.B. Capital Improvement Program, 84/85-88/89 (Bob Franz) -H.B. Annual Budget, 85/86 -General Plan Docui!lents: Downtown Specific Plan H.B. General Plan, 12/76 - 6/84 Land Use Element Community Facilities Element Seismic Safety Element -Beach Boulevard Corridor Study -Mola Development Traffic Report NOTEBOOK .1-Complete Notebook TABLE OF CONTENTS BINDER DOCUMENT TAB NO. .................................................. ........ Special Agenda Notice .................................................................................. 1 Procedural Outline ......................................................................................... 2 Agency's Report to City Council................................................................... 3 Supplement to Report to City Council........................................................... 4 Final Environmental Impact Report (containing comments and responses)................................................................................................. 5 Redevelopment Plan........................................................................................ 6 Agency's Adopted Owner Participation and Preferences Rules.................... 7 Agency Resolution Re: Low/Moderate Income Housing ................................ 8 Agency Resolution Approving Supplement to Report to City Council and Authorizing Its Submittal..................................................... 9 City Council Resolution Ruling on Oral and Written Objections.................................................................................................10 City Council Resolution Certifying Final EIR...............................................11 City Council Resolution Re: Low/Moderate Income Housing .......................12 Ordinance Adopting Redevelopment Plan......................................................13 1- REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL/ _ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION RH 87-53 Date June 26, 1987 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/Agency Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Comm unity.Developmen PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT Subject: PROJECT AREA Consistent with Council Policy? bQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: ` L STATEMENT OF ISSUE: All of the necessary documents have been prepared to bring forward the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The Public Hearing scheduled for July . 6, 1987 has been duly noticed and advertised pursuant to State Law. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the City/Agency Clerk to execute the following: Agency Action: Resolution No. [ - "A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Supplement to the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and Authorizing Submittal of the Supplement to the City Council." Agency Action: Resolution No.Ly,� - "A Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach Finding that the Use of Taxes Allocated from the Huntington Beach - Beach , Boulevard Redevelopment Project for the Purpose of Improving and Increasing.the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project Area will be of Benefit to the Project." City Action: Resolution No.VK- "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Ruling on Written and Oral Objections to the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project." City Action: Resolution No.vp- "A Resolution of the City Council of the .City of Huntington Beach Making Certain Findings Regarding the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Actions with Respect to the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations." • City Action: Resolution No.5x- "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Finding That the Use of Taxes Allocated From the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project for v -OlA AMA R H 87-53 June 26, 1987 Page Two the Purpose of Improving and Increasing the Community's Supply of Low and Moderate Income Housing Outside the Project.Area Will be of Benefit to the Project." City Action: Ordinance No. - "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Approving and Adopting the Proposed Redevelopment. Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project." ANALYSIS: In preparation for the Joint Public Hearing of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on the Proposed Beach .Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Area, each City Council Member has received a binder. These binders contain the "major documents necessary to create a redevelopment project area; the Redevelopment Plan, the Report to the City Council, the Owner Participation Rules; and the Final EIR. In addition, the binders will also include the Resolutions and Ordinance to be the subject of the Council/Agency's consideration at the conclusion of the Public Hearing and as listed in the Recommendation section above.. Each binder also contains a script foe-the conduct of the Joint Public Hearing on July 6, 1987. Staff,will provide written and oral testimony at the Public Hearing regarding the: recommended approval of the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. In addition to the contents of the binders; attached are the following: - Summary of Beach Boulevard PAC Activities, . - Beach Boulevard PAC Minority Report, - Summary of PAC Questions & Answers on the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, - Sample Replacement Housing Plan FUNDING SOURCE: Adoption of the . Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area (according to tax increment projections prepared for the proposed project area) could result in an annual tax increment flow to the Redevelopment Agency ranging from $208,000 to $42 million per year over the 35-year life of the project. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not approve the attached Resolutions and Ordinance. This will pre-empt adoption of the redevelopment project area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No's. .9M(in binders). 2. Ordinance No.,%M in binder-U. - CW T/DLB/SVK:sar 1701r SUMMARY OF BEACH BOULEVARD PAC ACTIVITIES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUN11NGTON BEACH To Stephen V. Kohler From Thomas Andrusky3o_'� Principal Redevelopment Specialist Project Manager Subject BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT Date June 24, 1987 PROJECT SUMMARY OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MEETINGS The purpose of this memo is to provide a summary of the regular meetings and other informal meetings with members of the Project Area Committee. Regular meetings were held as follows: Wednesday, December 3, 1986 Wednesday, December 10, 1986 Wednesday, January 7, 1987 Wednesday, January 28, 1987 Wednesday, February 25, 1981 Wednesday, March 11, 1987 Wednesday, March 25, 1987 Wednesday, April 22, 1987 Wednesday, June 3, 1987 Wednesday, June 17, 1987 Wednesday, June 24, 1987 - Staff is scheduled to attend and participate. Staff has met with Chairman, Vice Chairman, and other Members of PAC to respond to questions regarding the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Also each member of the PAC has been invited to the information meetings scheduled for June 18, June 23, and July 1, 1987. Below is a summary of PAC meetings showing date of meeting, staff present and topics discussed. PAC Meetings 1. Wednesday, December 3, 1986 -_7:00 p.m. to 10:15 p.m. Staff Present: Stephen Kohler Tom Andrusky Florence Webb Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel Presentation (1) Slides showing existing conditions, public improvement, and land use conditions. (2) Tom Clark reviewed process for adopting a new redevelopment project area and role and responsibility of Project Area Committee. j' iNten ''y�::y V'�t: tyRY`�i ii;k`^S. 1, �, ' �f64 :lh- ,�_�^i r -N- aY K. -ra R t ., a� }' ' - -• . r 1� 9'�- �7� CA Douglas N. La Belle-- June.Z4, 1987 Page Two - t 2. Wednesday, December 17, 1986 - 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Staff Present: Stephen Kohler Tom Andrusky Tom Clark, Special Agency Counsel . Main Activity - PAC organized. 3. Wednesday, January 7, 1987 7:10 p.m. to 10:10 p.m. Staff Present: .. _ . Stephen Kohler Tom Andrusky Al Robertson Katz, Hollis Jennifer Coile - Katz, Hollis Presentation Stephen . Kohler - History of .Beach Boulevard Project. Al Robertson reviewed major documents involved in redevelopment project. 4. Wednesday, January 18,1987 - 7:15 p.m. to 9:40 p.m_. Staff Present: , Tom Andrusky Stephen Kohler Margaret Ward Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel Celeste Brady - Special Agency Counsel Presentations: (1) Tom Clark and Celeste Brady reviewed acquisition procedures as used by Huntington Beach, eminent domain procedures, and owner participation procedures. (2) Bob Shober, Pacific Relocation Consultants reviewed Federal and State laws regarding relocation an various benefits available to persons that may be relocated. Documents Distributed: (1) Staff passed out copies of the Redevelopment Plan and requested that PAC review prior to the next meeting which would be on February 25, 1987. 5. Wednesday, February 25, 1987 Staff Present: Tom Andrusky Stephen Kohler Presentations (1) Stephen Kohler passed out owner participation rules and answered questions on the rules and on eminent domain. • a �..y L� i�.4ti it 1 1C a ,.i,..d. Y :+ i C a J. ]i t �i t} �'Zitif:,ol•�I aui�P� u��r1+,�1y67���fr S _... .. a µ k l Douglas N. La Belle June 24, 1987 , Page Three 6.' March 11, 1987 - 7:15 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Staff Present: Tom Andrusky Pat Mann - Cotton/Beland EIR Consultant Presentation Pat Mann, EIR Consultant presented schedule for EIR preparation received and answered questions on draft;EIR.` PAC voted to request $1,000 for special consultant.. 7,... March 25, 1987 - 7:15 p.m. - 10:10 p.m..._.._..H..... .... Staff Present: Doug La Belle Stephen Kohler Tom Andrusky Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel Presentation (1) Doug La Belle discussed information meetings with PAC. (2) Sherry Passmore gave presentation on redevelopment. 8. Attached is a letter dated April 16, 1987 from- Douglas N. La Belle/Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment to Jim Lane -..PAC Chairman. This letter reflects staff's continued willingness to provide needed information to all Project Area Committee Members during scheduled evening meetings or at other times that PAC Members would like to meet. 9. Wednesday, April 22, 1987 (Report on the Plan approved) Staff Present: Doug La Belle Stephen Kohler Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel Tom Andrusky Art Folger PAC approved a report which recommended that the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan be denied. 10. Wednesday, June 3, 1987 Staff Present: Stephen Kohler Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel Others: Attorney Chris Sutton 11. Wednesday, June 17, 1987 Staff Present: Stephen Kohler Tom Andrusky Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel Art Folger Minutes not available at time of writing this memo. •r,.';:;�LJ Y_. I •t` af11� SL1f '; 1, _ ` r1 `�" - . Douglas N La Page Four 10. (Continued) Staff reviewed letter proposed by PAC to send out to project area businesses, property owners, and residents. Parts of the letter requested by PAC was not acceptable. Staff did inform PAC that since words were not acceptable that City could not pay for the mailing. Summary: Staff continues to meet with PAC Members to respond to questions relative to the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. TA:sar Attachments: PAC Minutes PAC Report on Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment letter dated April 16, 1987 xc: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Development 1694r j I HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) MINUTES OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) The regular meeting of the .PAC was held on Wednesday.- June 3 , 1987, at 7:15 p.m. at the Civic Center building, the Chairperson being in the chair and the Secretary being present. The meeting began with an open discussion of the upcoming July 6 Public Hearing . Some of the things discussed were 1 ) that we form various committees; 2 ) that we still have not received the final E.I .R. ; 3 ) the PAC was denied a two week extension of time because the City felt that it would cause the City to loose a full year . Chairman Lane passed out a draft of a memorandum addressed to the City asking for approval of funds for the PAC in support thereof. He asked that we take a few minutes to review the draft memorandum. At this point, the minutes were approved with the following correction. That the comment made by Chuck Osterlund in the meeting of ,Tune 3, 1987 was out of order according to the course of the meeting. That Mr . Osterlund 's comment was not made until after voting of the Options had taken place. There was some controversy to this affect, but with approval that .the minute's be amended to show that Mr . Osterlund 's comment was made after voting of the Options . The question was asked as to "why we do not have local legal representation?" Chairman Lane responded by saying that most legal firms in this area are already representing the City's concerns . The Chair then asked special guest, Attorney Chris Sutton of the law firm of Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta' to give his presentation. Mr . Sutton began by concurring with Chairman Lane that most of the law firms in this area are reporting to the city agency concerns . But he made an offer to supply the PAC with names of other fimrs that we could look into pertaining to our legal representation. Attorney Sutton gave a brief synopsis of their firm and continued to explain what a PAC is, highlighting that the PAC has the right to its own counsel , staff and supplies. The PAC is to be a bargaining agent for property owners and businesses between the City and these owners . That blight is a Constitutional Minutes of PAC June 3, 1987 Page 2 finding to filing of eminent domain. Mr . Sutton supplied those in attendance with a copy of Article 6. 5 of the Health and Safety Code section 33385 through 33388 regarding the PAC, how it is to be formed, that it is an important part of the redevelopment plan. Attorney Sutton said that we are better off doing the work ourselves, but with a lawyer advising us . That we will need to do most of the leg work . That redevelopment can be a process that contributes in a positive way and can be a good strengthening agent. That it may not always be necessary to vote against a redevelopment plan. At the conclusion of Attorney Sutton's presentation, Chairman Lane ask that we continue with the draft memorandum. Each request was discussed as follows : 1 . Chairman Lane asked those from the City if there was any space available at City Hall in which the PAC could use to conduct its business . The answer was no. But, that they would check into it. 2 . Establish a committee to study how much of a , budget is needed and what office space would be available. Chuck Osterlund suggested that we write a notification to Council to put them on notice of a permanent funding base. Agency counsel, Tom Clark suggested that we allow Chris Sutton to establish a budget for . the committee to be submitted to the City. 3 . Attorney Sutton interjected (due to the request i-n the draft memorandum requesting $5,000 . 00 for legal representation) , that due to the length of time left that there is no way he c.an generate $5,000. 00 worth of time, but said that we should designate someone to deal with the attorney and that it would probably (due to the length of time left) be $1, 000 .00 for attorneys fees. That he will be providing us with guidance necessary for. the Public Hearing presentation. Attorney Sutton suggested that we should submit our comments in writing to the July 6 Public Hearing'. . That - this would be more effective, and receive direct responses as opposed to oral comments and/or questions. 4 . Delete item. At the conclusion of the discussion, the following was proposed: Minutes of PAC June 3, 1987 Page 3 That request number 2 be adopted . That request number 31 budget for attorneys fees not to exceed $2,500.00, .and that we are to retain the law firm of Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta as legal representation for the PAC. That request number 4 be deleted . Chuck Adkins made the motion that the proposal be sent to the City Council for approval . Discussion on the motion was; is. there a time limit? It was clarified that it would be for the July 6 Public Hearing as far as any time limit. Also that we do request office space as in accordance to item number 1 of the draft memorandum. The motion was seconded that the proposal be sent to City Council for approval; with a vote of 15 in favor of; with 0 opposed . Tom Clark stated that according to the FPPC, we are public officials . That we will have to sign disclosure statements showing whether or not we own property which might constitute one to conflict oneself out. He sited Rotman as a case in point . And that we are treated as an industry council . Mr . Paul Sarvis with Downey C.A.R.E.S . said that we have a sixty ( 60 ) day window in which to promulgate conflict of interest code, and suggested that someone be designated to write a conflict of interest code draft. The Chair calledfor a 5 minute break . The meeting reconvened, a-t 8 : 20 p,.m. with comments from Tom Livengood of the Planning; Commission. reg.a,rd•ing their recent meeting. The, Plan=n:ingi Commissio-n stated that the Redevelopment Plan , is not in: con-formlity, to- the City's plan. That the ' Planning Commission took n,o s.ta•nd! because there was not enough information provided in which. to do so. M,r . Livengood further stated that the Planning Commission listed several items of things lacking that 1) the PAC report was not included: in the package; 2 ) proper notice of the Public Hearing was not set;: 3 )- not enough sufficient amount of time given to the PAC to let the City Council know how we feel; and 4 ) that we need to form and organize some committee 's . • A list of sign-up sheets were handed out listing various subcommittee 's that could be served on. The Chair asked Dean Albright if he would head up a final E.I .R. Review Committee. Minutes of PAC June 3, 1967 Page 4 Mr . Paul Sarvis gave an overview of. the Downey C.A.R.E.S. project . He said that Los Angeles County takes a very aggressive stand on redevelopment agencies. That the thing -to remember about the Public Hearing is that we get the appropriate evidence to the City Council" before the meeting. To come up with. a well reasoned, heavily researched report for the Council to present before .the Public Hearing, because the record at the close of the Hearing is what is going to be significant at any -later date. What good is a PAC? The PAC has a very important role . Public relations and research . That we should concentrate full steam ahead on the Hearing. He stated that there are two ways to fight a Redevelopment Plan. 1 . Political fight . Such as, referendum and recall . " a. Recall is difficult to pull off as it does not work unless you have found a "guy with his hand caught in the till" . Anything else is extremely chancy, unless political . However, he did recommend a recall . 2. Referendum. This is a very viable - strategy. . A petition can be circulated for votes to force the City to put an issue on the ballot . Can have a no side vote. Not knowing which way to vote the City is prohibited from contributing to a yes campaign. Also, a lawsuit can be a " very expensive project. Of the two easier routes," the political one is what Mr . Sarvis. would recommend as the strategy we use. The Chair then reviewed the subcommittee list, and the following subcommittee's were formed: Legal Liason Council Contact Committee .E.I .R. Review Committee Flyer Committee Council" Presentation Committee Research Committee Notification Committee Kimo Jarrett highlighted the fact, that specific questions • regarding the E.I .R. were not answered. That documents material Minutes of PAC June 3, 1987 Page 5 was not received in a timely manner . That this committee was not well represented. And that nothing was mentioned as to what our thoughts are, what we are doing, and that we were done a great disservice. Chairman Lane asked that we meet for a General Meeting next Tuesday the 9th at 7 : 00 p.m. to better organize and discuss the various subcommittees. With no further business being discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10 : 20 p.m. The General Meeting called for Tuesday, the 9th did not take place due to the time criteria. Not enough time for proper . notice. The next Regular Meeting of the PAC is scheduled for WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1987 AT 7:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Elnorina I . Brackens, Secretary NTI N T N . U G ® . � �u EACH BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT �••�y''�,� `��. . PROJECT AREA OMMITTFE (PAC) M E M O R A N D U M TO: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach City Council FROM: Huntington Beach -. Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee DATE: April 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Current Status of the Proposed Huntington Beach Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project COPIES: See Distribution List On April 22, 1987, the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) voted toy the approval of the proposed Redevelopment Project for Beach Boulevard. According to the information received from Gail Hutton, City Attorney, the PAC considered the following three opitions: Option 1: Approve the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan as proposed. Option 2: Approve the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan with modifications and/or revisions. Option 3: Deny the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan as proposed. A copy of these Options is attached. The detail, points, facts and information were compiled from the many meetings, community input and information supplied to the PAC from various entities. They reflect the thinking of the entire PAC. After extensive review and discussion of the Options, the PAC voted overwhelmingly to deny the project. The results were: Option 1 : 1 - vote Option 2: 2 - votes Option 3: 18 - votes The& believes that this project is unnecessary and that there are other ways to do the req d infrastructures that will be necessary in the future. The PAC recommends that the City Council deny approval of the Huntington Beach Beach Boule- vard Redevelopment Plan. LI 0 PEACH BLVD REDFVELOPMENT PAC Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach City Council April 23, 1987 Page Two The PAC wishes to thank the Redevelopment Agency for. providing the CRA staff, legal counsel, .consultant, and information which was necessary for our study of the proposed .Huntington Beach Beach Boulevard CRA Plan. Their attendance at our meetings was most helpful in answering any of our questions and concerns regarding the proposed project. Thank you for your_ coop- eration and response to our needs. The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard PAC will be on June 3, 1987. We encourage you. to send a representative. Sincerely, ?ameane Chairperson JAL/eb Attachments (4) I • 4 OPTION 1 APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED. BENEFIT 1) The EIR Report has described portions of the project area -as exhibiting signs of blight and blighting influences including deterioration and dilapidation of structures and poorly maintained lots. This condition creates an undesirable environment for continued growth and development in the area. The project area also contains irregular or substandard lot sizes that further hamper development. Implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan would allow the Redevelopment Agency to provide improvements, consolidate parcels and incorporate thematic signage and landscaping that would create a more suitable environment to encourage private development: 2) The Plan as proposed would allow. a greater flexibility in choosing financing mechanisms to fund the project improvements. Therefore, more revenues could be made available at a faster rate to complete the goals of the Plan: 3) The Plan would promote joint partnerships between the public and Private sectors thus encouraging an environment for greater improvements and development projects. 4) This Plan could increase the community's supply of housing to include opportunities for low-and moderate-income households. 5) The Plan would eliminate certain environmental deficiencies, i.e. , water run off, as outlined in the Draft EIR Report. 6) The Plan would eliminate substandard vehicular circulation systems and other deficient public improvements, facilities and utilities adversely affecting the Project Area. 7) The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines. 8) The Plan would also encourage the provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses within the Project Area. 9) With the adoption of this Plan, faster changes in the projects land uses could be realized; creating the encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns. 10) The benefit of provisions for increased fees, taxes and revenues to the City and Redevelopment Agency. 11) Without approval of this Plan, the projects goals could be realized at a much slower rate and borrowing costs could go up to finance the proposed improvements. Negative impacts to this OPTION 1 will be discussed in OPTION. 3 in more detail. M OPTION 2 APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS The Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee approves the proposed Redevelopment Plan with the following specific modifications. (a).,,,That the. use of.eminent �domain (Section 308 of:.the. Plan) be .eliminated for residential and commercial/business properties when the reuse of the property would be for a private purpose. Any use of eminent domain for public uses such as streets, parks, public improvements would remain in the Plan. EFFECTS 1) This revision is proposed because blight can be caused by unreason- able delays between the announcement of the project and subsequent eminent domain actions. The delays may result in loss of tenants, restrictions on private financing of property sales and construction of improvements located within the proposed take area and depreciation of the market value. 2) The PAC believes that when eminent .domain is used for another's private purpose that the public interest and necessity do not require the project. Eminent domain should only be used when the project is planned or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury_ If a project area is develo ing on its own, the private property sought to be acquired is not i really necessary for the project. 3) This modification would result in the protection and retainment of private property and its related investment value for both residential and commercial owners. (b) All increased levels of property taxes shall be spent inside the Pro- ject Area until all the projects debts are paid off. EFFECTS 1) This revision is proposed to help the project area to pay off its debts at a much faster rate than is normally the practice of redevelop- ment project areas. When the debts of a project are .paid off, the property tax increments are returned to all taxing agencies who have been waiting to realize the benefits of the redevelopment project. 2) The PAC wants to assure that all future city councils will act in an expeditious manner to retire project debts. (c) The Relocation Plan shall be submitted to the PAC 30 -days before the legislative body holds the public hearing adopting or rejecting the proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (d) The relocation committee shall include members of the PAC AND SHALL BE DRAWN-UP AND PASSED FROM THE SAME CRITERIA AS THE PAC. (e) That a report be made of the evaluation of previous relocations of previous redevelopment projects as to the satisfaction of the relo- • V OPTION 2 - Continued APPROVE THE BEACH BUD, REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS catt ees be made, (Sec_ tion 6060) and given to.the Beach Blvd. PAC 30 days before the legislative body's public hearing on the proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. EFFECTS 1) In the event that future councils or the present council fails to adopt the deletion of eminent domain for residential and business properties, this change would help to protect those who have to go through the relocation process. A relocation appeals board should be established under Section 33417.5 of the Health and Safety Code. M That the completed EIR be given to the PAC for review 30 days before the legislative body's public hearing on the Beach Blvd. Redevelop- spent Plan. - 2 - r OPTION 3 DENY THE 'BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED The Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) recommends • denial of the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan for. the following reasons: (a) The Beach Blvd. PAC cannot support the Redevelopment Agency's land use goals. In Land Use Element 87-1, the Agency submitted .four proposed land use changes that. clearly outline future action and goals of the Agency. 1) The CRA staff recommended 51.3 acres be redesignated from residen- tial to commercial. (Note# The Department .of Developmental Services recommended 9.5 acres be redesignated and an additional 20.4 (area 2.7) be designated as mixed-use/commercial, medium density/resi- dential and public park). 2) The CRA staff did not seek owner participation in the; General Plan Amendment for land use changes.. . 3) In public statements the Ocean View School Board indicated that they had not been consulted in the proposed change in the use of their property. (2.5 and 2.7). In fact, the school district clearly stated that they had no intention of closing their school at' Talbert and Beach Blvd. (2.5). Their desire to continue to operate the Bus Barns on 7 acres on their school site on Beach and Warner was not included in the Agency's Land Use Proposal (2.7). 4) Chevron submitted a letter (see attached Exhibit "A")with their concerns regarding proposed land use changes 2.4 Beach and Memphis. They also indicated that they had not been consulted. 5) Throughout the public hearing process, residential and businesses impacted by the proposed land use changes complained about a lack of communication in the notification process. (b) That the project area defined by the Redevelopment Plan is neither charac- terized or predominated by any of the elements of "blight" as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 33030-33032. Nor is any substantial portion of such area so characterized or predominated. The Project Area, in fact, does not exhibit a preponderance of deteriorating structures wherein the inhabitants of the area are subjected to physical dangers or health hazards. Nor is there a preponderance of high crime in the area. (c) The Orange County Assessor's records demonstrate that the taxable valuation of property within the Project Area has experienced continued appreciation in value during the last ten years in spite of a significant change in assessment valuation procedures caused by Article XIIIA, California Constitution which causes total assessment valuations to reflect a total value of the area in question significantly less than true market values. The assessed value of the property within the Project Area, has continued to rise through private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assista* of the Redevelopment Agency. (d) That there is presently inadequate information to determine the economic 4 OPTION 3 _ Continued DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan; and the Plan could cause unreason- able amounts of public debt: (e) That most of the goals included in -the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan are merely infrastructure improvements or other public improvements that can be alleviated .through, other financing mechanisms or processes of government: The City should explore other methods of raising the financ- ing necessary to implement the public improvements and goals contained within the plan: These improvements can be financed from a combination of sources such a§ State Highway Funds; Gas Tax Revenues, 1915 assessments and other city revenues qualifying for public improvement projects. Park- ing districts could be created if there is a parking shortage. Code enforcement of the Sign Ordinance could alleviate ariy signage problems. Planned Use Developffi6fi zoning could control haphazard criteria so as to assure high standards for site design. Uniform land use patterns can be controlled through proper zoning: (See Exhibit "B"). (f) The plan would have .a significant .ecoriomic .detrimental effect on the Project Area residents and. businesses as it embraces.eminent domain for private reuse of property.: The ability of one to borrow for repairs or improvements is greatly affected when the property has the cloud of eminent domain. There can be a loss of tenants and difficulties in selling the property along with depreciation of the market value when there is an odious project proposed: (g) The Plan included areas solely for the purpose of obtaining tax-increment financing and bond issuance capabilities. .(h) The Redevelopment Plan fails to adequately describe the specific redevel- opment projects that are contemplated. (i) There is insufficient time between the completion of the downtown CRA project to measure the secondary effects such as traffic patterns and the economic factors that might spill over onto other areas deleting the need to create another CRA project: (j) That there was inadequate time and insufficient information provided for a proper analysis of the EIR Report as to the detrimental effects of this proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (See Exhibits "C" and "D"). (k) The PAC has not received any evidence that there would not be adverse detrimental "effects on other taxing agencies that serve the Project Area. (1) The PAC has received negative comments regarding the adoption of this CRA project. Area residents and businesses as well as other Huntington Beach citizens have complained. (m) The PAC has received a report of the CRA doing preliminary negotiations with project property owners. Doing this in fact will make the public hearing process a complete sham since this project is not even adopted. To be cutting deals before the fact is not acceptable to the PAC. - 2 - OPTION 3 - Continued DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED (n) This Project will result in unfair competition between existing businesses who have already improved their own property and other owners or future owners who will receive special CRA benefits and incentives to improve their business or property. 3 - Chevron EXHIBIT (A) loo Chevron U.SA. Inc. 0 P. 0. Box.606,to Habra,CA 90631 • Phone (213) 694-7570 February 10, 1987 Lend Use Mement Amendment 87-1 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Commissioner: Chevron has studied the proposal before you tonight with regards to Area 2.4 and agrees with the Huntington Beach Company that the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential should be retained. Moreover, we question the need to even consider a zoning change at this time. City staff have not, to my knowledge, approached Chevron to discuss future development possibilities, nor does Chevron have current plans to develop all or a portion of Area 2.4. A decision now to alter the status quo appears to be premature, inefficient and could unnecessarily restrain consideration of future development planning options. For these reasons, Chevron requests that the current designations on the site be maintained until a more appropriate occasion arises to fully debate the complicated issues associated with the City's Land Use Planning. Ver ly yours, O. McCamish LOM/sd cc: Mr. William D. Holman Project Representative Huntington Beach Company tAH161 l UKAF I t1K RLPORT TABLE 4 i PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT "Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Edinger Signal Coordination and Modification - . New Signals - Access Controls - Parking Restrictions - Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections .- - Intersection Widening, including New Right-Of-Way - Bus turnouts, Including Right-of-Way Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher 2,200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain. Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east sileo - one-half mile 48" wide storm drain. - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west, side) 48" and 36" wide storm drain. - Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown 2,70.0 feet of 12" line Waterline Improvements - 8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd. , complete loops and replace 6" 20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" water main, crossing .every 1/2 mile. Locations: Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, Atlanta. . 200' length per crossing. Utility Undergrounding Entire length Beach Blvd Landscaping and Streetscape - Median and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Eding Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights Recreation and Park Improvements & Historic Preservation Bartlett Park Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 16 EXHIBIT (C) April 2, 1987 TO: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency FROM: Project Area Committee - Beach Boulevard SUBJECT: Draft Environmental 4 Impact Report Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project To complete the major task of the Project Area Committee, we feel there has been insufficient time to adequately review the draft E.I.R. Report before the due date of May 14, 1987. The E.I.R. Report, itself, is inadequate and incomplete and does not contain enough information to make an adequate recommendation. We also feel that this incomplete E.I.R. Report has not been sent to all necessary affected taxing agencies. (Examples: Cal-Trans and Orange County's Fiscal Review Committee.) Due to the limited time provided, the Committee's remarks concerning the B.I.R. will address the following issues: A. Lack of Information on Existing Uses. Page 1, First Paragraph, states "Elimination of Blighting Influences currently preventing the full and effective use of the land". The Committee feels strongly that the wording needs to be changed. The statement is misleading and does not mention the tremendous amount of recycling and renovation of existing property in the proposed redevelopment area that has already occurred. The E.I.R. is to be an information document (Page XVIII) and complete information is not provided. The Executive Summary also does not provide adequate description of existing uses. B. Transportation/Circulation (3.13). The E.I.R. is inadequate in several areas concerning analysis and proposed mitigating measures for this important item. 1. No discussion concerning impact of Beach traffic during the summer months. The .proposed increased density and use will tremendously impact an existing serious traffic circulation problem. 2. No discussion concerning impact of Downtown Redevelopment Projects on Beach Boulevard and twelve major East-West arterials. Resort destinations, i.e. , hotels, tourist attractions, mean an increase in vehicle traffic trying to reach freeways. 3. There is not an adequate review of the Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Report as approved bq''Council. The impact o an use change in the project area and the elimination of the flyover at Beach/Warner, would change the impact on the mitigating measures outlined in the Super Streets Report. Two land use changes at Beach and Warner (approximately 24 acres) would generate nearly 20.000 daily trips over existing land use. encRedevelo Redevelopment Agency 8 y April 2, 1987 Page 2 There are 509: acres in the project. area.:.., Does the-Super Street Project address these major proposed changes? Volume of traffic is addressed; however, how to handle the 73% more trips in the project area is not adequately covered. Page 94, Table 23 clearly shows intersections at unacceptable.level of service at intersections in the study area. 4. The elimination of parking on Beach Boulevard with the installation of bus turnouts, widening and red curbing -is not even covered in the E.I.R. The tremendous impact on existing businesses and residential areas needs to be carefully analyzed with mitigating measures. C. Lack of Economic Analysis Within the Draft E.I.R. The P.A.C. Committee recommends the Redevelopment Agency/City Council carefully review the Committee's concerns of the draft E.I.R. and accept input from .the Environmental Board, Planning Commission, and other agencies, and not certify the E.I.R. until the concerns are adequately addressed. The Project Area Committee believes that there must be a final Public Hearing on the proposed final draft of the E.I.R. The final draft E.I.R. must be made available .prior to the Public Hearing. All public agencies, businesses, property owners and the general public must be notified of the Public Hearing and have access to the document thirty (30) days in advance of the .meeting. When the final E.I.R. Report -is sent to the Planning Commission to determine if the E.I.R. is in conformance with the General Plan, that meeting should be scheduled as a Public Hearing. On your present Calendar Schedule, July 5 is a holiday weekend and would be an inappropriate date for a meeting to be held. PAC:dc � Environmental Board EXHIBIT (D) `T CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH n � � .t �uat • PU51 Olhcc: Box 190 1-imitingion Belich, Cildo{{{{d !1•�1)•'�(i March 11, 1987 Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/ Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: At the PAC meeting of the Beach Boulevard Redevlopment Committee held on February 25, 1987 and the Environmental Board meeting held on February 26, 1987, Steve Kohler stated that the Environmental Board's responses had been incorporated into the DRAFT EIR for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment project. The Board's Adhoc Committee met on March 4, March 9, and March 10, 1987 to review the DRAFT EIR. The Committee was still unable • to find these responses as stated by Mr. Kohler. Enclosed is a copy of our response to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY, Page XIV. Would you please refer the enclosed material to the Planning Commission for their review prior to the March 24, 1987 Public Hearing on this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Dean Albright Chairman Beach Boulvevard Redevelopment Adhoc Committee DA:cmw Enclosures cc: Kent Pierce, Chairman, Planning Commission Tom Livingood, Planning Commission Tom Androusky Responses to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SURVEY Page XIV 1. Air A major concern would be stalled traffic which would contribute to a concentration of lead and pollution. (Refer to Page 26, DRAFT EIR, for comments from the AQMD. Page 35, DRAFT EIR, Is there an error with regards to 9986 co decreased to 9658 co? All other figures on this table showed an increase. 2 . Land Use No comments 3 . Traffic/Circulation The flyover at Beach and Warner was not addressed. The city recently approved the Beach. Boulevard Super Street Final Report, but denied the Warner flyover. How would this be mitigated? The DRAFT EIR -did not address the Downtown Redevelopment project nor the two-three months of Beach traffic during the summer months. These are three very serious problems. 4. Earth Ninety-Ninety-five percent site coverage would result in loss of water perculation and loss of ground water. In high areas, such as Indianapolis, west of Beach, water could collect behind a project, undermining the soil and result in slippage of earth. Areas south of Adams are most susceptible to this problem. (Example: Blue Bird Canyon in Laguna Beach is an example of development in a manner that stored water in the land mass, resulting in eventual landslides. ) 5. Surface and Ground Water The DRAFT EIR does not adequately cover impact on the Talbert Channel (DO1) . (Example: protection of area southoe t of Beach and Indianapolis that flooded in 1983 . Study's show existing proposed flood. control improvements will not solve flood control problems of existing development, let alone proposed projects. Mitigating measures must include recommendations for improving the main channels. r a 6. Noise Will mitigating measures adequately cover . existing residential and commercial property? 7. Light and Glare No comments S. Water Is the city present water supply adequate for any new development? 9. Sewer The mitigation measures do not address the realities of life with the expansion of existing treatment plants nor the building of new ones. Throughout the report the treatment plants are not addressed. 10. Storm Drains Where is the terminus of the storm drains and will this terminus be able to handle the extra water? The mitigation measures are contingent upon the upgrading of the orange County Flood Control Channels. 11. Schools No comments 12 . Risk of Upset Methane gas, underground pipelines and abandoned wells have not been addressed. ' 13 . Population No comments 14 . Housing Under California Redevelopment Law there are guidelines to protect the residents. The Redevelopment Agency needs to insure that the 180 units housing approximately 500 people are protected. 15. Parks and Recreation As stated in the Master Plan for Parks, preservation of neighborhood parks must be taken into consideration. (Example: Rancho View and Crest View) . 16. Health Hazards The proposed project is expected to generate 73% more trips within the project compared to existing conditions. The Committee feels this will create a health hazard due to the increase i'' traffic which would generate more pollutants_. into the air. 17. Fire Protection The additional traffic caused by the development will cut down on response time. SUMMARY: Flood In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project it will be necessary to upgrade the Orange County Flood Control Channels in order to receive the run-off from the storm drains, which also need to be upgraded. Sewage In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project it will be necessary to upgrade Sanitation Plant #2 in order to receive the additional affluent which will occur. • h OFFICE OF u`.;�4' CITY ATTORNEY . P.O.BOX 2740 ��tt��``t 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 (SAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attorney 1714)63e6555 April 17, 1987 TO: JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Beach Boulevard Project Area RE : Role of Project Area Committee The Project Area Committee ( "PAC" ) has asked my office to advise as to the role of the PAC in connection with the consideration of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Beach City Council . By way of introduction, Health & Safety Code Section 33385 provides, in relevant part , as follows: Sect- The legislative body of a city or county shall call upon the residents and existing community organizations in the redevelopment project area, within which a substantial number of low- and moderate-income families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project, to form a project area committee. . . . Although there are no specific plans to displace a substantial number of low- and moderate-income families, the City Council decided, in an abundance of caution, to call upon the residents and existing community organizations- .to form a PAC . PAC was formed in accordance with Health & Safety Code S 33385 and subsequently approved by the City Council . Thereafter, the Redevelopment Agency forwarded a copy of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the PAC for its review. I am advised that the PAC has now reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and seeks direction in terms of its recommendations to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. In this regard, the PAC can either ; ( 1 ) Recommend approval of the Redevelopment Plan as submitted to it by the agency, r JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE April 17, 1987 Page 2 . ( 2 ) Recommend denial of the Redevelopment Plan .as _ submitted to it- by- the agency, or ( 3 ) Recommend approval provided that the agency make specified modifications to- the Redevelopment Plan . In accordance with Health & Safety Code S 33366, (attached) these are the results of the exercise of the various options : 1 . If PAC recommends approval, council may adopt the redevelopment plan by a majority vote of the entire membership qualified to vote on the plan; 2 . If Pac recommends denial or approval of .the plan with modifications which are later rejected by the council then, in such event , the plan may still 'be adopted by a 2/3rds vote of the entire membership of the council eligible and qualified to vote on the plan . 3 . If PAC recommends approval of the plan with modification, which modifications the council incorporates in the plan, the council may adopt the plan by majority vote of the entire membership eligible and qualified to vote on such a plan. 4 . If PAC recommends approval of. the plan with modifications and the council elects to incorporate such modifications, the plan as modified must be presented to the Planning Commission for its report and recommendation . Health & Safety Code S 33363 .5 . Under any of the other circumstances where no such modifications or changes are contemplated, the agency may act on the plan as. set forth hereinabove. Should you have any further questions or comments, a representative of my office will be in attendance at your meeting of April 22, 1987. Z GAIL HUTTON City Attorney I RIB BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PAC DISTRIBUTION LIST Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee Members Sherry Passmore Huntington Beach Tomorrow Huntington Beach Flood Prevention Group Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Huntington Beach Board of Realtors Environmental Board Planning Commission Main Street Pier Redevelopment Project Huntington Beach Company Orange County Register Newspaper Huntington Beach Daily Pilot Newspaper Los Angeles Times Newspaper Ocean View School District -,, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF REDEVELOPMENT April 16, 1987 Mr. Jim Lane, Chairman Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee 637 Frankfort Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Jim, I appreciated the opportunity to meet with you on April 9 to discuss staf.f's continuing objective to assist the Project Area Committee in providing additional background information to enable the Committee to complete its report on the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. Realizing a number of individual Committee Members were unable to make one meeting of the PAC was our reason for offering to schedule I informal question and answer sessions at the convenience of individual PAC Members. We would welcome the opportunity, as previously indicated, to answer specific written questions that the Project Area Committee has or that individual members of the committee have upon receipt of those questions. Based upon our discussion of last 01ursday regarding the various alternatives available to the Project Area Committee in rrms of its action on the Proposed Beach Boulevard Plan, the City Attorney's office along with Agency Special Counsel are preparing a communication that will address the questions that we discussed and that information will be transmitted to the Project Area Committee in advance of your April 22 meeting. The written information that I indicated staff was compiling addressing the points raised at your last..meeting during the discussion process is enclosed as background information for review by the Project Area Committee Members. Staff-would be happy to answer any ,specific additional questions the PAC or individual members of the PAC may have as.a result of their review of these materials. I and the entire City staff remain available at your convenience, and the Committee's and individual members of the Committee's convenience, to share information regarding the objectives of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. Your time and effort on behalf of this important community endeavor is sincerely appreciated and again, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter with you at any time. Si ely, D N. I a Belle Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment DLB:sar Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee Members Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist Gail Hutton, City Attorney Telephone(714)536.6582 I . _IUNTINGTON, FACH BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) MINUTES OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) The regular monthly meeting of the PAC was held on Wednesday, March 25, 1987, at 7:15 p.m. at the Civic Center building, ' the Chairperson being in the chair and the Secretary being present. The minutes of. the last meeting were approved as corrected. The Chair introduced guest speaker, Mr. Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator. At the conclusion of Mr. LaBelle's talk, relating to individual and group meetings of the PAC, the Chair expressed that no special meetings shall be scheduled without prior approval from the Chair. The Chair introduced guest speaker of the evening, Sherry Passmore, Land Use .Consultant whose subject was Redevelopment and Land Use. Ms. Passmore expounded the following topics: • How redevelopment got started. in the State. • The difference between public. and private investment pertaining to blight. • Referendum bonds and debts regarding property tax increments. • The purpose of redevelopment. • How your vote for a tax increase also votes for redevelopment. • How every redevelopment project in California affects us. • The why and how of a redevelopment agency debt pay off. • How a city helps create its own blight. • The difficulties of obtaining a full loan when you live in a potential redevelopment area. • How joint venture and/or partnerships become a source of revenue for the City. • How redevelopment can sell any amount of their debt. • That new legislation may allow an agency to start redevelopment without a public hearing. • How an employee of a redevelopment agency can not promise or guarantee new relocation. The chair opened the floor for questions. Quick take and appeal: Can only contest the amount that the property is worth. Eminent domain: Can put a cloud over your property. Thereby, property could be put under a special assessment. Some property tax increases have been up to 400%. BEACH BIND K£DENELOPMENT ,* PAC Minutes of PAC March 25, 1987 Page Two Redevelopment: Means power, control and design of property.- Realtors: Are to inform perspective buyers that the area is slated for redevelopment. What can we do: Go to .public hearing - Make. our report- Recommend in favor of or against adoption of the plan - Study the law as to whether the project is a necessary redevelopment - That the Committee meet together and not individually - Find out what other redevelopment is going on in the City - That we have to be active and involved as well as educated; otherwise, we stand a chance of being ran by the State. And, seek to get an exemption from eminent domain. Tax increment: Is a tool to implement a plan for redevelopment. After various comments from Mr. Clark, he concluded that Ms. Passmore is right and that he -has no idea what the comment of the Council would be. Doug LaBelle summerized the negative and positive benefits of redevelopment and, will provide copies of the owner/participation success and agency/joint venture redevelopment projects document to the PAC. Co-chair Chuck Osterlund spoke on behalf of the school district and took excep- tion that they too are trying .to generate revenue, but has no .feeling of support and that funding from the Lottery has gone from 3% to 1% of revenue for the school. The Chair called for a 5 minute break. The Chair reconvened the meeting by asking that old business from the Agenda be completed by amendment to the By-laws that an alternate may serve as recording secretary for the- PAC. Chuck Osterlund made the motion and it was seconded .and adopted with a 2/3 majority vote that an alternate may serve as recording secretary for the PAC. Discussion regarding the response of City Administrator Charles Thompson's memorandum to the Mayor and City Council members opposing the PAC's request for special consultant was decided by the PAC that the Chair will 'respond in writing to Mr. Thompson's memorandum. Comments from the PAC with respect to the EIR draft that is due April 4, 1987 was discussed; that a. subcommittee be formed to respond to this. A motion was made by Chuck Osterlund and seconded that a subcommittee be formed. Chair- person Jim Lane asked for volunteers. The subcommittee members are: Ron Berry Jim Lane George Pearson The Chair asked for a show of hands from the Committee of those interested , in placing on the Agenda for .discussion whether the PAC will approve, recommend or reject .the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The show was ,14 to 1 in %EACH BA.VD REDEVELOPMENT PAC Minutes of PAC March_ 25, 1987 Page Three • favor of. Therefore, a motion was made by Joseph Rizzo and seconded thatthis discussion be put on the Agenda for the next regular meeting on April 22, 1987. With no further business being discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P. The next regular meeting of the PAC is scheduled_ for WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1987 at 7.00 p.m. Elnorina I: Brack"ens "Secretary ""_ i BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPKENT' PAC 4 -PAC ATTENDEES OF MARCH 25, 1987 MEETING MEMBERS AGENCY STAFF Thelma Ackerman Tom Andrusky Charles Adkins Tom Clark, Special Agency Counsel Ann Banich - Alternate Stephen Kohler Irma Benevenia Ron Berry GUEST. Elnorina Brackens Alternate Barbara Fernandez Dean Albright, Envi.-ornmental Bd. Beatrice Fernandez — Alternate Barbara Chunn, Enviornmental Bd. Ila S. Files Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Admin. Arthur Jan Ho Tom Livengood, P1'anning Commission Margie Hunt Charles Montero, :Enviornmental Bd. James Lane Sherry Passmore, ;Land Use Consultant Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate for David Dains Dorothy Pendleton, Enviornmental Bd. Chuck Osterlund Kay Seraphine, Enviornmental Bd. George Pearson Corinne Welch, Enviornmental Bd. Bill Rasmussen Frank Richmond Joseph R. Rizzo Anthony Salem Mark Spiegel i MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1987 The meeting was convened by Chairperson Lane at 7:15 p.m. with the following members, alternates, and guests in attendance: Members: Guests: Margie Hunt Corinne Welch Thelma Ackerman Dean Albright Ila S. Files - Alternate Chauncey A, Alexander Kimo Jarrett Wes Bannister - Councilman Chuck Adkins Joseph Rizzo Staff: George Pearson Jim Lane Tom Andrusky Elnorina Brackens Pat Mann - John Banich Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Chuck Osterlund Minutes: The Minutes of the February 25, 1987 meeting were reviewed. The spelling of Ila S. Files was corrected, The Minutes were approved with the spelling correction. Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report: Staff introduced Mr. Pat Mann of Cotton/Beland/Associates to discuss the Draft EIR for the Proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The schedule for EIR review process was presented by the consultant. It was stated that the PAC could provide written comments to be included in the Final EIR. The comment period on the Draft EIR closes April 4, 1987, Comments were received from the Environmental Board Members Dean Albright and Corinne Welch, Also comments were received from Chauncey Alexander regarding floor control issues. PAC also discussed various issues relative to the EIR. Pat Mann, EIR Consultant, took notes in the various comments and questions raised. Staff did clarify that their written comments and responses would be included in the Final EIR along with other written responses received. Action to Amend By-Laws (Requires two-thirds (2/3) vote): This item was deferred until the Wednesday, March 25, 1987 meeting due to the lack of two-thirds of total membership present. Resignation of Ledy Ying and Replacement: The resignation of Ledy Ying was accepted. A replacement will be discussed at the next meeting. MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING • MARCH 11, 1987 Request for Special Counsel: The PAC discussed the matter of hiring special counsel.. The PAC approved a motion to request the City Council for $1,000 to hire a Special Redevelopment Consultant Sherry Passmore. Chairman Lane agreed to prepare a letter and submit it to City Council. Also the PAC passed a motion to request the City Attorney's office to respond to the same questions to be.presented to the Special Consultant. The group agreed to formulate questions to be presented to the Special Consultant and to. the City Attorney's office. Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m. The next regular adjourned meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, March 25, 1987. Secretary TA:sar 1174r MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING FEBRUARY 25, 1987 The meeting was convened by Chairperson Lane at 7:15 p.m. with the following members, alternates, and guests in attendance: Members: Guests: Thelma Ackerman Corinne Welch Arthur Jan Ho Dean Albright Barbara Fernandez Carolyn H. Hunt Margie Hunt Byong Chung Ila S. Files Alternate Clarence Luis Irma Benevenia James Provo Chuck Adkins Ron Berry - Alternate Staff: Dave Dains Mark Spiegel Tom Andrusky Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate Stephen V. Kohler James A. Lane Elnorina Brackens Kimo Jarrett George Pearson �. The PAC discussed an amendment to the By-Laws to permit alternates to serve as Corresponding Secretary. After referring to the requirements of the By-Laws it was acknowledged that a seven (7) day Notice to the PAC Members was required to make amendments to the By-Laws. Staff and PAC unanimously passed a motion requesting that such amendment be noticed and presented on the PAC's next Agenda. On a motion made by Adkins, seconded by Benevenia the PAC approved the Minutes with an amendment to clarify that the action of the PAC at its previous meeting regarding the service of Alternates as Corresponding Secretary was intended to be a direction for the preparation of such an amendment to the By-Laws and presentation of it to the PAC with appropriate notice. The Redevelopment staff presented the Owner Participation and Preference Rules. Staff then responded to questions on the Owner Participation Rules, Eminent Domain, and other topics of interest to the PAC Members. The Project Area Committee took a short break. When the PAC re-convened the Redevelopment Agency staff reviewed the importance of the Owner Participation Rules. The PAC determined to dispense with the staff presentation on the Redevelopment Plan for Beach Boulevard and go.directly to questions and answers. The PAC established that it will meet twice in the month of March on the I Ith and 25th. Under public comments, Dean Albright of the Environmental Board addressed the PAC and expressed the Board's concern of "over commercialization" in some areas of the City. He also requested clarification as to whether or not the Environmental Board's review of MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING • FEBRUARY 259 1987 the Initial Study for the Beach Boulevard EIR had been incorporated in the document. The PAC requested copies of the Environmental Board's comments on the Initial Study. The PAC requested that as an Agenda item at its next meeting there be an item concerning hiring of a Special Counsel to the PAC. The Project Area Committee adjourned at 10:00 p.m. to March 11, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Huntington Beach Civic Center. Secretary SVK:sar 1098r . t MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1987 The meeting was called to order by Chairman Lane at 7:15 p.m. with the following members in attendance: Members: Guests: Barbara Fernandez Dean Albright Elnorina Brackens Corinne Welch Charles Osterlund Councilwoman Grace Winchell Bill Rasmussen Margie Hunt Staff: Thelma Ackerman Ida Files _ Alternate Tom Andrusky John Banich Stephen V. Kohler Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate Margaret Ward Charles Adkins Tom Clark, Special Agency Counsel Irma Benevenia Celeste Brady, Special Agency Counsel Ron Berry - Alternate Robet Shober, Pacific Relocation George Pearson Kimo Jarrett David Dains Frank Richmond Joseph Rizzo Mark Spiegel After the introduction of staff and guests, the Chair .requested that the PAC Members hold comments and questions regarding personal situations until after staff presentations had occurred. He hoped that this would contribute to the smooth flow of the meetings and would help achieve the PAC's target adjournment time of 9:30 p.m. Torn Clark reviewed the acquisition procedures as they have been used in Huntington Beach and emphasized that the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach has used eminent domain in very selected circumstances. To date, these specifically concerned "small" encyclopedia lots in the Warner-Goldenwest Redevelopment Project Area where the owners of record could not be located and to secure clear title to the beach south of the pier. He also stressed the Agency's emphasis on willing seller/willing buyer negotiations and the success of these without the use of eminent domain. He then reviewed, along with the assistance of Celeste Brady, the legal steps in any eminent domain proceeding. Both Mr. Clark and Ms. Brady responded to questions of the PAC Members regarding eminent domain. Mr. Clark also reviewed the opportunities for owners to become participants in projects. It was agreed that owner participation and preference rules would be a subject of discussion at the PAC's next meeting. The Project Area Committee adjourned for a break and reconvened at 8:45 p.m. The Chair introduced Robert. Shober of Pacific Relocation to discuss relocation procedures and benef its. i MINUTES i. BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 1987 Mr. Shober explained the existence of- federal and state regulations and that the regulations which apply in any given case is determined by the source of funds used to make the relocation payments. He mentioned that a consultant is used to assist the Redevelopment Agency in relocation because it provides greater objectivity, laws regarding relocation often change, and as an assistance to staff. He reviewed the types of services which a relocation consultant provides and stressed that residential owners and tenants as well as businesses are eligible for unique types of benefits. He responded to a variety of questions from the PAC regarding relocation procedures and benefits. Dean Albright, of the City's .Environmental Board, provided comments on the pending amendments to the City's General .Plan Land Use Element. It was agreed that Elnorina Brackens will serve as an alternate in the "Business" category and a motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved to this.affect. There was-a motion to amend the By-Laws to permit alternates to serve as Corresponding Secretary.. Staff will prepare the necessary changes and provide the necessary notice for this amendment to the By-Laws. It was also agreed that Mrs. Banich would resign from the Project Area Committee. There were two members of this family serving as representatives on the'-PAC and this was in violation of the approved By-Laws. Staff distributed copies of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan and requested that the PAC Members review the document prior to the PAC's next meeting. The Project Area Committee adjourned at 9:40 p.m. to its next regular meeting of February 25, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center. Secretary SVK:sar 0967r I MINUTES i BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING !' JANUARY 7, 1987 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson. Lane at 7:10 p.m. Mr.-Lane called the role of the Project Area Committee and determined those PAC Members who were present are as follows: Ric be Jeanie Russell Elnorina Brackens Joseph Rizzo Margie Hunt Ledy Ying Bill Rasmussen Ron Berry - Alternate Thelma Ackerman George Pearson John Banich Arthur Jan Ho Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate Kimo Jarrett Mark Spiegel Irma Benevenia David L. Dains Frank Richmond Ila Files - Alternate Erdem Denktas Barbara Fernandez Allan A. Robertson Jennifer N. M. Coile The Minutes of December 2 and 17, 1986 were approved as written. The Chair requested staff to commence the presentation and Mr. Kohler, of the Redevelopment Agency Staff, reviewed the history of the Beach Boulevard Project Area effort. He discussed the preparation and adoption of the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program in 1981 and 1982. He presented a map depicting the five (S) current Redevelopment Project Areas within the City of Huntington Beach and discussed the highlights of development within each. Mr. Al Robertson and Jennifer Coile, of Katz, Hollis, Coren, reviewed the major documents which will be produced to accomplish the adoption of a Redevelopment Project Area. These included those to be reviewed by the PAC: The Redevelopment Plan. The Environmental Impact Report. The Owner Participation Rules. Mr. Robertson also discussed the schedule of presentation of these documents to the Project Area Committee. He emphasized that the formal review of documents by the PAC would commence with distribution of the Redevelopment Plan, tentatively scheduled for the PAC's meeting of January 28, 1987, and conclude with the approval of the Project Area Committee Report to the City Council which should be.accomplished by the PAC's April meeting. Following the presentation staff and the consultants addressed questions of the Project Area Committee Members. The PAC Members requested copies of the City's General Plan be distributed and requested that Agency Council be available at its next meeting to discuss eminent domain. M{NUTES 1 BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING JANUARY 7, 1987 The PAC then discussed the Draft By-Laws which 'were- distributed with the Agenda packet. . The PAC approved the By-Laws by a Minute action with changes (see corrected. copy attached). The motion was made by Mark Spiegel and seconded by Pearson to. request the City Council to provide independent legal council for the PAC. After further .discussion this motion was withdrawn. The PAC discussed limiting the number of alternates which might be appointed, and also that Elmorina Brackens, who has been appointed in the "Residential Tenant" category does not live within the Project Area. PAC agreed to consider these issues again.at its next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to January 28, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Secretary SVK:sar 0831r r MINUTES PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Wednesday, December 3, 1986 - 7 p.m. Meeting was called to order by Stephen V. Kohler of the Agency staff with the following agency staff members in attendance: 1. Stephen V. Kohler 2. Tom Andrusky 3. Florence Webb 4. Margaret Ward 5. Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel The meeting was conducted in the City Council Chambers and staff provided a presentation of slides depicting existing public improvement and land use conditions within the proposed project area. Special agency counsel reviewed the process for adopting a new redevelopment project area and the role and responsibility of a project area committee. Agency staff responded to a number of questions from the audience regarding the history of the redevelopment effort for the Beach Boulevard corridor and on the role of a project area committee in the formulation of a redevelopment plan. It was the consensus of those present that formal action on the organization of a Beach Boulevard project area committee would be postponed until Wednesday, December 17, 1986. However, approximately 17 volunteers expressed their interest in serving on the project area committee (see list attached). This group adjourned to an adjoining room and appointed themselves as an "interim project area committee". Determining the interest of those volunteering to serve on the PAC, staff suggested that the composition of these volunteers was approximately representative of the current mix of land uses within the project area. The consensus of the interim PAC was to appoint Mr. Chuck Osterlund (representing the Ocean View School District) as an interim chair person. It was requested that staff prepare press release relating the first organizational meeting of the Beach Boulevard PAC and announcing its next meeting of December 17, 1986. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. SVK/mhg 0700r r MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 1986 7:00 P.M., LOWER LEVEL, B-8 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER The meeting was called to order by the interim chairperson Chuck Osterlund at 7:10 P.1\1. Mr. Osterlund reviewed the schedule for the project area adoption, stated that an interim Project Area Committee was established on December 3, 1986, reviewed the categories of representation and the suggested percentage of positions for each category, and recommended that the PAC consider establishing its maximum membership:at twenty-five persons. The interim chair went on to state .that the objective of tonight's meeting was to constitute a Project Area Committee and elect its officers. Staff reviewed the history of the Beach Boulevard redevelopment effort as well as the need for a PAC. Special Agency Counsel, Tom Clark, reviewed the Health and Safety Code requirements for a PAC and the requirement that a PAC.be representative of the residents, businesspersons, and community organizations. Applications for membership for the PAC were distributed to all those present. Everyone was requested to state on the application the category of representation for which they would apply. . On a motion by Kimo Jarrett, seconded by Mr. Pierson, the following composition of the PAC was suggested: (1) residential owner 7, tenant 1 8 (2) businesspersons - 12 (3) community organizations - 1 TOTAL MEMBERSHIP: 21 The motion carried by all ayes, except one no vote. . It was suggested that the candidates present divide into two groups; one representing residential interests, and one representing business interests, and through these independent caucuses the members representing each group be determined as nominees to the full Project Area Committee. At the conclusion of this caucus, a spokesperson for both residential interests and business interests, read into the record the names of the nominees and alternates from each group. On a motion by Frank Richmond, seconded by Elnorina Brackens, the nor-ninees and alternates were appointed by the Project area Committee by a unanimous vote of those present (see roster attached). On a motion by .Mr. Osterlund, seconded by :Mr. Richmond, the Project area Committee unanimously voted to adopt Roberts Rules of Order as their operating procedure, with exceptions to be determined by bylaws of the Project area Committee to be subsequently adopted. On a motion by Osterlund, seconded by Banich, the PAC unanimously voted to establish the offices of a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and a corresponding secretary. BEACH BOULEVARD.PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1986 Page Two In response to the call for volunteers for the officer positions on the PAC, Jim Lane and Charles Osterlund placed their names in nomination for chairperson and each made a statement of his qualifications. The two candidates for chairperson left the room and the remainder of the PAC determined that each would be assumed to abstain from the vote for chair, and determined that the nominee receiving the second highest number of votes would assume the vice-chair position. With these parameters established,. nine members of the PAC voted for Mr. Lane, and seven members voted for Mr Osterlund as chairperson. Both candidates returned to the room. and the results of the election for chairperson were announced. Chair and vice-chair assumed the seats of office and requested a volunteer to serve in the office of corresponding secretary. Elnorina Brackens was the sole volunteer and was selected by acclimation of her peers. The PAC also determined that alternates were welcome to attend all meetings of the PAC, however, alternates were eligible to . vote only- when their corresponding representative was not present. It was also determined that alternates would fill seats vacated through resignation. The PAC's next :meeting was.established for Wednesday, January 7, 1987, at 7:00 P.M., in the Huntington Beach Civic Center. A motion to adjourn was made at 9:00 p.m. 2974h A • I BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MINORITY REPORT • • 2050 South Bundy Drive • Suite 225 • Los Angeles California • 90025 11 U. Ci°F I96j TyC Np�N CUNC/< O/ eFgC June 15, 1987 The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Proposed Beach Boulevard . Redevelopment Plana Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed herewith is the original and seven copies of a • report submitted by certain members of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area Committee ("PAC" ) . The report disagrees with the approach taken by the majority of the PAC (as outlined in the document entitled "Option 3--Deny the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan as Proposed" , a. copy of which . is attached to the minority report) ; the report recommends that the Redevelopment Plan be approved by the City Council, although certain concerns are noted. While we believe that the report is self-explanatory, one or more of its signatories intend to be present at the hearing. on July 6 to answer any geustions , you may have. In the meantime, please feel free to contact any of the signatories . S c rely yo , ark A. Sp' egel MAS: nbc Enclosures cc : Ronald A. Berry w/o enclosure William C. Rasmussen w/o enclosure Thomas Andrusky w/ enclosure James A. Lane, Chmn. , Project Area Comm. , w/ enclosure 0152-92 HUNTINGTON BEACH/BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MINORITY REPORT - We understand understand the report of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) opposes the concept of redevelopment and, thus, .recommends that the City Council deny the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan as proposed; no attempt was made to suggest modifications to the Plan. This report is being submitted by the members of the PAC who believe that the concepts incorporated into the Redevelopment Plan should be implemented by the City Council with some reservations, cautions, and/or modifications. We believe that the report is based on an emotional hostility to the concept of redevelopment or a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Redevelopment Plan. The City of Huntington Beach has already instituted a number of redevelopment plans covering other areas and has implemented a number of projects pursuant to those plans . The concept of redevelopment, therefore, should be judged by the City Council based upon that specific, objective experience rather than fears of _what might theoretically happen. The benefits of redevelopment--facilitating improved land uses and. development through being able to afford better infrastructure and providing increased coordination within a project area--overcomes any. fears of redevelopment, assuming such redevelopment is implemented in a responsible, cautious manner . The actions taken by the majority of the PAC--including. the retention of a "consultant" who demonstrated a hostility. to the concept of redevelopment, as such is instituted under the . existing California law, and a failure even to attempt to review the details of the Plan--result from either a general problem with other actions taken by the administrative bodies of the City, an improper understanding of the concept of redevelopment. .and/or the specific Redevelopment Plan, or fears of certain actions which may or may not be taken. Some of these objections are outlined in the document entitled "Option 3--Deny the Beach Blvd . Redevelopment Plan as Proposed" and are summarized and discussed as follows : 1. There appears to be a fear that the City has already decided that it intends to use the redevelopment process to effect certain specific projects over the objections of, or without soliciting the views of, the public. (see item (h) of "Option 311 ) This ' appears to be a misinterpretation of the Plan. The Plan, as we understand it, merely sets forth a procedure for accomplishing planning and the facilitation of development in the future and does not constitute a. specific set of land use patterns and developments. 2 . Actions which may have been taken by the various bodies within the City--the Planning Commission, City Council, etc . --may or may not be pleasing to the citizens of Huntington Beach but are not relevant to the consideration of whether the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan should be implemented. Whether the administration of the City is in trustworthy hands appears . to be a political question which is not germane to the topic under consideration. 3 . The majority believes that development along Beach Boulevard within the project area will continue to occur even without the assistance offered by a Redevelopment Plan. Some construction is under way along the Beach Boulevard corridor . However, we believe that further projects which would be beneficial to the City as a whole may not occur in the future without the assistance of a Redevelopment Plan. It is the belief of the undersigned that a number of problems exist along Beach Boulevard which inhibit the highest and best development; traffic problems, incompatible land uses, lack of infrastructure (sewers, etc . ) are some obvious problems . The Redevelopment Plan--and the retention of tax increment funds which would be available through the implementation of the Redevelopment Plan--offer an opportunity to accelerate • redevelopment by reducing those inhibitions and to ensure that the development occurs in a way which has the maximum positive impact upon the City of Huntington Beach and its residential and commercial population. 4 . There is a fear that either the City will incur additional debt which cannot be serviced by tax increment financing or that it has not assessed the consequences of the actions taken if the Redevelopment Plan is implemented. (see item (d) of "Option 311 ) Again, this prejudges the actions of the City in implementing the 'Plan and does not go to the merits of whether the Plan, however implemented, is meritorious . Apparently, the majority misconstrue the Plan as a blueprint for specific land uses, developments, financing, etc . . There is nothing in the Plan that mandates any particular action. We believe that the City, over the life of the Plan, is capable of competently administering its provisions to avoid the assumption of debt beyond the City' s capacity to service it or the approval of and assistance to projects which are economically or socially undesirable or infeasable. 0174-2 5 . There appears to be a tremendous fear of eminent domain. Many PAC members have expressed an expectation that their land and/or businesses will immediately .be .taken for large developments.. This fear appears to be genuinely felt. However, it appears to be .a relatively infrequent occurence that eminent domain would actually be required; we have been informed that no action is currently contemplated or immediately foreseen by the Redevelopment Agency staff which would result in eminent domain being applied to any existing landowner. The fear of eminent domain is understandable and inevitable. However, three points should be made:. a . Eminent domain is.. already available to the City for other public uses and is not a new concept which would be incorporated into the City -for the first time through ,a redevelopment plan.- b. Eminent domain requires a payment of full compensation for the property taken, together with relocation allowances, etc. to make the affected landowner/resident/business as economically whole as possible. (although, obviously, compensation may not be available for emotional or sentimental loss or may not comply with unreasonable expectations of • value) ; c. Eminent domain may be the only way to remove impediments to development which might result from excessive greed or malicious intent by an existing landowner who wishes to blackmail adjoining landowners or otherwise thwart development which would be very much to the public good_ by every objective standard. i In short, eminent domain is a necessary evil which we would recommend be used only in the most extreme circumstances for public good and only rarely for private projects . The problems which members of the PAC have with the Administration of the City already should not go unnoticed . If the City is not doing its job, all aspects of the City administration should be reviewed . However , we do not believe that this is a reason to deny existing or future administrations of the City an opportunity to assist development and-correct problems through the Redevelopment Plan. The Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan provides a set of 0174-3 tools for the City to facilitate the upgrading of Beach Boulevard in a relatively expeditious and coordinated manner . The ability to retain tax increment funds to be used for street and other public improvements and other infrastructure is particularly attractive. Unquestionably, Beach Boulevard has developed over a long period of time into an uncoordinated street which has ' many traffic, utility, . and other public works crying to be improved . Private uses along the boulevard are in some instances incompatible and in other instances_ constitute "economic or physical blight" within the meaning of the California law. We leave to the . best judgement of the City Council the extent of such improvements or blight. The- goals of the Redevelopment,.Plan--to improve the infrastructure and encourage public and private development through cooperation, improve the supply of low-income housing, etc .--are meritorious; while other. avenues might be available to address some of these goals, those avenues are .not.. otherwise fully available or available in a coherent pattern. The opportunity of the City to facilitate private development -by offering financial and other assistance would also serve ; to.. continue development which is socially desirable but- . economically marginal in times of high interest-.,rates or other inhibitions to-development. Even though the Plan, as .drafted, appears to address all - of the major problems, we believe that certain areas require specific attention in either its original adoption-or in its eventual implementation: 1. We believe that to the extent possible the money raised by the Redevelopment Agency--from tax increment financing or otherwise--be kept within: -the. project area itself and not be dissipated through other parts of the City. There was' a fear raised by some members of the Majority that the tax increment created along Beach - Boulevard through the implementation of the Plan might be siphoned off to support- projects elsewhere in the City. While we have been advised that this. would not be lawful , we believe special attention should be paid to ensure that this does not in fact occur . 2 . The power of eminent domain should be used only when absolutely necessary to accomplish clear public purposes . Eminent domain for the assistance of private projects should be used only when .absolutely_ 'necessary for public purposes or to :remove a bad faith impediment to a development which is clearly directed at the 0174-4 public interest, and not merely to facilitate private gain. Specific rules should be adopted as soon as = possible for the payment of fair compensation and appropriate relocation allowances . Consideration should -also be given to a commitment by the .City to- .pay for attorneys' fees to people affected by eminent domain who, in good. faith, believe that the ,.price being offered for their property is inadequate (particularly, if a court ultimately determines such a position is correct) . This would provide a "level playing field in the event that. the private parties wish to challenge the amount -of compensation the City offers but feel they cannot afford the cost of such a challenge. 3 . Specific procedures should be adopted for independent evaluation--economic, social, environmental, . etc.--of , each proposed project. Specifically.- independent review should be made of any debts to be incurred' by the City or Redevelopment Agency to make sure that such debts can, in fact., be repaid expeditiously. . We believe that the City Council by now has sufficient experience with the concept of redevelopment and redevelopment plans to assess whether general- objections to- the -concept" of redevelopment- are meritorious . We do not believe that anything . . has been raised in the consideration of "the- Plan by the PAC which is unique to this particular Beach Boulevard project. . If the City Council feels that the objections raised by the Majority report are valid, they should re-examine the validity of other redevelopment plans within the City of Huntington Beach. If, however, the City Council believes that the other redevelopment areas are being administered competently and achieving a public benefit, we believe that the Plan ,put forward for the Beach Boulevard area should be implemented as well, with the specific concerns raised above kept mind. Ronald A. Berry i liam C. Rasm ssen Ma_ k A. S iege V 0174-5 OPTION 3 DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED The Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) recommends denial of the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons: (a) The Beach Blvd. PAC cannot support the Redevelopment Agency's land use goals. In Land Use Element 87-1, the Agency submitted four proposed land use changes that clearly outline future action and goals of the Agency. 1) The CRA staff recommended 51.3 acres be redesignated from residen- tial to commercial. (Note* The Department of Developmental Services recommended 9.5 acres be redesignated and an additional 20.4 (area 2.7) be designated as mixed-use/commercial, medium density/resi- dential and public park). 2) The CRA staff did not seek owner participation in the General Plan Amendment for land use changes. 3) In public statements the Ocean View School Board indicated that they had not been consulted in the proposed change in the use of their property. (2.5 and 2.7). In fact,. the school district clearly stated that they had no intention of closing their school at Talbert and Beach Blvd. (2.5). Their desire to continue to operate the Bus Barns on 7 acres on their school site on Beach and Warner was not included in the Agency's Land Use Proposal (2.7). 4) Chevron submitted a letter (see attached Exhibit "A") with their concerns regarding proposed land use changes 2.4 Beach and Memphis. - They also indicated that they had not been consulted. 5) Throughout the public hearing process, residential and businesses impacted by the proposed land use changes complained about a lack of communication in the notification process. (b) That the project area defined by the Redevelopment Plan is neither charac- terized or predominated by any of the elements .of "blight" as set forth in Health and Safety Code Sections 33030-33032. Nor is any substantial portion of such area so characterized or predominated. The Project Area, in fact, does not exhibit a preponderance of deteriorating structures wherein the inhabitants of the area are subjected to physical dangers or health hazards. Nor is there a preponderance of high crime in the area. (c) The Orange County Assessor's records demonstrate that the taxable valuation of property within the Project Area has experienced continued appreciation in value during the last ten years in spite of a significant change in assessment valuation procedures caused by Article XIIIA, California Constitution which causes total assessment valuations to reflect a total value of the area in question significantly less than true market values. The assessed value of the property within the Project Area has continued to rise through private .enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. (d) That there is presently inadequate information to determine the economic UYYIUN 3 - Continued • ' .DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Plan could cause unreason- able amounts of public debt. a (e) That most of the goals included in the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan are merely infrastructure improvements or other public improvements that can be alleviated through other financing mechanisms or processes of government. The City should explore other methods of raising the financ- ing necessary to implement the public improvements and goals contained within the plan. These improvements can be financed from a combination of sources such as State Highway Funds, Gas Tax Revenues, 1915 assessments and other city revenues qualifying for public improvement projects. Park- ing districts could be created if there is a parking shortage. Code enforcement of the Sign Ordinance could alleviate .any signage problems. Planned Use Development zoning could .control haphazard criteria so as I to assure high standards for site design. Uniform land use patterns can be controlled through proper zoning. (See Exhibit "B"). (f) The plan would have a significant economic detrimental effect on the Project Area residents and businesses as it embraces eminent domain for private reuse of property. The ability of one to borrow for repairs or improvements is greatly affected when the property has the cloud of eminent domain. There can be'a loss of tenants and difficulties in selling the property along with depreciation of the market value when there is an odious project proposed. (g) The Plan included areas solely for the purpose of obtaining tax-increment financing and bond issuance capabilities. (h) The Redevelopment Plan -fails to adequately describe the specific redevel- opment projects that are contemplated. (i) There is insufficient time between the completion of the downtown CRA project to measure the secondary effects such as traffic patterns and the economic factors that might spill over onto other areas deleting the need to create another CRA project. (j) That there was inadequate time and insufficient information provided for a proper analysis of the EIR Report as to the detrimental effects of this proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (See Exhibits "C" and "D"). . (k) The PAC has not received any evidence that there would not be adverse detrimental effects on other taxing agencies that serve the Project Area. (1) The PAC has received negative comments regarding the adoption of this CRA project. Area residents and businesses as well as other Huntington Beach citizens have complained. (m) The. PAC has received a report of the CRA doing preliminary negotiations with project property owners. Doing this in fact will make the public hearing process a complete sham since this project is not even adopted. To be cutting deals before the fact is not acceptable to the PAC. - 2 - OPTION 3 - Continued DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED (n) This Project will result in unfair competition between existing businesses who have already improved their own property and other owners or future owners who will receive special CRA benefits and incentives to improve their business or property. - 3 - SUMMARY OF PAC QUESTIONS & ANSWERS ON PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT • QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT June 24, 1987 (1) Q How will eminent domain in the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan? A The Plan authorizes the use of Eminent Domain within the project area. It does not authorize as the PAC has alleged the "Agency to condemn private property and re-sell it (usually at a lower price) to private developers." The Eminent Domain Law of the State of California authorizes a redevelopment agency which has enabled itself to exercise the power of Eminent Domain through a Redevelopment Plan to condemn property for redevelopment purposes. It should be noted that Redevelopment has been declared a public purpose by the State of California and the Constitution of the State provides substantial protections for owners whose property is acquired. It is emphasized that we view the use of eminent domain ONLY as a last resort - after exhausting all possibilities for a negotiated settlement. Any use of eminent domain requires a public hearing on a parcel-by-parcel basis and a super majority vote of the Agency on a resolution stating the public necessity for and declaring the public benefits of its use. Beyond these regulatory controls, of course, any property owner has the recourse of the courts. (2) Q What is the potential for displacement of dwellings? • A Possible Displacement of Dwellings The Report to the City Council provides the following information on possible residential displacement: There are an estimated 74 single family residential dwelling units and 101 dwelling units in multi-family structures within the Project Area. The Project Area's resident population is estimated at between 385 and 483 persons. Most of the existing dwelling units are non-conforming uses, thus over the.357year life of the Project some may be phased out. Some displacement may occur as a direct result of Agency activities. Most will occur through the efforts of the private sector as new uses are developed. Any displacement which occurs as a result of Agency redevelopment activities will be mitigated by the relocation assistance including financial payments, advisory assistance, and replacement housing requirements of state law. These provisions are further described in Part IV of the Report to City Council. The Redevelopment Plan also provides for funding of low and moderate income housing through the required 20% of tax increment which must be set-a-side of such purposes. Projections indicate that in the proposed plan this could amount to $41 million. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT June 24, 1987 Page Two (3) Q Is the County required to stamp each deed for each property transferred in the area with a warning that the property is in the project area? A The County is not required to stamp each deed. (4) Q Is the City Building Department required to notify building permit applicants regarding redevelopment status? A Health and Safety Code Section 33374 provides that for a period of two years after adoption of a redevelopment plan all applicants for building permits within a project area must be advised by the building department that the property for which a building permit is.sought is within a redevelopment project area. This is simply a disclosure requirement to keep property owners informed. It has the coincidental benefit to property owners of providing them the opportunity to learn how they may participate and benefit from the redevelopment.program. (5) Q Does the Plan divert millions.from our school districts? A The Plan does not divert funding from schools. The State of California is required to reimburse the school districts for any tax losses as a result of the adoption of redevelopment plan. Moreover, we have reached agreement with the staff of each of the three school districts whose district boundaries are within the project area pursuant to which we have agreed to provide them with nine percent (9%) of the total tax increment collected within the project area. The bottom line is that the school district will receive more after the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan than before the Plan is adopted. (6) Q Does the Plan divert general funds from public works projects, police and fire? A The 'main purpose of this Redevelopment Plan is to provide a financing mechanism which would eliminate the conditions-of blight on Beach Boulevard through the construction of major, public . improvements which, but for redevelopment, the City would .not have the financial capability to construct. With respect to the burden on the City's general fund based on the current tax increment.projections the City would for approximately 80-85 Million Dollar ($80,000,000) of general fund revenue in return for which the projections indicate over Ninety Million Dollars ($90,000,000) in additional 'sales tax over the life of the project. A net gain of .$5 Million ($5,000,000). QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT June 24, 1987 Page Three (7) Q Was the Project Area Committee elected by the 1,100 business owners, 380 property owners or approximately 400 residents? A No. The Project Area Committee was not elected by all the business owners, property owners or residents in the proposed development area. The Project Area Committee was formed by requesting volunteers from residents, property owners, business owners, and community organizations within the proposed Beach Boulevard Project Area. From those that volunteered (approximately 30) the current 21 Members were elected by a majority of those present at the time of election in December, 1986. Therefore, the Project Area Committee was not elected by all the property owners and business owners in the Project Area. (8) Q What public improvement projects are proposed to be financed by the plan? A Traffic circulation improvement items, including traffic signals, selected intersection widening, bus turnouts and parking improvements. Also involved are storm drains, sewer projects, water line improvements, undergrounding of utilities, street scape and landscaping. (9) Q Will the Plan create excessive debt by obligating the Redevelopment Agency to sell tax increment bonds? A A bond issue is simply a mechanism by which certain improvements may be financed if the tax increment generation is sufficient to support them. However, there has been no bond issue proposed at all. A plan for a redevelopment area must contain specific statements indicating what improvements will be done as a matter of the project implementation. In this sense, we must try to look ahead 35 years, which is the maximum extent of the life of the project area, to try to determine what could and might happen and how to address these matters. Further, the Report to the City Council includes an analysis of how a bond issue to finance improvements could work. However, the Plan does not constitute any commitment to sell bonds, Any such bond sale would be subject to subsequent City Council/Agency approval. (10) Q How does the Plan address improvement of traffic circulation? A One major goal of the Plan is to improve traffic circulation by proper planning and funding for needed improvements. This project follows the studies made on the Beach Boulevard Corridor and Super Streets Program and envisions improving traffic via restrictions on parking, development of bus turnouts, rechannelization, and the development of a modern computerized signal system. It also envisions improvements of turning radii at various intersections and the consolidation of driveways. It also includes the underground of utilities for aesthetic improvements and the improvement of signage and other matters which all could greatly improve traffic conditions on Beach Boulevard. Also, we are attempting to develop other relief such as the Gothard/Hoover connection, and in addition we are studying possibilities for improvements to Newland Street. , QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS OF THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT June 24, 1987 Page Four (11) Q What are the land use policies for the Plan? A The land use policies of the Plan are the goals as set forth by the City's General Plan, zoning and building codes, and as they may be amended over the life of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. The Redevelopment Plan does not propose changes to the General Plan, zoning or building codes. (12) Q Does the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project comply with existing State Laws regarding blight? A. Yes, the Plan does-comply with State Laws regarding blight. The facts to back up the findings of blight can be found in Report to the City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for. the Huntington Beach ---Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, May 1987. (13) Q Is there adequate information regarding the financial and economic feasibility of the project? A The financial and economic feasibility of the Plan has been determined to be sound. Details of the Plan can be found in the Report to the Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard and Redevelopment Project, May 1987 and the Supplement to the Report. (14) Q Are there property owners, business owners, and residents that have. expressed support for the Plan? A Yes, supportive written and oral comments have been received. Letters are on record from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce and others in support of the proposed project. 1709r i • SAMPLE REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN FOR THE' MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Prepared by: The City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency May, 1987 ATTACHMENT TO BEACH BOULEVARD REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION (RH-87-53) Pursuant to a request to City Council, attached is a sample Replacement Housing Plan for the Main Pier Redevelopment Project Area. It is important to note that this is a draft of a Replacement Housing .Plan which has yet to undergo complete administrative review or City Council approval. However, it does illustrate the basic content required in a replacement housing plan (i.e. an estimate of the number of lower or moderate income housing units which may be lost and a determination of how these will be replaced by the Redevelopment Agency). If the Project Area for.the Beach Boulevard Corridor is adopted, State Law requires that before any low or moderate income housing unit -is removed from the city's housing stock, that a replacement housing plan for the project area be prepared. Staff will com- mence on this effort should.the project area be adopted. . I I i i CONTENTS SUBJECT PAGE I : Introduction II . Project Area dousing . . . . . . . . . . . . III . Replacement Housing . . IV. Conclusion . . . I I . INTRODUCTION The California Redevelopment Law, Health and Safety Code Section 33413.5 , requires that an Agency adopt, by resolution, a Replacement Housing Plan. The Plan must be adopted at least thirty ( 30) days prior to any agreement resulting in the. destruction or removal of dwelling units from the low and moderate-income housing market. This Replacement Housing Plan addresses the removal of 147 dwelling units from the City of Huntington Beach Agency's Main-Pier Project Area. The Plan includes: 1 . The general location of displacement housing; 2. The number of units with the price limitations of low and moderate income persons; 3. The means of financing; 4. The funding. II . PROJECT AREA HOUSING The proposed redevelopment of the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, as described in this Plan, conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach adopted by the City Council and as thereafter amended. The Main-Pier Project will remove the following dwelling units from the low and moderate income housing market : Number Unit . Size 11 Parcels 2 Residential-Owner Occupants 82 Residential Tenants 52 Business Tenants TOTAL 147 Units III . REPLACEMENT HOUSING The Agency shall assist all families,. individuals , or other entities displaced by the project in find:.ing: other locations and facilities. In. order to carry out the project with a . minimum of hardship. to persons displaced from: their homes, the Ag.e,ncy shall assist individuals: and families in finding. housing that is. dece.n.t,, sa-fe, sanitary,. with-in, their finan.cia-1 means , in reasonably convenient locations, and, o.therwis.e suitable- to, their ineeds . The- Agency may provide, by acquisition:,. construction leasing, rehabilitation, loans and grants , or other means , housing inside or outside the Project • Area for displaced persons , and to meet housing replacement requirements of State law. The Agency shall make relocation payments to persons ( including families, business concerns , and others ) displaced by the project, for moving expenses and direct loans of personal property (business only) for which reimbursement or' compensation is not otherwise made. In addition, the Agency will reimburse owners for certain settlement costs incurred in the sale of their property to the. Agency, and make additional relocation payments to those eligible therefore. Such relocation payments . shall be made pursuant to Agency Rules and Regulations and the Relocation Provisions of the Government Code of - the State of California. The Agency may make such other payments as may be appropriate and for which funds are available. The Agency shall make an extensive effort to relocate existing residential tenants within the City of Huntington Beach . Duration of the Plan Except for the nondiscrimination and . nonsegregation provisions which shall run perpetuity, the provisions of this Plan shall be effective and -the provisions of other i documents formulated pursuant to- this Plan may be made effective for 35 years from the date of adoption of this Plan by the �City Council or until all outstanding indebtedness of the Agency shall be retired_, whichever is later . Summary The Main-Pier Project will remove units from the low and moderate-income housing market . The Redevelopment Agency shall assist all families , individuals or other entities displaced by the project in finding other locations and facilities . The Redevelopment Agency will assume an active role to ensure the completion of all such projects . 1489r Draft-5/6/87 • ACTIVITIES, ETC. 1 . Approval and monitoring of consultant contracts . 2 . Assigning account numbers and authorizing purchase orders . 3. Redevelopment Semi-Annual Reports 4 Annual Redevelopment Report to the State . 5 . Subgrantee contracts; payments, monitoring. 6. Fair Housing Council contract , payments monitoring. 7 . Liaison to HCD CAB. 8. Oversee Operation LOGOS Youth Employment. 9. Redevelopment and CDBG budgets: prepare and monitor (computer, etc. ) 10 . Prepare Grantee Performance Report. 11 . Prepare Housing Assistance Plan. 12. Environmental Analysis for CDBG. 13 . Redevelopment documents e.g. 5-Year-Plan. 14. Huntington Beach 2000 Committee. 15 . Liaison to Community Youth Shelter Project . 16 . Orange County Housing Authority Advisory Committee member-alternate. 17 . Arts in Public Places - reviewing policy with Mike Mudd and Ann Thorn. 18 . Monitoring Master Calender for various reports . 1489r j S i "WALNUT-MAIN PORTION" I _ WA►MAAVE t r• c •..•::. "NORTHEAST N RT E , O H . I :::.w..... PO RTION"N , I • 1 S "REMAINING PORTION 2 Z r'' 'i` ::•r:::`,..•: .. RETAIL/ y • '; . .•...... ............. .;•:;: ::,•:.;•::;' � J 411 . t'UT1iiE HOTEL . .. I "CITY T C HOTEL Y R EL t I "� P A C rt I J ct "' ` "ADJACENT A$EA" (is not a part of the Site) ►� ONE "PIER SIDE PORTION" �. E'LACr � EESAa I•' I i SCALE ," W-d. i ER P � VELOPMENT PLAN HU TINGTON BEACH, CALFOFNA FINTHGTON PACIFICA DEVEIOP►.sENT OAOIP PROCEDURAL OUTLINE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT July 6, 1987 [NUMBERED HEADINGS BELOW CORRESPOND TO SPECIAL AGENDA NOTICE ITEMS.] 1. OPENING OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Call to Order MAYOR: This is a joint session of the Huntington Beach • Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. The members of the City Council also sit as members of the Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of this session is to conduct a joint public hearing to consider and act upon the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. 062487.tmc 1287.h nt7.1.2 Roll Call of Council _and .Agency MAYOR: For the record of this joint session of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, p e ca e members of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. CITY: CLERK: [Roll Call of Council Members) AGENCY�CRETARY: [Roll Call of Agency Members] Opening of Joint Public Hearin 1 g. ......... ................................_........... ......................................._......... .. MAYOR: I now declare the public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan open. i As Mayor, it is my responsibility to preside over the ,joint public hearing for both the . Council and the Redevelopment agency. ash ('Mrs• f t v, ad m i H tvtn Caf kfez • C Page 2 • Z. S.TATEMENiT OF PROCEDURES MAYOR: The state law under which we are acting is the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. That law requires that we follow certain procedures, some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint I public hearing. Notice of this joint public hearing has been published and mailed as. required by law. A transcript will be made of the hearing. Persons • making statements and giving testimony will be sworn in and subject to questions through the Chair. All persona desiring to speak will be given an opportunity to do soa On ,your way in tonight, you should have picked up ate» or this. joint public hearing. 1Ee *AI-6 rill -in your name, address and any organization you are I M representing, and "whether you wish to speak or have a question concerning the Redevelopment Plan. If you plan to speak tonight, would you please fill out that form and give it to the City Clerk • representative now, if you have not done so already. Page 3 MAYOR: Everyone who wishes to speak will be given the (Cont'd) opportunity to do so. When you speak, please confirm Vhat you have been sworn in, give your name, address and the organization, if any, you represent and whether you own or rent property in the Project Area. Please refer to the Redevelopment Plan Map to determine whether . your property is inside the Project Area. Please see the City staff representative if you have any questions as to whether you are inside the Project boundary or not. The presentation tonight will be made by the following staff and consultants: • i Charles Thompson, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency; Douglas LaBelle, Deputy City, Administrator/Director of Community Development; Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist; and several other members of the City Staff that ' will be introduced at the time of their testimony. And the Agpnc�7' s Consultants: I I Thomas Clark, special legal counsel to the Redevelopment � Agency; i Page 4 MAYOR: Celeste Brady, special legal counsel to the (Cont'd) Redevelopment Agency; Allan Robertson, Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., redevelopment consultants to the Redevelopment Agency, tV% 4 Y��N Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc, redevelopment consultants to the Redevelopment Agency; and P. Patrick Mann, Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. EIR consultants to the Redevelopment Agency • MAYOR: Our order of procedure tonight will be as follows: 1. Agency consultants and staff will present: 1) the Agency's Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan; 2) the Redevelopment Plan itself; and 3) other evidence and testimony in support of the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Next we will receive any written comments. 3. We will then receive any evidence or oral testimony from those present concerning the Redevelopment Plan. 4. Following the introduction of all evidence and testimony tonight, and upon the conclusion of the • hearing, we will consider and act upon all �-- objections and then act on the Redevelopment Plan and related motions and resolutions. Page 5 MAYOR: Does the. Agency's Attorney or special legal counsel have (Cont'd) any comments they desire to make at this time? Statement of Findings for Adoption of the Redevelopment .. ......... ........... ..........._. . . Plan i .................. i AGENCY ATTORNEY: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Clark will make our comments [Mrs. Hutton] regarding findings for adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. COUNSEL: Thank you, Mrs. Hutton. As the Mayor has indicated, [Mr. Clark] tho purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence and • testimony for and against the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the City Council and the Agency in connection with the following findings and determinations that will be made in the adoption of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. These findings and determinations are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code and are generally as follows: • Page 6 • Mr. .Clark: 1. The Project Area meets the .legal qualifications set (Cont'd) forth by the Legislature for a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes described in the Community Redevelopment Law. 2. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 3. The adoption and carrying out of the I �,. Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the community. 5. The carrying out the Redevelopment Plan would • promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the, community and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment. Law. Page 7 Mr. Clark: 6. The condemnation of real property, as provided for (Cont'd) in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for payment for properties to be acquired as provided by law. i 7. The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families or persons displaced from the Project Area if the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. 8. There are or are being provided within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and 'person who may be displaced from the project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families I and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. Page 8 • `-- Mr. Clark: 9. Inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements (Cont'd) which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part, and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. 10. 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. There are other statements and determinations set forth in the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment' Plan, but the foregoing are the major evidentiary findings. • Page 9 3. STAFF PRESENTATION ..� MAYOR: I will now call upon Mr. LaBelle to introduce each staff. member . or Agency consultant as they make their presentations this evening.. I Summary of Agency's Report to City Council on Proposed Redevelopment...Plan MR. I.A BELLE: [Introduces each speaker and identifies the topic they will address. Speaker/topics introduced in the following order: • 1. History of Project Adopt'on [Redevelopment v ' Division - S� ✓�J Y 2. Descri tion f Project conditions [Planning, \ Pv�i�tcr V�0V1Fr-�� 3. Public improvements needs [Public Works '@m46 plangki-OF 4. City's capital improvements funding shortfalls j [Administrative Services] !� 5. Fiscal Review Committee [Agency Special �\ Counsel] 6. Project Funding/Financial Feasibility [Katz Hollis] 1.. Planning Commission and PAC reports • [Redevelopment Division] ` Page 10 Summary..of .Redevelopment Plan..__Provieions MR. LABELLE [Introduces Special Legal Counsel who summarizes provisions of proposed Redevelopment Plan, and explains requirements of using eminent domain.] I �• C I n�rodv� ��eu�co� `��' � rcvt� Owner. Participation and._Preferences Rules MR. LA BELLE: To complete the documents at this time, I would like to • have entered into the record the Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, as said Rules have been adopted by the Redevelopment Agency. These rules have previously been made available to the City Council and have been available for public inspection. [Indicates that Agency presentations are concluded.) C � Page .11 • MAYOR: Persons desiring to question the Qtaff, consultants or ✓ legal counsel on any of their evidence will have an opportunity to do so, through the Chair, when we ask for public comments. At this time, are there any questions by members of the Council or the Agency? [Questions by Members of Council and Agency] [Responses by Staff and/or Consultants] MAYOR: If there are no objections, the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Owner Participation and Preferences Rules, the Report of the Agency, including the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission. and PAC, • will be made a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents we have just received. 4. PUBLIC ....... ..............................__._................_...... I Writt ................................_.................. - MAYOR: If there are any written comments received on the Redevelopment Plan, they will be placed into the record at this time. Page 12 MAYOR: 11� tiq After the written comments have been -m" into the (cont'd) record, we will begin taking oral comments and testimony. All those who wish to speak, either in favor or in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan, or just .to ask questions, should fill out and submit to the City Clerk th orau�=&a@ If you wish to speak and you have no yet submitted this form, you q y � . may do so �hj Will the City Clerk proceed to • concerning the Redevelopment Plan? CITY CLERK: E#ea" into record any written comments received.] Oral Testimony,. Statements.. and Questions MAYOR: We will now hear any statements, testimony, or questions from the audience. Please begin you statement by giving your name, address, and the organization, if any, you represent; whether you own or rent property within the project Area; and whether you have previously been sworn in. You may ask questions, if you desire. Staff, • Page 13 i MAYOR: consultants" and legal counsel will respond to all (Cont'd) questions, comments and testimony at the end of this hearing. Will the City Clerk please call the names of the persons who have submitted, forms to speak? CITY CLERK: [Calls names of persons who have submitted forms.] [Oral testimony, statements, and questions. Prior to speaking,- each speaker confirms that he or she was previously sworn in, or if, not, is sworn in, or the record shows that testimony is not under oath.] Any Further Oral.Testimony MAYOR: Does anyone else desire to make a statement or present I testimony concerning the Redevelopment Plan? i I I [Additional Oral Testimony] MAYOR: I will now entertain a motion for a 15-minute recess of this joint public hearing. Page 14 [Motion to recess hearing for 15 minute] MAYOR: This hearing is recessed for 15 minutes. [15 MINUTE RECESS] Call to Order .......................... MAYOR: This joint public hearing of the Redevelopment .Agency and the City Council is now back in session. -Weaaw cst�- eih • 0 Responses to Public Testimony, .Comments, and Questions MAYOR: Prior to recess, we have heard written and oral public testimony, comments and questions on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. We will now receive staff and/or consultant responses to such public testimony comments, and questions. Please proceed Mr. La Belle. Page 15 MR. LA BELLE. [Introduces staff and consultants who will respond to testimony and comments.) [Indicates when all responses have been completed.] Close of Hearing MAYOR: Are they . any final questions by members of the Council or the Agency? [Questions by Members of Council and Agency] [Responses by staff, consultants or legal counsel.] • MAYOR: If there is no further testimony or evidence to be received, the Chair will entertain a motion to close this hearing. [Motion to Close Hearing on Redevelopment Plan] MAYOR: This joint public hearing of the City Council and —@@mmww by Redevelopment Agency is closed. 5. AGENCY AND COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS I Redevelopment Agency .................. s Page 16 AGENCY The Agency will now consider approval of the following CHAIRMAN: motions or resolutions in the..following order: 1. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE .............._......._....................._....._............_............_......_. i REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE AGENCY'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL." • �- [Action in Resolution by Agency] 2. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE ........._....._. _........ -.................... ...............__..... . REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH- BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. • [Action on Resolution by Agency] Page 17 City._,Council in Session ....................................... MAYOR: Now, acting as the City Council, we will now consider and act on the matters before us. 1._ Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ..................................................................................... COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT." [Action on Resolution by Council] • I 2. ......... _........_......._....._....._.._........... COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED i REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS." [Action on Resolution by Council] • Page 18 • MAYOR: 3. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE (Cont'd) CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. [Action on Resolution by Council] • MAYOR: The Chair will now entertain a motion to approve � introduction of Ordinance No. CITY CLERK: [City Clerk gives the first reading of Ordinance No. by title.] Ordinance No. - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ....................._.................._.............................._.._............................. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT." • Page 19 • [Action on Ordinance by Council] ..� MAYOR: We will now turn to our regular agenda or The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. City Council nd Agency to ............... , 1987. • e Page 20 City of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR June 26, 1987 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Honorable Mayor and Council Members: The attached binder contains documents you will be considering or may wish to refer to at the Joint City Council/Redevelopment Agency public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project scheduled for July 6, 1987. Please refer to the attached Table of Contents for a listing of the documents included in the binder. If you have any questions, please call me or Tom Andrusky at (714) 536-5583. HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Sincere arles W. Thompson Executive Director CW T/SVK:sar Attachment Telephone (714) 536-5202 • • j �. ��� � Iw� Bey FT�r, � _�°^qr TWF>• � ��= � � � t � +�`� �'# �" b i i } ,� r �Yr'�i+ �n � r �r ,. :�, • SPECIAL AGENDA NOTICE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT July 6, 1987 A Joint Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is scheduled tonight to consider and act upon the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The purpose of the hearing is to hear evidence and testimony concerning the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. The law requires certain formal procedures for these public hearings. The City Clerk will make a transcript of the hearings. Following the presentation of evidence by the staff, members of the public and interested persons may speak and testify. All speakers will be sworn in. If you desire to speak and testify at the public hearing tonight, please fill out the attached form and present it to the City Clerk prior to the opening of the public hearing. This will expedite the proceedings. The agenda for the public hearing will be as follows: AGENDA: JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED HUNTINGTON BEACH- BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1. Opening of joint public hearing 2. Statement of procedures 3. Staff presentations 4. Public testimony and comments 5. Agency and Council deliberations ACTIONS: Redevelopment Agency: - Resolution Re: Use of Funds for Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Outside Project Area - Resolution Approving Supplement to Report to City Council ........ ..... - Resolution Ruling on Objections - Resolution Certifying Final EIR - Resolution Re: Use of Funds for Low- and Moderate- Income Housing Outside Project Area • - Ordinance Approving and Adopting Redevelopment Plan (First Reading) • REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA July 6, 1987 .R.Y.E.STION-AND COMMENT .FORM PLEASE FILL OUT THIS FORM IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, OR WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS OR MAKE COMMENTS REGARDING THE PROPOSED PLAN 1. 1 am interested in the proposed Redevelopment Plan. 2. NAME: ...........................................................................................................................................................................I................................................................................................................-................. (Please Print) 3. HOME ADDRESS: .......... .............. 4. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOUR INTEREST: -.... ........................... .... ............... ....... (a) Real. . Property.. . .. . .. .. . Owner.. .. .. .. o..r............................. (b) Tenant or Representative Representative of Real Pro- of Tenant in Project Area: property Owner in Project Area: (c) Representative of an Organization in Project Area: ........................................ ......................................... ..... ................................................................... ............ ......................................... .............. .............. • (Name or Organization) (d) Other Interest: (Please identify).,................................................................................................................ .................... .......... .. ........... ..........................................................................................................I.............................................................................................................................. 5. 1 AM IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN AND: ................--... ............ .................................................................................I--................ / Wish to Speak (Minutes Needed . ........ ...............-- / Do Not Wish to Speak 6. 1 AM OPPOSED TO THE PLAN AND: ........................................................... ...........-.................................................................. / Wish to Speak (Minutes Needed ................... ............................ Do Not Wish to Speak .................... 7. 1 HAVE NOT FORMED AN OPINION REGARDING THE PLAN AND: ................................ - ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ / Wish to Speak (Minutes Needed .................. .............. / Do Not Wish to Speak ........... / Do Not Wish to Speak but: ............. .............. Want the Following Comment(s) Entered in the Official Record: .......................................... .................................. ....................... I...................................................................................................................................................................................... • / / Want the Following Question(s) Answered: ........... .................................................................................- ............. .......................................... .........................................---.................................................................................................I--.............. ................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ (Use other side if needed) 2 �� • PROCEDURAL OUTLINE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING ON ADOPTION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT July 6, 1987 [NUMBERED HEADINGS BELOW CORRESPOND TO SPECIAL AGENDA NOTICE ITEMS.] 1. OPENING OF JOINT PUBLIC HEARING Call to Order MAYOR: This is a joint session of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. The members of the City Council also sit as members of the Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of this session is to conduct a joint public hearing to consider and act upon the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. • 062487.tmc 1287.hnt7.1.2 Roll sll of Council and Agency • ........ . ......... MAYOR: For the record of this joint session of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, please call the roll of the members of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency. CITY CLERK: [Roll Call of Council Members] AGENCY SECRETARY: [Roll Call of Agency Members] Opening of Joint Pu.b.li.q.. Hearing • MAYOR: I now declare the public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan open. As Mayor, it is my responsibility to preside over the joint public hearing for both the Council and the Redevelopment agency. • Page 2 • 2. STATEMENT OF PROCEDURES MAYOR: The state law under which we are acting is the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California. That law requires that we follow certain procedures, some of them formal, in the conduct of tonight's joint public hearing. Notice of this joint public hearing has been published and mailed as required by law. A transcript will be made of the hearing. Persons • making statements and giving testimony will be sworn in and subject to questions through the Chair. All persons desiring to speak will be given an opportunity to do so. On your way in tonight, you should have picked up an special agenda for this joint public hearing. You will notice that attached to the agenda is a form for you to fill in your name, address and any organization you are representing, and a place to check whether you wish to speak or have a question concerning the Redevelopment Plan. If you plan to speak tonight, would you please fill out that form and give it to the City Clerk • representative now, if you have not done so already. Page 3 MAYOR: • Everyone who wishes to speak will be given the (Cont'd) opportunity to do so. When you speak, please confirm that you have been sworn in, give your name, address and the organization, if any, you represent and whether you own or rent property in the Project Area. Please refer to the Redevelopment Plan Map to determine whether your property is inside the Project Area. Please see the City staff representative if you have any questions as to whether you are inside the Project boundary or not. The presentation tonight will be made by the following staff and consultants: • Charles Thompson, City Administrator and Executive Director of the Agency; Douglas LaBelle, Deputy City, Administrator/Director of Community Development; Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist; and several other members of the City staff that will be introduced at the time of their testimony. And the Agency' s Consultants: Thomas, Clark, special legal counsel to the Redevelopment • Agency; Page 4 • MAYOR: Celeste Brady, . special legal counsel to the (Cont'd) Redevelopment Agency; Allan Robertson, Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., redevelopment consultants to the Redevelopment Agency; Lice ATe'! aa , Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc, redevelopment consultants to the Redevelopment Agency; and P. Patrick Mann, Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. EIR consultants to the Redevelopment Agency MAYOR: Our order of procedure tonight will be as follows: • 1. Agency consultants and staff will present: 1) the Agency's Report to City Council on the Redevelopment Plan; 2) the Redevelopment Plan itself; and 3) other evidence and testimony in support of the Redevelopment Plan. 2. Next we will receive any written comments. 3. We will then receive any evidence or oral testimony from those present concerning the Redevelopment Plan. 4. Following the introduction of all evidence and testimony tonight, and upon the conclusion of the hearing, we will consider and act upon all • objections and then act on the Redevelopment Plan and related motions and resolutions. Page 5 MAYOR: Does the Agency's Attorney or special legal counsel have (Cont'd) any comments they desire to make at this time? Statement of Findings for Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan ................ . AGENCY ATTORNEY: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Clark will make our comments [Mrs. Hutton] regarding findings for adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. COUNSEL: Thank you, Mrs. Hutton. As the Mayor has indicated, [Mr. Clark] the purpose of this hearing is to consider evidence and • testimony for and against the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Evidence will be introduced for consideration by the City Council and the Agency in connection with the following findings and determinations that will be made in the adoption of an ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan. These findings and determinations are contained in Section 33367 of the Health and Safety Code and are generally as follows: • Page 6 • Mr. Clark: 1. The Project Area meets the legal qualifications set (Cont'd) forth by the Legislature for a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes described in the Community Redevelopment Law. 2. The Redevelopment Plan would redevelop the Project Area in conformity with the law and in the interests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. 3. The adoption and carrying out of the • Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. 4. The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the community. 5. The carrying out the Redevelopment Plan would promote the public peace, health, safety and welfare of the community and would effectuate the purposes and policies of the Community Redevelopment. Law. • Page 7 Mr. Clark: • . 6. The condemnation of real property, as provided for (Cont'd) in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelopment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for payment for properties to be acquired as provided by law. 7. The Agency has a feasible method or plan for the relocation of families or persons displaced from the Project Area if the Redevelopment Plan may result in the temporary or permanent displacement of any occupants of housing facilities in the Project Area. 8. There are or are being provided within the Project • Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with regard to public utilities and public and commercial facilities, at rents or prices within the financial means of the families and person who may be displaced from the project Area, decent, safe and sanitary dwellings equal in number to the number of and available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment. o • Page 8 Mr. Clark: 9. Inclusion of any lands, buildings or improvements (Cont'd) which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the whole area of which they are a part, and any such area included is necessary for effective redevelopment and is not included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenues from such area without other substantial justification for its inclusion. 10. 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. There are other .statements and determinations set forth in the proposed ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan, but the foregoing are the major evidentiary findings. • Page 9 3. STAFF PRESENTATION • MAYOR: I will now call upon Mr. LaBelle to introduce each staff member or Agency consultant as they make their presentations this evening.. Summary of Agency's Report to City Council on Proposed .Redevelopment Plan MR. LA BELLE: [Introduces each speaker and identifies the topic they will address. Speaker/topics introduced in the following order: 1. History of Project Adoption [Redevelopment • Division] 2. Description of Project conditions [Planning, Police and PIO] 3. Public improvements needs [Public Works and Planning Division] 4. City's capital improvements funding shortfalls [Administrative Services] 5. Fiscal Review Committee [Agency Special Counsel] 6. Project Funding/Financial Feasibility [Katz Hollis] 7. Planning Commission and PAC reports • [Redevelopment Division] Page 10 • Summary of Redevelopment Plan Provisions .......................................... MR. LABELLE [Introduces Special Legal Counsel who summarizes provisions of proposed Redevelopment Plan, and explains requirements of using eminent domain.] [Introduces redevelopment staff to discuss why eminent domain is needed in Plan.] Owner Participation and Preferences Rules ............................. ....................................... MR. LA BELLE: To complete the documents at this time, I would like to • have entered into the record the Rules Governing Participation and Preferences by Property Owners and Business Occupants in the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, as said Rules have been adopted by the Redevelopment Agency. These rules have previously been made available to the City Council and have been available for public inspection. [Indicates that Agency presentations are concluded.] • Page 11 MAYOR: Persons desiring to question the staff, consultants or • legal counsel on any of their evidence will have an opportunity to do so, through the Chair, when we ask for public comments. At this time, are there any questions by members of the Council or the Agency? [Questions by Members of Council and Agency] [Responses by Staff and/or Consultants] MAYOR: If there are no objections, the proposed Redevelopment Plan, the Owner Participation and Preferences Rules, the Report of the Agency, including the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission and PAC, • will be made a part of the record, along with the testimony and documents we have just received. 4. PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND COMMENTS ........................................................................................................................................................................... Written Comments ......................................................... MAYOR: If there are any written comments received on the Redevelopment Plan, they will be placed into the record at this time. • Page 12 • MAYOR: After the written comments have been read into the (cont'd) record, we will begin taking oral comments and testimony. All those who wish to speak, either in favor or in opposition to the Redevelopment Plan, or just to ask questions, should fill out and submit to the City Clerk the form attached to the agenda. If you wish to speak and you have not yet submitted this form, you may do so while the written comments are being read into the record. Will the City Clerk proceed to read the letters received concerning the Redevelopment Plan? CITY CLERK: [Reads into record any written comments received.) Oral Testimony. Statements and Questions ................................... .................................................... MAYOR: We will now hear any statements, testimony, or questions from the audience. Please begin you statement by giving your name, address, and the organization, if any, you represent; whether you own or rent property within the project Area; and whether you have previously been sworn in. You may ask questions, if you desire. Staff, • Page 13 • MAYOR: consultants and legal counsel will respond to all (Cont'd) questions, comments and testimony at the end of this hearing. Will the City Clerk please call the names of the person who have submitted forms to speak? CITY CLERK: [Calls names of persons who have submitted forms.] [Oral testimony, statements, and questions. Prior to speaking, each speaker confirms that he or she was previously sworn in, or if not, is sworn in, or the record shows that testimony is not under oath.] Any .Further Oral Testimony MAYOR: Does anyone else desire to make a statement or present testimony concerning the Redevelopment Plan? [Additional Oral Testimony] MAYOR: I will now entertain a motion for a 15-minute recess of this joint public hearing. • Page 14 • [Motion to recess hearing for 15 minute] MAYOR: This hearing is recessed for 15 minutes. [15 MINUTE RECESS] Call to Order ............................................................. MAYOR: This joint public hearing of the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council is now back in session. Please call the roll of the members of the Agency and the City Council. • CITY CLERK: [Roll call of Council Members] AGENCY SECRETARY: [Roll call of Agency members] Responses to Public Testimon�� Comments, and Questions ............ ... .. . . _ . ........ MAYOR: Prior to recess, -We have heard written and oral public testimony, comments and questions on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. We will now receive staff and/or consultant responses to such public testimony comments, and questions. Please proceed Mr. La Belle. • Page 15 MR. LA BELLE: [Introduces staff and consultants who will respond to • testimony and comments.] [Indicates when all responses have been completed.] Close of Hearing . ...................................................................... MAYOR: Are they any final questions by members of the Council or the Agency? [Questions by Members of Council and Agency] [Responses by staff, consultants or legal counsel.] O MAYOR: If there is no further testimony or evidence to be received, the Chair will entertain a motion to close this hearing. [Motion to Close Hearing on Redevelopment Plan] MAYOR: This joint public hearing of the City Council and Community Redevelopment Agency is closed. 5. AGENCY AND COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS ........................................................................................................................................_......................_................... Redevelopment Agency in Session • Page 16 • AGENCY The Agency will now consider approval of the following CHAIRMAN: motions or resolutions in the following order: 1. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE .................................................................... 'REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE AGENCY'S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL." • [Action in Resolution by Agency] 2. Resolution No. - "A . RESOLUTION OF THE _..............................................._...._........................_.......... REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH- BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. [Action on Resolution by Agency] • Page 17 City Council in Session MAYOR: Now, acting as the City Council, we will now consider and act on the matters before us. 1. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY ............................................................................................ COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOP- MENT PROJECT." [Action on Resolution by Council] 2. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY .........................._.....................................I.......................... COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS." [Action on Resolution by Council] • Page 18 • MAYOR: 3. Resolution No. - "A RESOLUTION OF THE ........... .....-............................................................... (Cont'd) CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT. [Action on Resolution by Council] • MAYOR: The Chair will now entertain a motion to approve introduction of Ordinance No. ............................__.. CITY CLERK: [City Clerk gives the first reading of Ordinance No. ................................................ by title.] Ordinance No. - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ..................__........_............................................................................. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT." Page 19 [Action on Ordinance by Council] • MAYOR: We will now turn to our regular agenda or The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourn the meeting. City Council nd Agency to 1987. ............................................................... Page 20 .' �__ 3 Katz Hol 1 is REPORT TO THE CITY.COUNCIL on the PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared by Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc. for the HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY May, 1987 051987.tmc 1193.hnt/7 I Katz Hol l is TABLR OF CONTENTS PART Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA; DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY; DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROPOSED PROJECTS WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE BLIGHT CONDITIONS; AND EXPLANATION OF WHY PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CANNOT BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PRIVATE ENTERPRISE ACTING ALONE ............................................................ I-1 A. Reasons for Selection of Project Area ................................... I-1 B. Description of Specific Projects Proposed by Agency in . Project Area .......................................................................... I-3 C. Description of How Projects Proposed by Agency Will Improve on Alleviate Blight Conditions .................................. I-3 • D. Explanation of Why Proposed Public Improvements Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone............... I-4 II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS EXISTINGIN PROJECT AREA ...........................................................II-1 A. Existing Physical Conditions ..................................................II-1 1. Project Location .............................................................II-1 2. Land Uses and Businesses ............................................II-2 3. Predominantly Urbanized Area ......................................II-2 4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes .................II-2 5. Buildings and Structures ..............................................II-3 a. Deterioration and Dilapidation ........................ ....... II-3 b. Defective Design and Character of Physical Construction ..........................................................II-3 C. Age and Obsolescence ...........................................II=4 d. Mixed Character of Buildings .................................II-4 Ei. Properties ......................................................................II-5 a. Lots (Parcels) That Are of Irregular Form, Shape and Size ......................................................II-5 b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and Utilities ..................................................................II-5 • i I Katz 1follis PART Page .. ...... .. 1. Deficiencies in Transportation Circulation System ...........................................................II-6 2. Deficiencies in Infrastructure Utilities.......... II-10 B. Existing Social Conditions ..................................................... II-10 C. Existing Economic Conditions ............................................... II-10 1. Economic; Setting .......................................................... II-10 2. Economic Maladjustment ............................................... II-11 3. Impaired Investments and Depreciated Values ........... II-11 4. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements, Public Facilities, Open Space and Utilities ............................ II-11 III. PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA..................................................................................................III-1 A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency ..................III-1 B. Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs .....III-1 C. Estimated Project Revenues ..................................................III-2 1. Tax Increment Revenues ...............................................III-2 2. Loans, Grants and Contributions from City, State • and Federal Government and Project Developers...........1I1-3 3. band Sale Proceeds ......................................................III-3 4. Special Assessment Districts ........................................III-3 5. Development Fees ..........................................................III-4 D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibility of Project .................................................................................III-4 E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing in Proposed Redevelopment Plan ...............................................III-4 F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements ...............III-5 IV. PLAN AND METHOD OF RELOCATION .............................................. IV-1 A. Agency Displacement ............................................................. IV-1 B. Relocation in the Fvent of Agency Displacement ................. IV-1 C. Rules and Regulations ........................................................... IV-2 D. Agency Determinations and Assurances ............................... IV-2 E. Replacement Housing Plan ..................................................... IV-4 ii Katz 11olIis PART Page F. Relocation Assistance Advisory Program and Assurance of Comparable Replacement Housing .......................................... IV-4 1. Administrative Organization .......................................... IV-5 a. Responsible Entity ................................................ IV-5 b. Functions .............................................................. IV-5 2. Information Program ..................................................... IV-7 3. Relocation Records ........................................................ IV-7 4. Relocations Resources Survey ......................................IV-7 5. Relocation Payments ...................................:.................. IV-7 6. Temporary Moves .......................................................... IV-8 7. Last Resort Housing ..................................................... IV-8 8. Grievance Procedures ..............see.................................. IV-8 9. Relocation Appeals Board ......to*..................................... IV-8 V. ANALYSIS OF PRELIMINARY PLAN .......................................0...........V-1 VI. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION ....... VI-1 VII. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RECORD .............................................VII-1 A. Formation of PAC .................................................................VII-1 Be Information and Documents Presented to PAC by Agency.....VII-I • C. PAC Recommendation on Proposed Plan ...............................VII-2 Attachments 1-3 .........................................................0..................... VIII. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21151 OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE (PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) .......................VIII-1 IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER ........................................... IX-1 X. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE............................................X-1 XI. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT ....................................................... XI-1 A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surround- ing Area.................................................................................... XI-1 1. Relocation, Traffic Circulation, Environmental Quality and Community Facilities and Services .............. XI-1 2. School Population and Quality of Education ................... XI-2 3. Property Assessment and Taxes...................................... XI-3 B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing ................. XI-4 1. Housing Units to be Destroyed or Removed ................... XI-4 2. Projected Residential Displacement.................................. XI-5 3. Number and Location of Replacement Housing................ XI-5 iii Katz 11t►11 is PART Page 4. Number and Location of Low and Moderate Income • Housing Planned Other than Replacement Housing......... XI-5 5. Financing Method for Replacement Housing Requirements.................................................................... XI-5 6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing Objectives...............................................................9......... XI-6 C. Other Matters Affecting the Physical and Social Quality of the Environment....................................................................... XI-6 X1I. ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER; SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES; AND ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE .....................................................................................XII-1 A. Introduction .......................................................................XII-1 B. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer .......................XII-1 1. Report Requirements ...........................................e........XII-1 2. Analysis of Data Reported by County Fiscal Officer.....XII-2 a. Total Assessed Valuation of All Taxable Property Within Project Area as Shown on Base Year Assessment Roll ...................................................XII-2 b. Identification of Each Taxing Agency Levying • Taxes in Project Area .........................................XII-2 C. Amount of Tax Revenue to be Derived by Each Taxing Agency From Base Year Assessment Roll From Project Area ...............................................XII-3 d. Total Ad Valorem Tax Revenues for Each Taxing Agency, From All Property Within its Boundaries, Whether Inside or Outside Project Area ............XII-3 e. Estimated First Year Taxes Available to Redevelopment Agency, Broken Down by Taxing Agencies ...............................................................XII-4 f. Assessed Valuation of Project Area for Preceding Year, or, for Preceding Five Years, Except for State Assessed Property on Board Roll.................XII-4 C. Summary of Consultations With Affected Taxing Agencies.....XII-4 D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review Committee.................................................................................XII-4 • iv Katzliollis >,aA>�s • Following No. Page I-1 Super Street Demonstration Project: Beach Boulevard Corridor Study Area ........................... I-1 I-2 Project Boundary .................................................................. I-1 TABLES II-1 Existing Land Use. Summary ..............................................II-2 11-2 Number of Structures ......... .............................................II-2 II-3 Types of Business .............................................................II-2 1I-4 Building and Site Conditions ............................................II-3 II-5 Structural Conditions Rating Definitions ..........................II-3 II-6 Site Conditions Rating Definitions ....................................II-3 II-7 Beach Boulevard Existing Right of Way (ROW) Widths ......II-6 II-8 Intersection Level of Service ............................................II-6 II-9 Average Daily Traffic ........................................................II-7 II-10 Levels of Service for Urban Arterial Streets ..................II-7 II-11 Accident Statistics, 1982-84 ..............................................II-7 1I-12 . Beach Boulevard Deficiencies Identified by "Super Streets" Program .............................................II-8 II-13 Huntington Beach Auto Sales, 1985 ................................II-10 II-14 Summary of Travel Benefits in 2005 with "Super Streets" Maximum Improvements Program ...................... II-12 II-15 Potential Additional Sales Volumes Resulting from Reach Boulevard Improvements ................................... II-12 IIl-1 Satimated Public Improvements and Facilities Costs ......III-1 ll l-2 Estimated Project Costs ...................................................III-2 II1-3 Net Project Costs .............................................................III-2 111-4 Projected New Development .............................................III-2 v Katz 11ol11s Following No. Page..........._ III-5 Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue ...........................III-3 II1-6 City Five-Year Capital Improvement Program History ....III-5 PHOTOGRAPHS ........._..... ......... ................................ Plates 1 - 26 .................................................................................... II-12 i • vi KatzHollis REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN POR THE HUNTINGI`ON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION This Report to the City Council ("Report") on the proposed Redevelopment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ("Project") has been prepared for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") pursuant to Section 33352 of -the California Community Redeveloptent Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et aeq.). ....... ........... The purpose of this Report is to provide the information, documentation, and evidence required by Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law ("CRL") to accompany the proposed Redevelopment Plan when it is submitted by the Agency to the City Council. Such information, documentation and evidence in provided to assist the Council in its consideration of the proposed Plan and in making the various determinations it must make in connection with the adoption of the proposed Plan. This Report is divided into 12 parts which generally correspond to the • subdivisions contained within CRL Section 33352, with each part having a separate function as dedcribed in the summary listing which follows this paragraph. Certain parts of the Report, as noted in the summary, have been prepared by entities other than the Agency. Section 33352, however, requires the Agency to aggregate and submit such dor-difients as a part of this Report. Part No. and CRL Responsible Section No. Title -- _ Entit.�...._ Part I Reasons for Selection of Project Area;. Agency (33352(a)) Description of Specific Projects Proposed by Agency; Description of How Proposed Projects Will Improve or Alleviate Blight Conditions; and Explanation of Why Proposed Public Improvements Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone Part II Description of Physical, Social and Agency (33362(b)) Economic Conditions Existing in Project Area • Part III Proposed Method of Financing Redevel- Agency [33352(c)] opment of Project Area 0 Katz I Iol l is Part No. • and CRI, Responsible Section No. Title >sntity .............................._..........._ ............................._..........................................._....._.........................._..._......- _...._........ Part IV Plan and Method of Relocation Agency (33352(d)] Part V Analysis of Preliminary Plan Agency [33352(e)] i Part VI Report and Recommendations of Plann- Planning ' [33352(f)] ing Commission, and Report Required Commission [33352(h)] by Section 65402 of Government Code Part VII Project Area Committee Record Agency [33352(g)] Part VIII Project Required by Section 21151 of Agency [33352(i)] Public Resources Code (Project Environmental Impact Report) Part IX Report of County Fiscal Officer Orange [33352(j)] County Auditor- Controller • Part X Report of Fiscal Review Committee Fiscal [33352(k)] Review Committee Part XI Neighborhood Impact Report Agency [33352(1)] Part XII Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Agency [33352(m)] Officer; Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies; and Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review Committee This Report contains all information and documents .required by the above CRL sections that could be completed (if an Agency responsibility) or had been received (if another entity's responsibility) as of May 15, 1987. A supplemental report to this Report will be issued as soon as necessary data or documents are available in order to complete the following Parts: Part VI (Report and Recommendations of Planning Commission, and Report Required by Section 65402 of Government Code), Part X (Report of Fiscal Review Committee), and Sections C (Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies) and D (Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review Committee) of Part XII. Page 2 • 0 Katz fief 1 is Part I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT• _DESCRIPTION OF SPBCII+IC.. PROJECTS PROP088D BY AGBNC_ Y; DESCRIPTION OF DOS PROPOSED PtiOJECTB HILL Iit[PF�OVB OR ALLEVIATl3 BLIGHT . ..........................__.._...__...._.._.._._............._.........._....._.................................................__................_..........._----_..._.-........................................... (:ONDITION9i....._...._AND._._....._EXPLANATION OF WHY PROPOSED PUBLIC U[PI�OV81t$NT8 CAI!iNOT ._._BB _ ACCOI�[PLI3BBD ......................... ... .. _...... ENTERPRISE ACTING ALONGB A. Reasons for Selection of Project Area ............................_........__........_._...........__....................................................._ Beach Boulevard within the City of Huntington Beach has been the subject of concern for. some time. Since the late 1970s, the Orange County , Transportation Commission has monitored and analyzed traffic conditions, 1 highway and transit facility requirements and future problems that would result if current conditions are not ameliorated. An "Orange County Multimodel Transportation Study" completed in 1979 recommended a "corridor" level analysis, following which the "Beach Boulevard Corridor Study" was undertaken and completed in 1984. Alternative programs of improvements were identified and recommendations for a proposed program of projects were developed for a "Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor," adopted by the Orange County Transportation Commission earlier this year. The "Super Streets" Study Area, extending from La Habra to the Pacific Ocean, is shown on Map I-1. In addition to the area's transportation problems, residents, businesses and City officials have become increasingly concerned with the Project Area's mixed (and incompatible) land uses, inadequate parking and access, dilapidated buildings, lack of sidewalks, vacant and underutilized- properties and • evidence of impaired investments. The extent and nature of those problems are more fully described in Part II of this Preliminary Report. The City has also been concerned that the proposed Project Area lacks a uniform design theme consistent with the standards prevalent . throughout the balance of the City, being impacted by non-conforming and inappropriate signage in particular. A redevelopment project designation will enable the City to exert a higher degree of control or influence on the planning and architectural quality of all development - existing and new. Because of the Project Area's constraints to parcel consolidation and new development which has not been and cannot be overcome by the private sector acting alone, the City needs to undertake a more active role in encouraging controlled growth and development at certain intersections and in other areas that are undeveloped or underutilized. The Project Area lies generally one lot deep on either aide and includes the public rights-of-way of Beach Boulevard, from Edinger Avenue on the north to Atlanta Avenue on the south, as shown on Map I-2. On October 21, 1986, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1366 that selected the Project Area, established the boundaries and adopted the Preliminary Plan. The selection of the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelop- ment Project was in response to the problems of the area and the need for public participation and assistance to solve those problems. In general, the (I-1) _X, CA �\ C Tim ... to m m mao = ro =- ,� Q OZZ m m w OF 00 00, P f C Z r Z Hirat some sss rrr rr rr more se errs loss s++rn CD oessrssr rrr ore eoreo rrr srsr++++• arr r ro o..... # ..� 9aeeh Boulavar rn 7o b ,, -- 0M1n m �� f1.NC •W.Y. 0� � .J 4. � _` ` �•� Snof7 q. I \ • • i i i 0 I I Edinger Avenue _ 1 it. l I i`• 7 s yl �I ; r I T,,i.,.�l ,j �I•,I�.r', _—11;.';A�-:,it jlll���`r1� ` I NT!!r.::;1.; ,I;;Z;; Heil Avenue R I I I ( k i c.o. CF-E ,. 1 Warner Avenue F. --=�It'', 1 F.E bb I C1 YJ _ �i l I- - lj �. Slater Avenue bQ r -_ - -C =- =` - _ - = Talbert Avenue Ic�5 r I^" CF•E �� —TT_T_ fW North 0 2000 = - " ,lld in feel -4 Ellis Ave j Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half BEACH- Ka(/, 1fol l is HBEACH BOULEVARD MAP 1-2A REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT —— Ellis Avenue PW Garlleld Avenue VT f II F. If I Yorktown Avenue Li A Adams Avenue ; `�cp.• A ml Z. � • I U�E]�1u] "'-=� Indianapolis Avenue FEECF-E SO Atlanta Avenue North -�C2000 OC ---- -- —_ —_ Hamilton Avenue sui3la in feet F-g�, ! �p■��� Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt i HUNTINGTON BEACH- Katz H01 I is BEACH BOULEVARD MAP 1'2 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Katz Hol i is • goals and objectives of a redevelopment program in the Project Area are as follows: 1. The elimination and prevention of blight and blighting influences and deterioration and the redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. 2. The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies. adversely affecting the Project Area. 3. The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. 4. The enhancement of a major, region-serving thoroughfare to provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation. 5. The replanning, redesign and development of undeveloped/vacant, underutilized and underdeveloped areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. 6. The encouragement of investment by the private sector in the development and redevelopment of the Project Area by eliminating impediments to such development and redevelopment. 7. The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the City. 8. The expansion of the community's supply of housing, including opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. 9. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high standards for site design, environmental quality, and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project. 0 10. The promotion and creation of new local employment opportunities. 11. The encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns. 12. The provision of a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system which is coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. 13, The encouragement of cooperation and participation by • residents, business owners, public agencies and community organizations in the development and redevelopment of the area. (I-2) Katzliollis 14. The encouragement of the development of a commercial • g P environment which positively relates to adjacent land uses and to upgrade and stabilize existing commercial uses. 15.. The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines. 16. The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses within the Project Area. J Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the above goals and objectives will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law: (1) by the elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation and disuse; (2) by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation and assistance; (3) by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and the general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of appropriate means; and (4) through the installation of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities and utilities. B. Description of Specific Projects Proposed by _A$ency in Project ......... ....... Area ................... As will be described more fully in the following section of this Report, the Agency proposes to acquire some properties within the Project Area, relocate some existing occupants, demolish some existing buildings and improvements, and . to provide certain street and other improvements needed to serve the area. These improvements. include: "Super Street" traffic circulation projects;. the upgrading and provisions of stormdrains and sanitary sewers; the upgrading and provision of waterline-improvements; the provision for the underground of overhead utility lines; the provision of recreation and park improvements and historic preservation of Bartlett Park; and the provision of necessary and supporting landscaping and Streescope Projects. Details of the proposed program of activities, estimated Agency d costs, and proposed financing methods are set forth in. Part III of this Report. C. Descriptions of How Projects Proposed by Agency Will Improve or ... Alleviate Blight Condition.s...... ................. Existing physical, social and economic conditions 'within the Project Area are described in Part II of this Report. It is shown that the area suffers from a multitude of problems of such nature and degree that it may be found to be a blighted area under the criteria established in the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). As required by the CRL, and as demonstrated in Part II, the problems affecting the Project Area are • of such nature and degree that they cannot reasonably be expected to be (I-3) Katrli®ttis reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone without public participation and assistance. The Agency proposes a program of redevelopment activities that will systematically address the conditions of blight within the Project Area. Selective property acquisition, demolition, and relocation as necessary would serve to remove the conditions of buildings suffering from deterioration and dilapidation, age and obsolescence and defective design and character of physical construction. In addition, many of. these properties contain dilapidated residences within commercial areas, so that removal would eliminate the blight characteristic of mixed character of buildings. The lots that are of irregular form, shape and size can be acquired by the Agency for assembly into parcels suitable for development. The Agency's program of public improvements and facilities is intended to comprehensively address the inadequacies of the public improvements, which are not only a physical blight problem, but contribute to economic maladjustment, depreciated values and impaired investments. The public improvements and facilities listed in Table III-I in Part III will correct deficiencies in traffic circulation, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, waterlines, utilities above ground and poor landscaping, signage and street furniture. Alleviation of these specific blighting influences in the Project Area should work to create an investment environment in which private developers and property owners have the incentive and the means to redevelop their properties. The Agency's program of activities should alleviate the current inhibitions to development • in the Project Area. D. Explanation of Why Proposed Public _Improvements Cannot be Accomplished by Private Enterprise Acting Alone The public improvements that the Agency proposes to undertake through redevelopment (described in Parts II and III of this Report) are intended primarily to eliminate impediments to private development of vacant or underutilized parcels in the Project Area. Many of the improvements are. regional in nature; all serve the entire Project Area rather than specific development sites, and thus would not be appropriate for a private developer of a single property to undertake. Moreover, these deficiencies have been blighting influences that have discouraged private investment for taking place to date, and are improvements typically provided by most municipal jurisdictions. If the City were to require private developers to assume these additional costs, it could further dissuade private investment in the Project Area, since there are competitive development sites available without such extra costs. • (I-4) Katz liollis PART 11. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL. SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 3d§fi96 &Aok6j ............. ........... ........... ................._...I.................. Information presented in this Part II of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency's Report to City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project was compiled from various sources, including: 1. A field survey of the Project Area conducted by Katz Hollis staff in July, August and October, 1986. 2. Interviews with Agency and City staff and officials. 3. A review and analysis of various reports, documents, plans and other background data provided by staff, including but not limited to, the following: "The General Plan" of Huntington Beach. "Super streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor: Final Report," prepared for the Orange County Transportation Commission by Parsons, Brinkerhoff, Quade and Douglas, Inc., March, 1986. "Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor: Program Environmental Impact Report," Orange County Transportation Commission, 1986. "Beach Boulevard Corridor Study," prepared for the Orange County Transportation Commission by Berryman and Stephenson, Inc., July, 1984. The above documents are incorporated by reference into this report. Copies of -such documents may be reviewed at City offices. Where appropriate, sources of data are cited through this Report to City Council. A. Existing Physical Conditions ..............................__............Physical .................................. 1. Project Location ..... ....... . As described in Part I of this Report, and as shown on Map 1-2 therein, the Project runs generally one lot (tax assessor's parcel) deep on both sides and includes the public rights-of-way of Beach Boulevard, from Edinger Avenue on the north to Atlanta Avenue on the south. In several places, parcels to the east or west of the Beach Boulevard right-of- way are excluded, because their inclusion is not necessary to meet Project goals and objectives or because such parcels lie in adjacent redevelopment projects, e.g., the Huntington Center Project at Edinger Avenue and the Oakview Project at Warner Avenue. The Talbert-Beach Project lies adjacent • to the Beach Boulevard Project at Talbert Street. Kau llo11 is 2. Land Uses and Businesses The Project Area contains approximately 509 acres. As shown in Table II-1, commercial use (retail commercial, automobile dealerships, and offices) is the predominant land use (67.9 percent of the total .408 parcels). Nearly one-fifth of the parcels (19.9 percent) are devoted to residential uses, 8.3 percent (34 parcels) are vacant, and 16 parcels are publicly owned (school facilities, open land for flood control and a Caltrans maintenance facility). Some of the vacant parcels are exhibited in Plates 4, 23 and 24. Table II-2 describes structures by land use. Of the 405 buildings in the area, only two are vacant, 110 are used for residences, and 293, are occupied by non-residential users. Details about the types of businesses in the Project Area are contained in Table II-3. Over half of the 1,060 businesses provide services, in part due to a heavy concentration of medical offices surrounding the Huntington Human Hospital. Just over a quarter are engaged in retail trade (including 27 automobile-related); 15 percent of all businesses are in finance, insurance, and real estate; and the remaining 3.4 percent in construction, public uses, or and unknown. 3. Predominantly..Urbanized Area . Section 33320.1 of the California Community Redevelopment • Law requires redevelopment projects selected after January 1, 1984 to be "predominantly urbanized," which means that: 1) not less than 80 percent of the privately owned property has been or is developed for urban uses (uses which are consistent with zoning or otherwise permitted by law); or 2) the area is characterized by certain defined blight conditions; or 3) the area is an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. The Project Area qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area under all three of the given criteria. First, although there is some vacant land in the Project Area, at least 80 percent of the privately owned property has been or is developed for urban uses. Second, as discussed in a later section of this Report, the Project Area contains lots (parcels) that are of irregular form and shape and inadequate size, which has contributed to the economic deterioration, dislocation and disuse of the area. This is one of the specified blight conditions which qualify areas as being predominantly urbanized. Finally, since the Project Area is located in an area of Orange County which is completely urbanized, is now totally surrounded by developed urban uses, and is served by streets which serve, such uses, it qualifies as a predominantly urbanized area in that it is manifestly an integral part of an area developed for urban uses. 4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes (II-2) Katz 1fol l is Table II-I • Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach. - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project EXISTING LAND USE SUMMARY Percent Land UseM No. of Properties of Total . ....... ....... ........... ....................... . ....... Commercial 277 67.9% Public and Institutional 16 3.9 Residential 81 19.9 Vacant 34 8.3 PROJECT AREA TOTAL 408 100.0% • MThe principal land use for each assessor's parcel only; some parcels have more than one land use. Parcels that are used for parking to service another pa,cel are classified according to the land use of the parcel containing the use they serve. Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October 1986. • 112686 0898.hnt/bl Katz l lol I is • Table II-2 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project NUA&IIR OF 3TRUCTURBS . ... ............................:...._..................._.._............_.....---.......... Type of Use Nuttiber of Structures Non-Residential 1) Single-Tenant Buildings: a) Single Structures:::......:.........::..:.:::::::::::..::.:..:149 b) Multiple Structures...:::........::...::::.::.:.::.::.:.:::::: 66 2) Multiple Tenant Buildings::..:..:.:::.:.::::.:..:.:::::.:::...... 88 Residential • 1) Single Fainily....... :.:.::::..:.:.:....::::::::::..:...::::::.::.::.::::. 74 2) Multiple Unitd:..::.::.....:::...::.:::...:...:::::.:::.::.:::::..::::::. 36 Vacsnt........:.........::.....::::::.:::::::..::.::::.:::::..:::......:.::.:... 2 TOTAL ..........:........::.....:........:.......:::.:...::..:..:............405 Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October, 1986. • 112686 0898.hnt/bl Kal/ 11ollis Table 11 - 3 • Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project TYPES OF BUSINESSESM Category of Business Category Category No. Total 0/0 . .......................... . ... ......... RETAIL, TRADE (273) 25.6 Building Materials and Garden Supplies 2 Food Stores 16 Apparel and Accessory 35 Furniture and Home Furnishings 37 Eating and Drinking Establish rite nts 91 Miscellaneous Retail 58 Liquor Store 10 Department Store 2 Automobile Dealers 27 •SERVICES (583) 55.0 Personal Services (e.g. Beauty) 58 Business Services (e.g. Printers) 81 Automobile Services and Garages 58 Miscellaneous Repair 4 Amusement and Entertainment 16 Health Services 213 Social and Educational Services 12 Miscellaneous Services 146 FINANCE, INSURANCE, AND REAI, ESTATE. 170 (170) 16.0 CONSTRUCTION 6 (6) 0.5 [continued on next page] • 112686 0898.hnt/bl K-itz 11�►I I is • Table II - 3 (continued) Category of Husine.qs Category Category No. Total PUBLIC (18) 1.7 Administration and Service 113.2 Delivery Education 3 Recreation 1 Open Space/Flood Control 3 UNKNOWN 13 (13.) 1.2 ........... TOTAL 1,060 ... ........................... ----------------- MThe total number of parcels in the Project Area is 408, containing 405 structures and 1,060 businesses. Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October 1986 112686 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hol I is Certain properties within the Project Area are not blighted • properties. Such properties have been included: (1) in order to plan and carry out the Project as ' a uniform whole; (2) to impose uniform requirements over a geographically defined and identified area of the City; (3) because such properties are impacted by the conditions of . the bligh existing on surrounding properties, and correction of such conditions may require the imposition of design, development or use requirements on the unblighted properties in the event they are rehabilitated or redeveloped by their owners; and (4) because such properties will share in the physical, social and economic benefits which will accrue to 'the- area through the elimination of blight conditions and blighting influences, . including the replacement or provision of new public improvements and facilities serving the Project Area. 5. Buildings.._and_...Structures The Project Area is characterized by the existence of buildings and structures, used 'or intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial, or other purposes, which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes because of any one or a combination of the factors described below and illustrated in part by the photographs appearing in Plates 1 through 26. a. Deterioration and Dilapidation ........................._.................................._.............. ........_... There are various examples of buildings and structures • throughout the Project Area that suffer from deterioration and dilapidation. The results of a survey of structural and site conditions in the Project Area are exhibited in Table II-4. The definitions of the structural conditions ratings, "Sound," "Minor to Moderate Upgrading Required," and "Dilapidated," are contained in Table II-5, and the definitions of the site conditions ratings are described in Table II-6. Examples of the dilapidated units are provided in Plates 1, '2 and 3. Although the numbers of dilapidated or deteriorated units are not large, their deleterious impact on the Project Area is significant. With the majority of the buildings in standard condition, the presence of these aged structures suffering from lack of maintenance is particularly noticeable and contributes to a negative image of the community. Vacant properties with poorly maintained site conditions are depicted in Plate 4. b. Defective Design and Character of Physical Construction Buildings of any type may suffer deterioration or disuse, or may contribute to such problems in other buildings, because of inherent defects in design or character of the physical construction. Such defects may exist from the moment a given building is completed; or, they may evolve as uses within the building or within surrounding buildings change over a period of time. Some of the deteriorated and dilapidated buildings depicted in Plates 1 through 3 and discussed above were i (II-3) Katz i-i dIis • Table II - 4 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project BUILDING AND SITE CONDITIONS ..........-.1.... ___._......._......._.............................................._._....._.......__._..._ ... ................. STRUCTURAL OR SITE CONDITION RATING A B C TOTAL ...._.............. No. X No. X No. % No. % ....... ..._...... ........... ............. _.__...... Structures 1 340 83.9 53 13.1 12 3.0 405 100.0 Sites 2 311 76.2 66 16.2 31 7.6 408 100.0 • (1) Refer to Table II - 5 for definitions of Structural Conditions Ratings. (_) Refer to Table. II - 6 for definitions of Site Conditions Ratings. Source: Katz Hollis field .survey, July - October, 1986. • 112686 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hol I is Table II - 5 • Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS ..................._........................._.. ..__...._............................._... _ _..... ..._._.................... (Relates to Table II-4) Category Definition A "Sound": Structure appears to be in compliance with current building codes, based on visual inspection of exterior. All structural members maintain their engineering design integrity. B "Minor to Moderate Upgrading Required": Visual evidence of minor structural deterioration. Small cracks or offset of structural members. Does not appear that significant deterioration would continue with normal maintenance. All older masonry structures are included. C "Dilapidated": Visual evidence of substantial deterioration of structural members. Examples of deterioration include cracking foundations, offset or leaning columns and posts, window or door frames which are out of alignment, and sagging roof or eaves. Major costs would be incurred to bring the structure • into conformance with current building codes. -------------------- Source: Katz Hollis • 112686 0898.h nt/bl Katz Hol I is • Table II - 6 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project SITE CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS .............................. ....._.................._.__............._........._. ._..........................._............... Relates to Table II-4) Catelgory Definition A "Well Maintained": Exterior areas surrounding structures or vacant parcels are well maintained. These include landscaped 'areas, parking lots, driveways, paved decks, and open storage or work areas. Vegetation is healthy, well-watered, and trimmed. There is no debris scattered on the site; equipment or other materials stored on the site are arranged in an orderly manner; fencing is in good condition; and dirt surfaces are clean and well compacted. B "Moderate Maintenance Required": Visual evidence of minor to moderate lack of site maintenance. Examples include overgrown vegetation, weeds, and scattered limited debris. • C "Poor Maintenance": Visual evidence that the site receives little or no maintenance. Vegetation is unhealthy or extremely overgrown; weeds are abundant; considerable site debris, equipment or other materials are scattered randomly across the site; paved exterior surfaces are cracking or broken; and dirt surfaces are not compacted and likely to be muddy during rainstorms. Source: Katz Hollis • 112686 0898.h nt/bl i Kato1follis constructed poorly and would be. uneconomical to upgrade to current • standards. In some cases, defective design problems are the result of the lack of proper .land use controls or the lack of appropriate design standards. On occasion, buildings suffer from a design defect that has a direct negative impact on the immediate area. A frequent example of this in the Project Area is the existence of commercial buildings having limited or no off-street loading facilities. This forces delivery trucks to load and unload from public streets, resulting in traffic congestion and hazards. Plate 5 provides examples of two businesses with. facilities that were constructed relatively recently but apparently have insufficient space for off-street loading. Another example of defective design is the existence of limited off-street parking facilities, . which is contributing greatly to the Project Area's circulation system deficiencies, as will be discussed in a subsequent section. Plates 6 and 7 exhibit various examples of properties where off-street parking is inadequate, resulting in on-street parking on Beach Boulevard and adjacent streets. The occupancy of the curb-side lane on both sides of Beach Boulevard is particularly troublesome in interrupting traffic flow. C. Age and_Obsolescence • The age of structures on properties within the Project Area varies widely: For example, there is a' historic house about one hundred" years old (restored to perfect condition). The majority of the buildings in "C" condition described above were built over 40 or 50 years ago. They .are not in sound condition because they have not been well maintained, were constructed from poor materials, or do not meet current building code standards. The conditions of deterioration and dilapidation are discussed and documented in the section above. The age and obsolescent design or construction standards for a significant portion of the Project Area's structures has been a key factor contributing to their. substandard deteriorated conditions. d. Mixed Character of Buildings .......................................................... Buildings and structures are generally characterized by the uses that are made of them. A building used for living purposes is characterized as a residential building. A building used for business purposes is of commercial character. And a building housing manufacturing, fabricating, or processing functions is considered industrial in character. When more than one use is made of. a building, or when two buildings of different uses exist on - the same parcel, or adjacent to each other on abutting parcels, then such buildings are considered to be of mixed character. Mixed character buildings often have different but compatible • (II-4) Katz 11011 is • uses. Frequently, however, they have incompatible uses, with all the accompanying aesthetic (physical), social, and sometime economic problems such mixing can generate. The Project Area is characterized by numerous examples of residential units surrounded by commercial units, and even residences on the second floor of buildings with commercial uses on the ground floor where no adequate provision for such uses has been made. There are also examples of incompatible commercial uses adjacent to each other, such as an office building surrounded by automobile repair workshops. Plates 8 through 10 exhibit various examples of incompatible mixed land uses, including residences above businesses when no adequate provision for such uses has been made. The Project Area contains several large properties with obsolescent land uses that are no longer appropriate for a highly urbanized area of quality contemporary commercial development adjacent to residential areas. Examples of such uses include a Caltrans maintenance yard, a school district corporation yard, and an electric utility substation. 6. Properties The Project Area is characterized by properties which suffer from deterioration and disuse because of the factors described below. • s. Lots (Parcels) that Are _of_Irregular Forms Shape aP.d Size ................... The Project Area contains a number of lots (parcels) that are of, irregular form or shape and size in terms of uses and development standards appropriate for land adjacent to a six lane major arterial road in an urban setting. (Lots of less than 100 feet in width are considerate by City . Standards to be undevelopable.) Some lots, although deep, are narrow with little street frontage. Some lots have broad street frontage, but little depth. Plate 11 exhibits two examples. There are various lots that are only large enough for a single dwelling unit or a 5,000 square foot commercial building. Along a roadway with the width and traffic volume of Beach Boulevard, these lots are not of sufficient size for a development meeting contemporary standards. It is estimated that of the 408 parcels within the Project Area, over 20 percent suffer from irregular form, shape or inadequate size, including undevelopable parcels of less than 100 feet in width. b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and Utilities Properties in the Project Area are impacted by deficiencies in the transportation circulation system (Beach Boulevard and its intersections) and in infrastructure utilities such as water lines, storm drainage, sanitary sewers and undergrounding of utilities. • i Katz 1 fol l ms 1. Deficiencies in.. Transportation..Circulation System • Beach Boulevard, which forms the backbone of the Project Area, is a major north-south arterial in Orange County that connects communities from Huntington Beach to La Habra. It provides local access .to adjacent residential, commercial, retail, industrial centers, and major regional recreation areas (e.g., Pacific Ocean beaches, Knotts' Berry Farm); it also serves as a connecting link in the regional arterial network by providing direct access to various" freeways. At the northern edge of the Project Area, there is direct access to Interstate 405 (the San Diego Freeway). Beach Boulevard is identified as a major arterial on the County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways and was adopted as a State Route (SR-39) in piecemeal fashion between 1935 and 1941. It is presently a part of the State Freeway and Expressway Plan. Beach Boulevard generally consists of six through travel lanes plus a median. Existing .right-of-way widths for Beach Boulevard, as exhibited in Table II-7, range from 132 feet to 177 feet. The entire length of Beach Boulevard is currently experiencing traffic flow and congestion problems and will continue to experience increasing traffic flow and congestion coincident with the rapid and intensive development of the Orange County area. Previous studies by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC), such as the Multi- Modal Transportation Study (1979), and the Beach Boulevard Corridor Study (1984), have documented the current and future need for improvements. • The latter study concluded that the so-called "Super Street" concept would be effective in improving the capacity of Beach Boulevard. The Super Street concept involves the coordinated application of improvements such as signal coordination, restriping, bus turnouts, access limitation, and selected intersection widenings and grade separations. Long range travel forecasts predict continued and consistent increases in traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. If the Agency's proposed improvements are not made on Beach Boulevard, travel. conditions will continue to deteriorate and unacceptable levels of service for several hours each day during the AM and PM commuter periods.will be experienced throughout most of the Project Area. Statistical evidence indicates a need to provide additional capacity on Beach Boulevard to meet current and future traffic demand and to improve peak period travel speed and. traffic flow so as to provide acceptable levels of service, efficiency, and safety to highway users. Currently, several intersections along Beach Boulevard exhibit levels of congestion during peak hours that approach or exceed available roadway capacity, causing substantial delays to users. Table II-8 exhibits "level of service" ratings for key intersections within the Project Area, both under existing conditions (1985) and 30 years into the future (2005, assuming no improvements are undertaken). "Level of Service" is a term used to indicate the general acceptability of a roadway or its intersection in handling given volumes of traffic. The alphabetical designations "A" through "F" describe "best" to "worst" conditions. The level of service • (II-6) Katz Holfis • Table II-7 Huntington Beach i Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project BEACH BOULEVARU EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) WIDTHS . . .. ................. .......... ......................................................................................................I....................................................................... FEET OF ROW BEACH BOULEVARD SECTION .............. ..... .................................... ............................................... 158 , Pacific Coast Highway to Sunset Drive 138(1) Sunset Drive to Atlanta Drive 138 Atlanta Drive to Garfield Avenue 132 Garfield Avenue to Ellie Avenue 149 Ellis Avenue to s/o Taylor Drive 177 s/o Taylor Drive. to n/o Taylor Drive 132 n/o Taylor Drive to s/o McFadden Avenue • Plus an additional 20 foot freeway easement. Source: Real Estate Atlas of Orange County, 1982-83 Edition. • 112686 0898.hnt/bl Kati ilol i is Table II - 8 i Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE Existing...._(_1985)..........._..:._............. (.Projected.......2005�...._....... Intersection Of AM Alrl PN[ PM AM AM PM PM Beach Boulevard With: V/C(I) « L.O.S.L.O.S. ) V/C L.O.S. V/C V/C L.O.S. ........................_. Pacific Coast Highway .60 A `.61 B .64 B .58 A Atlanta Avenue .26 A .50 A .32 A .61 B Adams Avenue .64 A .72 C .70 B .94 E Utica Avenue .32 A .55 A .39 A .68 B Yorktown Avenue .47 A .57 A .61 B .72 C Garfield Avenue .42 A .59 A .56 A .78 C Ellis/Main Street .69 B .91 E .91 E 1.18 1� Talbert Avenue .61 B .72 C .73 C 1.12 F Slater Avenue .67 B .81 D .81 D .95 E Warner Avenue 1.01 F 1.24 F 1.25 F 1.49 F Heil Avenue .62 B .84 D .74 C .97 E Edinger Avenue .85 D 1.02 F ..97 E 1.13 F Volume/Capacity ratio (2) Level of Service Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quads &. Douglas, Inc., 1985. • 112686 0898.h nt/bl Matz H of 1 is calculations were based on the Critical Movement Analysis procedure documented in Circular 212 of the Transportation Research Board, using peak hour turning movement counts, the existing intersection lane geometry, signal phasing, truck percentages, OCTD bus frequencies and peak hour factors. Currently, five of the 12 intersections are operating below "C" level of service during afternoon peak traffic hours. If no improvements are made, traffic engineers expect that seven of the 12 intersections.will be operating at a P.M. level of service "E" or "F," with volume/capacity ratios ranging from .94 to 1.49. Counts of average daily traffic on sections of Beach Boulevard have also been made, as well as year 2005 projections, as exhibited in Table II-9. These volumes can also be analyzed in terms of levels of service. The criteria for levels of service for urban arterial streets are described in Table II-10. For a six lane divided urban arterial street, average daily traffic volumes exceeding 54,000 are rated "E," unstable flow with low operating speeds and often congestion. Traffic volumes are at or near capacity and this level of service should only be acceptable during peak hour conditions. The existing average daily traffic on Beach Boulevard from Talbert Avenue to Edinger Avenue ranges from 56,600 to 80,900, which is the "E" level of service. The volumes are projected to increase in future years, naturally, so that without improvements, conditions could well approach "system breakdown." Accident statistics for 1982 to 1984 are documented by Caltrans in Table II-11. The data includes accidents on Beach Boulevard within 200 feet of each intersection. The accident rate (percent fatal and injury) at signalized intersections along Beach Boulevard varies from 0.27 to 0.86; the total accident rate per million vehicle miles (MVM) varies from .69 to 2.35. The statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane arterial street in an urban area is 0.85 accidents per million vehicles entering the intersection. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly higher than the statewide averages. The numerous driveway openings tend to be particularly hazardous. Such hazards could be reduced or eliminated through use of reciprocal access and parking easements between adjoining parcels. Current conditions on Beach Boulevard are poor, but if no improvements are made, it can be presumed that they will worsen substantially. Projections in employment, population and existing and future land uses indicate increases in traffic generators. The Project Area and immediate environs contain major employment centers, such as the Human Hospital, or lies adjacent to them, such as the office complex at Beach and Warner and the One Pacific Plaza development. The significant current and future demand evidenced in studies indicates that capacity on Beach Boulevard must be improved. Congestion and delay will continue to increase over the next 20 years with a deteriorating level of service at most intersections. Intersections which currently operate at level of service E and F, such as Warner Avenue, will experience deteriorating conditions over the next 20 years, with extended peak periods and increasing intersection delays. Traffic flow will be impaired and average vehicle speed during peak hour will decrease as projected traffic volumes increase. The continued (II-7) Katz llol i is Table II - 9 • Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ..........................._..................................................................................... Existing(1985)...._.. _... Projected Sou (2005.):... .. ... .. North- South- North- th- Beach Boulevard Between bound bound Total bound bound Total Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy 6,300 . 6,900 13,200 9,100 9,900 19,000 Yorktown/Adams 17,300 18,500 35,800 21,700 23,300 45,000 Talbert/Ellis 27,800 28,800 56,600 32,400 33,600 66,000 Heil/Warner 30,900 31,900 62,800 35,400 36;600 72,000 • 1-405/Edinger 33,700 47,200 80,900 35,400 49,600 85,000 Source:. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &. Douglas, Inc., 1985. 011587/5 0898.hnt/bl • Too II - 10 • Ka¢/ u of l i s Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency j ■ Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN ARTERIAL STREETS ........ .. ...................:..........._......_.........._...._..._............ ...... .. . . ................_......._.........__....... ................. ........ .... Level Average erage Daily Traffic Service Volumes of 6 Lanes 4 Lanes 4 Lanes 2 Lanes Service Description Divided Divided Undivided Undivided A Free Flow and low volumes. Drivers 36,000 24,000 16,000 5,000 can maintain their ,desired speeds with no delays. B Stable_ Flow .and relatively low volumes. 40,400 27,000 18,000 pe T,500 Orating speeds are beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. C Stable Flow but apeeds and maneuverability 45,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 are more closely,,.., controlled by traffic volumes. This level of service is normally considered the highest suitable for urban design standards. D, Approaching Unstable Flow, increasing 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,500 traffic volumes with tolerable delay and tolerable operating speeds. The driver's freedom to maneuver is diminishing. E Unstab le Flow, low operating speeds and 54,000 36,000 24,000 15,000 :. .,_.._...._.. ...................:. . often congestion. Traffic volumes are at or near capacity. This level of service should only be acceptable during peak hour conditions. F Forced Flow, stop-and-go. Both speeds This condition represents system and volumes can drop to zero. Traffic breakdown and does not have a specific stoppages may occur for short or long relationship to service volumes. periods. The conditions often result in vehicles backing up from one intersection through another. ------- 112686 'ourco: Cnitrans, 1985. 0898.hrit/bl • Ka t z H o 1,i 5 Table II - 11 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ACCIDENT STATISTICS, 1982 - 840) Beach Boulevard Accident Locations Number of Accidents Rate Per MY. Exceeding-.State Average .... ...._..._..............._._..____.........._... -- - - -- _ ......._......._........._. - Fatal + Prop. % Fatal + Fatal .+ Fatal + Location > Total Injury Damage Injury Injury Total . Injury Total Beach 0 Pacific Coast Highway 51 .16 35 0.31 .32 1.04 # # Beach 0 Atlanta 32 18 14 0.56 .66 1.21 Beach 0 Indianapolis 26 12• 14 0.46 .65 1.20 * # Beach 0 Adams 68 16 52 0.24 .49 2.10 Beach 0 Utica 29 10 19 0.34 .44 1.30 # # Beach 0 Yorktown 63 23 40 0.37 .85 2.35 Beach 0 Garfield 49 15 34 0.31. .46 1.51 * # Beach 0 Main/Ellis 105 27 78 0.26 .59 2.31 Beach 0 Talbert 61 23 38 0.38 .51 1.35 Beach 0 Slater 105 34 71 0.32 .65 2.01 Beach 0 Warner . 100 27 73 0.27 .37 1.40 Beach 0 Heil 40 16 24 0.40 .27 .69' .. Beach 0 Mac Donald 48 20 28 0.42 .37 .90 Beach 0 Stark 93 28 65 0.30 .51 1.71 Beach 0 Edinger 94 30 64 0.32 .42 1.32 (1) Includes injury accidents only; non-injury accidents are not compiled as,a matter of City policy. Within 200 feet of each intersection. * Total accident rate greater than 0.85 per MV; fatal + injury rate greater than 0.3 per MV. 112686 Source: Caltrans, 1985. 0898.hnt/bl Katz HolIis • existence of an inadequate circulation system will dampen efforts to upgrade and improve existing Project Area conditions, and could significantly impact future development desired to eliminate underutilized portions of the Project Area. Based on the existing physical conditions, existing and projected (year 2005) traffic volumes, accident data and land use, a series of physical improvement alternatives was developed for Beach Boulevard between Pacific Coast Highway and Imperial Highway. The identified improvement alternatives encompass the "Super Streets" concepts. The objective of the "Super Streets" concept (high-flow arterial) is to enhance the level of traffic carrying capacity with the implementation of one or a combination of the following measures: Traffic Signal Coordination Restriction/Elimination of On-Street Parking . Restriping Intersection/Spot Widening Access Limitation Bus Turnouts Intersection Grade Separations Pedestrian Grade Separations Other Measures Found Useful The Orange County Transportation Commission • carefully examined each segment and intersection of Beach Boulevard in light of the improvement alternatives identified above. After consideration of the alternatives, the Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council adopted a program of projects. The approved improvements, together with existing and future volume/capacity ratios, analysis of right--of-way deficiencies and estimated costs at each Beach Boulevard intersection in the Project Area is exhibited in Table II-12. Signal coordination is recommended at the intersections of Atlanta Avenue, Utica Avenue, Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue. A variety of improvements are recommended for several other key intersections: Adams Avenue, Ellis/Main Street, Talbert Avenue, Slater Avenue, Warner Avenue, Heil Avenue and Edinger Avenue. The intersection of Beach Boulevard and Adams Avenue, depicted in Plate 12, is currently operating at a volume/capacity ratio of .72, and if no improvements are made, a ratio of .94 is projected by the year 2005. Signal coordination plus intersection widening to improve the westbound segment to three through lanes plus a right turn lane is recommended. The Ellis/Main Street intersection currently is operating in the evening peak hour at an E level of service and is projected to remain so, with a volume/capacity ratio of 1.18 if no improvements are made. In addition to signal coordination, recommended improvements to correct the deficiencies include signal modification, bus turnouts, access control, intersection striping and intersection widening so • that northbound and sorthbound' includes four through lanes and a dual left (II-8) TABLE II - 12 Huntington leach Redeveln"ent Agency Huntington Beach -Beach Boulevard Redevelopeent Project BEACH BOULEVARD DEFICTEMCIES IDENTIFIED BY 'SUPER STREETS' PROGRAM ., capital costs Yolwre/Capacity Ratios (Order-of New A.O.Y. Total Etisting Est. Year 2005 New 1.0-W. Magnitude) Costs Costs Intersection Iproveoents Needed 0/0 Imp. Y/Inp. 9/0 lop. W/Ip. 1equireseetst 1985 X $1,000 1985 1 11,000 1985 1 $1,000 Atlanta Avenue Signal Coordination 0.50 O.SO 0.61 0.61 10 0 10 Adm Aveawe Signal Coordination 0.72 0.72 0.94 0.94 10 0 10 Intersection Widening (New ROW) 0.72 0.65 0.94 0.83 EM-4' 46 14 60 (I!: 3 through plus right) Utica Avew Signal Coordination 0.55 0.55 0.68 0.68 to 0 to rorhawn Avenue Sig!fal Coordination 0.57 0.57 0.72 0.72 10 0 10 Garfield Avenue signal Coordination 0.59 0.59 0.78 0.78 10 0 10 Ellis/Main Street Signal.Coordination 0.91 0.02 1.19 1.06 10 0 10 Signal Modification IS 0 15 Bus Turnouts tt 20 14 34 Access Central 2 O 2 Intersection Striping (El: 4 lanes) 2 0 2 Intersection Widening 101 0 101 (18 B SB: 4 through) Intersection Widening (Mew IN) 0.91 0.69 1.18 0.91 NE-3' NW-3' 50 21 71 (MR 1 Se: dual left; MR: 3 through) Talbert Avenue Signal Coordination 0.72 0.64 1.12 1.03 10 0 10 Intersection Striping 2 0 2 (a B SB; 4 through) Bus Turnouts $1 20 14 34 Signal Modification 0.72 0.73 1.12 0.88 15 0 15 Slater Avenue Signal Coordination 0.01 0.75 6.9S 0-87 10 0 10 Intersection Widening 68 0 68 (Na B SR: 4 through) Bus Turnouts u 20 14 34 Warner Avenue Intersection Widening (New RC4f) 1.20 0.82 1.49 1.02 MY-12'SE-12' 387 719 1106 (NB 1 Se: 4 through; MB, SB, Ell B HE-2111-12' WB dual left and single right) Access Control 3 - 0 3 Bus Turnouts tt 10 .7 17 .Neil Avenue Signal Coordination 0.84 0.75 0.97 0.87 10 0 10 Intersection Widening 47 0 47 (NB B SR: 4 through) Bus Turnouts a 10 7 17 Edinger Avenue Signal Coordination 1.02 0.87 1.13 0.96 10 0 10 Bus Turnouts tt 20 14 34 Intersection Widening (Mew ROW) NW-6'SE-3' 143 32 175 (Ms 1 SB: 4 through; Sl dual left) Intersection Midening (Mew ROW) 1.02 0.79 1.13 0.86 ES-4' 95 77 172 (EB 1 MB: 3 through) EM /'I01 3'WS lt' tllie dmignalion rM 4' indicates that a width of four feet is required on side of the intersection's east leg. Scum!: Orange Counly lram:portation fosek,6 r6. • the length of right of war required varirs at each intersection, but typical y ranges trot, ?DO to 300 feel. trpnlhl of way required for bus turnouts will vary at each location. KaUth l.lis • turn lane and the westbound segment contains three through lanes. This complex`intersection is depicted in Plates 13 and 14. The Talbert Avenue intersection, shown in Plate 15, is currently operating with a volume/capacity ratio of .72, but if no improvements are made, it is projected (by the year 2005), to operate at an F level of service, the volume/capacity ratio reaching 1.12. Proposed improvements include signal coordination, intersection striping, bus turnouts, and signal modification. The Slater Avenue intersection, illustrated in Plate 16, is currently operating at a level of service D with a volume/capacity ratio of .81. Conditions are projected to worsen to level of service E (.95 volume/capacity ratio) if no improvements are made. Signal coordination, bus turnouts and intersection widening so that northbound and southbound segments have four through lanes in recommended. Beach Boulevard's intersection with Warner Avenue (Plate 17) is operating at a level of service F now, and will continue to deteriorate if the deficiencies are not corrected. Access control and bus turnouts are recommended in addition to substantial right-of-way acquisition to widen the intersection to four through lanes for northbound and southbound portions and dual left and single right lanes in all directions. The Heil Avenue intersection exhibited in Plate 18 • is presently operating at . level of service D (with volume/capacity ratio of .84) and conditions are projected to worsen to level of service E with a .97 volume/capacity ratio. Bus turnouts, signal coordination, and widening of the intersection to four through lanes northbound and southbound are recommended. The Project Area's northern boundary is in the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The northern portion of the intersection lies within the Huntington Beach Huntington Center Redevelopment Project. This intersection (Plate 19) currently operates at level of service F, with a volume/capacity ratio of 1.02 that is expected to degenerate further to 1.13. Improvements recommended to combat this congestion include signal coordination, bus turnouts, intersection widenings to four through lanes northbound and southbound with southbound dual left, three through lanes eastbound and westbound, and the linking together of Gothard and Hoover Streets. As a result of a shortage of off-street parking, the curbside lane of Beach Boulevard is often devoted to parking, as exhibited in Plates 6 and 7. Removing this lane from use by through traffic further contributes to traffic congestion and also places the persons entering and exiting their vehicles at risk, in close proximity to vehicles that may be traveling at speeds approaching 40 mph. Sidewalks are absent in several places in the • Project Area, as shown in Plates 21 and 22. (II-9) Katz liol l l S 2. Deficiencies in Infrastructure Utilities • The City's Director of Public Works has identified deficiencies in storm drainage, sanitary sewers and water lines in the Project Area. Storm drains need to be installed to complete the storm drainage system as follows: 2,200 feet of 24" and 18" drain south of Aldrich from Stark to Sher; one-half mile of 48" storm drain on the east side of Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis; and 36" and 48" drain on the west side of Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis. An undersized sewer line needs to be replaced with .12" line for 2,700 feet from Adams to Yorktown. Water line deficiencies that need to be corrected include replacement of 21,000 feet of 6" line and 20" steel casing for 12" water mains crossing Beach Boulevard in nine places. Overhead utilities are considered a blighting influence in the Project Area in light of citywide standards for undergrounding of utilities. B. Existing Social Conditions ............................... . ...._............._....._........_........._... There are approximately 175 housing units (including single family and smaller multi-family buildings; see Table II-2) in the Project Area, with an estimated 385 to 483 residents. The majority of .the housing units are located among, and are adversely impacted by, conflicting commercial land uses. Children living in the Project Area find a major urban arterial with traffic operating at speeds of up to 45 mph at the end of their front yard. • This problem of mixed uses was discussed in detail earlier in this report. At least half of the Project area housing units are in need of major repairs, and such units, with undesirable locations and sub-standard conditions, appear to be generally inhabited by persons of low or moderate income. C. Existing Economic Conditions ................................. ... ......._....._.._.....__....._............... 1. Economic Setting As discussed previously, most of the land (67.9 percent) in the Project Area is devoted to commercial uses and 23.8 percent to residences or public and institutional uses. Thirty-four of the 408 parcels (8.3 percent) are vacant, totalling nearly fifty acres. Thirty--one percent of all the retail and service related businesses in the City of Huntington Beach are located on Beach Boulevard. Among the 1,060 businesses in the Project Area, 25.6 percent are engaged in retail trade, 55.0 percent in services and 16.0 percent in finance, insurance, and real estate, as described in Table II-3. One-fifth of the businesses are involved in health services, due to the presence of the Human Hospital. There are a number of new and used auto dealerships and leasing agents in the Project Area. Sales taxes generated by auto dealers citywide account for 18.3% of the City's total sales tax revenues, as shown in Table II-13. • (II-10) Katz Hol l is • Table II - 13 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach = Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTO SALBS, 1986 Auto . ............_.._...._................._...._. lot Quarter 58,622,000 : 300,904,000 2nd Quarter 67,4599000 361,904,000 3rd Quarter 66,494,000 336,588,000 4th Quarter 67t648 0. 00 368?861a000 TOTAL: 250:023,000 1z348i247�000 ...........-................:......._...... ..............-..............._..._.._............... . [18.6% of City Total] • Source: City of Huntington Beach 011587/5 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hol l is 2. Economic Maladjustment • Precise statistics are not available, but there have been a number of small business failures in the Project Area, which is partially evidenced by the vacant stores and office suites for rent. Project Area conditions may be a factor contributing to the business failures, namely the presence of dilapidated structures, mixture of adjacent inappropriate land uses, and inadequacies in off-street loading and parking and traffic circulation. Some businesses, such as the auto dealers, may wish to correct the problem of inadequate off-street parking, but are hampered by lack of expansion area. It is critical to ensure that the auto dealerships are retained within the City because of their significant contribution to sales tax revenues and because the customers they attract generate a significant amount of other retail sales. Portions of the Project Area are underutilized in that the land uses are inappropriate for the zoning, uses and. densities. Other portions have not developed at all. Failure of the private market to respond to development opportunities indicates the existence of problems which private enterprise alone cannot resolve. The absence of private investment and reinvestment results in stagnation or further deterioration. Only through public intervention and assistance can this spiral be broken. 3. Impaired Investments and Depreciated Values The conditions of deteriorated, dilapidated buildings, underutilized properties and mixture of inappropriate land uses result in Impaired investments and depreciated values in the Project Area. While there are only two long-vacant buildings in the Project Area, there are 34 parcels that are undeveloped, as exhibited in Plates 4, 23 and 24, and many more that are not utilized to their full potential. There are also various examples of vacancies in stores or office spaces, such as those shown in Plates 26 and 26. There are examples of properties for sale that have been on the market for over a year. The presence of dilapidated structures impacts. adjacent properties and is symptomatic of owners' disinterest in upgrading the properties, and is also evidence of the private sector's lack of success in solving such problems on its own. 4. Eueten.ce of Inadequate _Public Improvements, Public Facili- tied Open Space_ and Utilities Details of the deficiencies in the street system, the supply of .parking, intersection capacities, sidewalks and infrastructure utilities were described in a preceding section. The present traffic circulation conditions on Beach Boulevard have economic impacts on residents, employees and patrons of the businesses. Travel time, which could otherwise be spent on economically productive activities, is longer than it would be under normal average operating conditions, which adds to the cost of travel and increases (II-11) Katz HOl l is • fuel consumption. : These conditions may be discouraging the development of vacant 'parcels and depressing property' values. The underutilization of property means that the. full potential tax base,. sales tax revenues and employment generated by the .area is not at capacity. Analysis of the economic impact of alternatives under the "Super Streets" program reveals that the,, present conditions on Beach Boulevard have had a negative impact on property values and have depressed sales volumes by several million dollars annually. Tables II-14 and II-15 indirectly quantify the extent of the negative economic impacts of Beach Boulevard's present condition. Table II-14 ' presents estimates of the potential vehicle-hours saved and corresponding dollar value of time and number of gallons of gasoline saved, if the maximum improvements alternative of the "Super Streets" program were implemented on the entire length of Beach Boulevard within the city limits of Huntington Beach. Table II-15 analyses, for each of five segments on Beach Boulevard, the potential increase in sales that would result from Beach Boulevard improvements, totalling over $2.6 million annually. These analyses indicate that improved traffic flow and property accessibility could quickly increase business sales, as well as lead to greater development densities, further increasing employment opportunities as well as personal income and municipal tax revenues. The shortage of off-street parking in portions of the Project Area discourages prospective patrons of some businesses along Beach Boulevard, as they may be apprehensive of exiting and entering their care • next to traffic that may be traveling at speeds up to 40+ mph. • (II-12) Katz 11ol I is Table II - 14 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach. - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project SUMMARY OP TRAVEL BENEPITS IN 2005 WITH "SUPER STREETS" MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMM Daily Annual(3) Vehicle - Hours Saved(') 2,503 hours 780,936 hours Dollar Value of Time Saved (4) $17,521 $5,466,552 Gasoline Saved 1,252 gallons 390,468 gallons • entire length of . Beach Boulevard within city limits of Huntington Beach. (2) Based on 312 days equivalent per year. cu A term expressing the extent of travel time saved; equal to one. vehicle traveling one hour. (4) $7.00/hour. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quads & Douglas, Inc., March 1986. • 121186 0898.hnt/bl/3 Katz lio1, i s Table II - 15 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL SALES VOLUMES RESULTING FROM BEACH BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENTS Potential Increase in Sales Beach Boulevard Block Daily AnnualM .--......... ...................................... ....... ................_..................._.. ............... ............._.............. ......... Ellis Avenue - Talbert Avenue $1,125 $405,000 Talbert Avenue - Slater Avenue 1,125 406,000 Slater Avenue - Warner Avenue 435 156,600 Warner Avenue - Heil Avenue 1,305 469,800 Heil Avenue - Edinger Avenue 31375 1,21.519w _..............._............._ TOTAL $7,365 $2,651,400 • 360 business (shopping) days per year. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quads & Douglas, Inc.,. 1986. 121186 0898.hnt/bl/3 Y a• � � ,t�r�'-'`�r'xT��t...,-,t1 � ��" +��i hrr` _ � - r. � �+t• �� c ,;��.d "1'' :'� •LPO; Y • Sy� 7i. '!4'°r �,, r'ar. `� • y�' .F r - �Y.- 4 x a 1 t ^y F r ye ..e.�.,�• �-- r o-F � Zs-"t.,� skL` JOW -y7 r.��..� �- � �'� •f� -:�'�"�'�1�' � 'el.�,s l'-,J r.0 ��s f�.�, ,.. a a �. �.r �.•a >< ,+4':M-,� � of•li:•Y x.�i•.. "'+��t.i � -: - 1 + 1 <l �+� �..yy�• �� "s :i-r � ..',.t` �' �.n a ,� -k y Y �'�' � r1t1'" .cr, til � �;� { �;�-5�, �� r��:' �; r {a '4yi-���.14�''.�,+ - ��, �. ��v a•r_ `r'x'!r ;,�,�.. m- m VACM HUNTINGTON 11 • n.1 ...., BEACH- BEACH • • • PLATE 2 REDEVELOPMENT • • PROJECT • • T i w. 4 Syr '••F' ` ' { �+' 'A@ ..,� ( �a �v� z`. .� � y,fib:.• .�. ."� � -.,t 'h k>,�h�':,�•y� y}�rt1/Jj��'� ��•l�y '� :v Jr,'. T r� r • � � e 1 oaf yF a" `Ogg.n �f a bqv"• rip J � • i�)Y��r1t.tea r ♦� •� r4I hr L�IF iI`4 Y��~..`5,��� ,f-76P�,Y (. � � f � r T� L t,.�n r 1 �p�;rw.r��h,}�`k'e•tl � 1 j i r ' lam cy Lj ['. •.��°�F r•,�y�k w 3. .��"s rt� N t r.u; " � t ice, ,s,s �t.' _ �,,, .r,� ;,Arx s.''K �q.Gee'ir, fi{ '' i. �,1� � - �►' ['!% ;J.�r ` � • ''� •: t.��� .wC��'rA�i;�aQ �Y' ► r � p�''�f�L f�i�al+4� "y' i Y` `'M��' �i a�" =�ti( .t'�G,Rir'� .•�'(''� '�fNF �. r4� , ,r�r.'t���( .�a'�'+ ��' £ fir. t�';;a tr��'�zJ+��,r k�; ZF Sir � '��, �S ray' K•. �; `-* �� �1 .�"�' r ht y.r fi a� N.-,^ F Ir — 1'� ���Y/��..-;7 r i��"11;' L,��. /':yzi"'�yJ'�l�� - .> ��•�§'. 5 ��JL•� ��n4C �,.. 7r 1 4t f1k "�{� {4 r' _ 1 .��k �LJL R' l J�ly,�;jj•L'Sv��„Yw f� i�ur�k Z' � t :/ �. '' � � ,:'��"y,!'�t�R .S- � �� ✓ r...r�y�, 'r '(}" �j• dry'1 �� _ �. ;� { + �<t�m xL h� �.�e' i N .y �'�+4 i4•'r��'c `+� -r7�:t `~..; `vyq. i`4. _LC � • } � •r 1(Sri,' r5rrt�� 1i�yt�'�'t'�dry_�►..:.. Y� pV {b �, �� 1� '.A \ ��•.r.ail•./ k � f 4 l- '• v i ? .�''AMM!fay.' ram. �-• iOn • A • A • �� i air3s�=T- n :7 - R_ 7'4'N a e t n r° r� L' ',, h - .� !rP x-" t'ar , ° K t ��a r~ c1 � '6`y ���o � t ��ti ZF�� ����ti��f �L 5 i`��*�ln'4��• '� Ya y' 1 t '- x•.t d. � ... • ,yT' s'4tW�w�t 3 a h v ��. r�r ��• L.',.Jr r,c, ��#,n � '�: l� �� �ek�r���''ySy hN� 7h, r rs��_�'!4t„=.� .,. • • • • • CREAM • • j M p s M l4 a fr rkH (" ��I • 4+'of >�1,1f,.Hh+yt 1 _, y�A(.°!r k s4a� t a4 ' �T•4 k xl 2J 4Rr ys �i'3} IIYr�A r• � ,��, '.)i r�r t _9�fF'� 1 4�r, -ai?•''-�t �, � 1� _ u:•r',. A 16 � Lti ., 1� j�C�4rf L1, � v : av k.�li.: S 1 �1�'� ' r' { � t '•� r�+ �•{{ Y, 1� s, .Ut:` • Y .. ------------------ VVi if..if h f{.�n!���--� '•Oillfl Of Y()rkirwo if rl;1(t after T' + HLjN Y ;' : :N; BEACH- , . . ; BEac: BOULEVARD PLATE 9 REDEVELut IVI-"N7 PROjEC-sl 7 ' 44 ' BARBER SHOP [t Alk :i 1. f r + I • LOTS THAT ARE 01 IRREGULAR FORM, SIZE AND SHAPE i Y•' i. r S• '+ .tea 9Syk.(s'.Rsv t t `r'$�lrr,N ,( v i 71 ,.�� Y.•,� �;�.: ,$�.x� CSIv '�; .f ik. ` ¢ v fir.. __ .. � .a?:�:. ;'•:i w��rG;�ce �l+.-y—vq� 'w" s '„�3�� < 'i�tty �.•',�.. �i . .v.. ...nrr�:i�e.•wylClrT.s lV".`]Wi•• -.n.�.l0. '�n.�.y ul i . c,5 yy�Yy �• � � � � rl' ' .. � � � '� rs)r` � Svc t � k L ��]r- Y- .f �ryy 7 y yti ra AUNTINGTON _� .may / _-�:® �i_'. •��'�J _�_ — — • t5.��; ,sY, •�.� - _ _ �-Y.Ys iy'� Y r -L i3 i4 £ .1 Pol I �. _ • �Ir •A h VI fit i'lli ` ii{t`ti z<.n • '. j )Jlew east of so.rtn s;de I I. ck of sidev✓alks I I - i '71.. View west of nc,r,h sloe. 'k 4, lack of sldew-:i'Kl, ,t.i'•' , MAR:i I .k•`•• INTERSECTION OF BEACH; k:YARD WITH ELLIS AVENUE: INADEQUATE WIDTH° LACK OF SIDEWALKS T '. UN 1i a... is BEAl.i�� ► ,� t REAC'� + '. , : VA ; PLATE 14 RED EVELC'?P!-' ;" :,, _f PROJECT u dim— ?'. 77IR _•'a -.� ��:.J —�— • .�. ��� ^ice '.`�,—. 00 - _ r t''�� ` '` g' z cue s a1 '}c• + tii r�K �_ . • • . i • i • • . WOMEN • • a � f s3' rf�a x; 1 rrj^ i�S �'.;ci., �fe } ':ti:'�. >• :>- e r.,fa T7 a .�h,k*M1r „i,' r;' � 14 71 ) Yr�Y 1+ • wx"� >•,'c r � Z�,.(�"' � � i�,. � tiV� '.�;� � yq,ow�.' y .L��/h' 'CFI C �j���N�� �+,\(,,, TM'y� ,d�,t i,� 'tea •�i.; t �i �.. � �� L.._, :�� tia r'h -Ji'G 1 vim, 4.t"1�;W� ! � • �1 • '; Ri�t 'QYi r +•"Fj'+�'ni 'r '�} Mi`f 'L fy�,,$ ( t.. ' f. �,f � )1 � � Rt"' _I �r�rx,.r� YK43�13� tir fe• r � ' �Y r� f j �}17' b r %• .L,f t '.y�) C 'N� ��. i '+'t ;1iiy7'( 1 ) 1 '}Y i) ���.• , ,��. i+gt k`!' i S r ��'t��l�� #�z Ord•.• + r $}: t* .� �4 tZ �,.:;•a rn- �c ��+' � 1 ror �kt�gt„�'r�, `��.� ;,�t�.'� rfy t' i�• rrW � 3 4 •Y,r�J; � � ' 7 �+C , ���,,r'i �1}� u�♦ r c, � � , tip` �� �,Z���,{•�r�i'S,r?��C G� { . •� ,��� F. ��a-[ �, !°r" , � �� S re,Z�����"` .�►r u�«i',� :+fG�?q �r1�b�'1'rr�"�'' r� 'b,^�'�ai '�'r�' 'T 4 r,�"'} �����fijy�{j�•. ir3 w' Y}..r'�ti r.rv^'�i v.. u� �*c s a•�� n � r yti U-, � � ,� �a"rcxr�M•, �,1 � t�- �;�• '' � :� ��3,ti to 3 t lu' � \ . �I'Jlz Z !+,'}}-+'r`' ' � C`�3•»d� .,4 r�tts�r G/� ��4..�it w'x`��7rf k,-�� r� ' 1 rays, •� rR �<,yh���i���i. `l ti. f�f7 it '���yT�Y��k i ���t � -01�i1�'S�� -� K��.Ir�;y'•:i,;r 1 ki f#. 4 �fi �r .r 'Sr'gf±"� <.'�.S sr..cTn,i,. '{t. . r 31 L - J 1Wi Al s 3 R Y� • : : L : • L - r , r 4 .. r 344r. vitr 1`/ Jr� a hllC /54lr dr-v as q � � !1 i f YY. t♦ tO � � rit r�" {� k�s�y,�r�,(�,t�y.3�,�� ,y�i`"!�� _ : {�.+. .•,.'�- �r �?���.. �'�""r P+.�.. •• r�tr �,.� ��Zr r.' tlr,. 1 t., t. c`ri �"- r.• - � va7, i it r t x r a ��'•1� , ����: 1 '�,,+w �,��i �p��tfr x�N Li �'� �Wtf ,�g�'�l�,�f"ti4ryyt �� 1`t ,• � � - ; �'S Rx� �� .r, shy. � S+ 4��r a •�� ^ ` ��r i. I • fir. A �'@Y•;1 v .� !� t x.����' •� r fit., `�.iG. ram.,+k,��r 1 ' c f'�'� t '• '�1j�,�ay�{`�,t d `` a �� 1�sr ��' y u 1'$•��r��{1 i 1q,}7�.�'� `'Kp�T 4 ''•'•r` }�P+ � a rah ` l I'�`'� �. ,q1•+�').S}`�.ro��.. �,x•ib„jy-,.tr"'� .xl.r.Ir.,yt t�"' • �t�r7 7S47 � r�yy,k�,?�,x.. � xy�r d w� h.,',S,x ��. � i,�•tjJglt yyt rq 1 �• .1 � s• _ 1'•'1� �' f.?•, �r �ll��..Y7 .Y �• �s�r"�•'� rf,��{tS t.0 � rfi h�`� `I,�•C� � 1 `�1 1 ��?''s �{ �*s,}�,� � d•"'�Y,�t i�''G'•��r.: � 8'ra, �"r y.•�r mar` .-.. 1\4� i�� '�' 4.N'�c" �T4r'^ird " A '�}°lr 'A y 'y x•� ; ati .a 3ti.v yr`a y1 �,.4 rtis i�{Fr�d � ��r�:.i'r�t'iYrb�°;+ �X%�ey. •� ��: t7+��.1�� � �i� • y iy Y.H,r f i s F t t-Y 1r x�I• pl�',c�' yh� `'Sa^�'-kiF r�� ',#apt T ��.^r v y,. L t � n �,.. y 'r175r�Ji+�.✓ 'Y,�^.x �r'yyf� �'+.rt,�f�`ai.c".`. 1' ..c � i)d ,�i Si��/i�� � �w . {�u'z',f'"'� ��s �F�„. 1 t �. �kX•� Y a 't,�+•" Ft '`�*I,` ,�,,.;{t 4, 1�►1' ,� t ,b.�jYr�; .'_'�.`�.• .. ',•,1 x, ;,,r0. Gx> � .,k, �aE•��Yr '' .r,. 4h.,r�s5 y+�r3x...�. ,yt�"�r:�'Sr,.�3':ixti �. t ,� , ,-L .✓ �, �SII r ��„� {fit ti t �� dt4jYg� s .t, t n F- �i r �i y y t 1 a•fi rreell I � .t T,.. ♦ � �y4«1 �,� - '. � ;. r1-/i � -S�'74.z.7'7.,tr J ' / I y s i 1_:Pk'�"`f � 41t x'P`Y �'l �t 71''' { t' ,• "'!�. *rti_ �.' s 1 ;wrr.K,ra ,y h'�s��:? v{ r�ky. � ,",�t rl�4wy�•'�.?t,, t5 r M n L 2"'�� r 'c.�jC, c."1`a �`' x•,} K .,F r w�"'�`. !' 9A;�`1�'�+. tskqry y�(`. L.+'��4����It� qC}P , � <^4 yr r r 3 ut ,,it Vol, F L �yi �4 > r s ar• i r�d�+���s .�y.,rr,li��'�i )�K"S.!'q'!M4 :jt;•r`4 r.r;. ,'r�,; SMlk�'�V`�:Zs °o�'+kC3� l���li''.ry�•*,y, , �'�t�twr Cat ' dal 'S,HjZ3.4ry. �>' ,..rer4y .l y��'•,ys ,.5.." Ky/,} x'�.y � � '.r,� u � �y, d?a5 +w�rH C ��Jei' a rE �i{. r ar W ""�y'B F°• ';' '"i + i -0�.aG£,k }g fi`t 'et 3 .� Y° A' 4'k F ��xv9e,,�, rr� •. � � .... .'^� � n �l d.�w pkti Y i w rlea, " >,-��• '�'•''i�j ter'" �-rh t�,�g,rnrrf,4 ',.'�: h ���`5:`•L` ff� ��"l+l�'';'4reR i'?' �3'stF�.:� ` �J P�� �'ti+ .^�Y^"' ! � � � .a. '"M I. 'l fir• • a: ,v,�p, , �f ram, A of t '@r i � '� � rf #� _ �R �!w✓.s�r'f �� .'Are VIv 4 1 �`Ri� ,�yi'.�l 4 ,i�y, pia' 4 ",* r Y� r •4�M.4J� ��� `.. K fjif/ !�;r y=. VACANT HINDER-UTILIZED PROPERTIES • - Northeast coo nee of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta i i r• I i View northeast of rr�_ i eity west of Beach Boulevard between Wft Memphis Avenue any r Knoxville Avenue Iry i l ii �.r• I HUNTINGTON BEACH- �"� • �' i t r BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 23 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ML �r lgt o� Y HUNTINGTON BEACH- BEACH 'r• X;�r ryy� I ... •f• 4 '.4• � Yc,. x BOULEVARD PLATE REDEVELOPMENT . . i f � SrtJ t�, `� 3` F iz F 1r`'� 54'F,fit' -0F�,,`'�'9rvsr £r"!3 '1 •-i:,, -i�. NAM MF is � ��1 ;•Y,. �r �}��-� •�, �>.- �itr , *&�k��°'�`,�� "IN I.+a`�i1.+,�Y � l k ,�'�.`'�'�'�"°'�r 'w .G.. Tit.- �4� Y r`s•'yr�t l.^S.t ,., i � r .�tl s,{ r k � 14r2V� `w'•Tr -J 5L �^' •v ;+r :t r y yr w Alex' OLE �r Gk1 ';4A �€7.� K�.j ns+ `F !• �' 'C' l f i 3-idA>,� Y�g ��„ � '`` I'>fjr'.. @ `r� r YRt '76r# •o-r;3 t arw S y R "u! r^ i:9 i A+4xt � 1 ..w• i • '., r'.`+• ►'' �, � ,r tt�"F it 'z"�y'1',=.'q .,fir . �'' > a iz' ' �,�zti � z�, '\y�..�:, �� r� u���nr-i„'d����'rt'.��. tr• 4..� ,�r.���� r•.. '�"g�s��t'ct,• f z ` � a'' � 'a o''✓ � rS �r�. r''t*•I i y`R9-PIRI-A �''r �,,•}, ,-t, 'si F .� �° �E■' ■■�■:■ � l1,y� a T ■UM' ¢ ,: 'ssss. '• 1p \\��; ra��■ is {4fF. ) M � S } Tx4Fr yS��4S�rT6r'�L ®• � &� ( � .� h to • i i• • • . • • • . • IX 't� T� a4 p fJ �', r� •�. 'tai F ��ti4 lilt 44 all Nr f x � • 1 � � 10��, ,}ri • i .{ Kalz ilol l is • PART III. ROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING RBDBVBLOPMMT OF PROJECT .AREA A. General Financing_Methods Available to Agency ..............................._............................ . _. The proposed Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to finance the Project with financial assistance from the City, State of California, 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 source, public or private. The Agency is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds and create indebtedness in carrying out the Plan. The principal and interest on such advances, funds and indebtedness may be paid from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency. Advances and loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital for nominal administration of the Project have been and will continue to be provided by the City until adequate tax increment or other funds are available, or sufficiently assured, to repay the advances and loans and to permit borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The City, as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through City loans and grants for various public facilities and other Project costs. B. Proposed Redevelopment_._Activities and 8st1mated Costs As detailed in Part II of this Report, the Project Area is a blighted area suffering from certain problems which cannot be remedied by private enterprise acting alone. The Area's problems center around four issues: 1) poor vehicular circulation and insufficient off-street parking; 2) deteriorated structures and mixed, inappropriate land uses; 3) underutilized properties; and 4) insufficient land use controls and inadequate design . standards. The Agency proposes to use the redevelopment process, to the extent possible, to help eliminate the circulation and parking deficiencies and the presence of deteriorated buildings and inappropriate land uses in order to provide a proper environment for controlled growth to occur. Such activities will facilitate the full utilization of property and will enhance the economic vitality of the Project Area. Proposed redevelopment activities required to achieve the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and to address the Project Area's problems will include: 1) a program of upgrading and installation of needed public improvements and facilities; and 2) a selective land assembly and disposition program. The Agency's proposed public improvements and facilities program for the Project Area, and its estimated cost in current dollars, are detailed in Table III-1. Improvements needed to remedy major traffic circulation deficiencies total $2.7 million, of which $1,297,000 is proposed for Project funding. Related landscaping and streetecape improvements will cost an • estimated $2.0 million, all of which is proposed for Project funding. The replacement or installation of storm drains and sanitary sewers is estimated i (III-1) Katz Ho�1 j i s Table III - 1 • Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Reach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ESTIMATED ........ ............................ _._......._....._......_._........._..........._......._........._......._.._ Portion Proposed for Project Funding Estimated Total Cost Amount % _..._....................._..__. - "Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Bdin�er --Signal Coordination and Modifications $ 130,000 $ 20,000 15.4% --New Signals 92,000 92,000 100.0% --Access Controls 500,000 500,000 100.0% --Parking Restrictions. 15,000 15,000 100.0% --Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections 24,000 20,000 83.3% --Intersection Widening, Including New Right-of-Way 1,800,000 600,000 66.7% • --Bus Turn Outs Including g Y Ri lit-of-Wa 170,000 50,000 29.4% .......................................... ....................................... Total Super Street Improvements 8 21731�000 $ 1,297,000 47.-5% ..................-........................ Storm Drainage And Sanitary Sewers ...... .._._. ...... ._....................................... .. ... .. . ........................._...... ........ --South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher. 2,200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain. $ 270,000 $ 270,000 100.0% --Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east side one-half mile. 48" wide storm drain. 625,000 625,000 100.0% --Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west side) 48" and 36" wide storm drain. 1,300,000 1,300,000 100.0% --Sanitary sewer - Adams to. Yorktown. 2,700 ft. of 12" line 200,500 200,500 100.0% Total Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewers $ 2�395,500 $2,395,500 100.0% .........._... ..... i [Continued on following page] • 0898.HNT/bl 1 Katz ilol015 • (Table 111 = 1, page 2] Portion Proposed for Project Funding Eatimated __... Total Cost Amount % Waterline Improvements ......................... .. --8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd., complete loops and replace 6" $ IM5,000 # 10616,000 100.0% --20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" water main, crossing every 1/2 mile: Locations: Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield; Yorktown, Indianapolis, Atlanta. 200' length per crossing 414,000 414,000 100.0% _......... .... ..__.....................__. ........................ Total Waterline Improvements # 1929i000 1,929i000 100.0% Utility Under nd Srouii --Entire length Beach Blvd. $ 4,500,000 $ 3,200i000 71.1% ............................. Recreation and Park Improvements, ..... ... _ . and Historic Preservation Bartlett Park #1,242i000 # 1,242�000 100.0t _.. .. ._. ...... .Landscaping..and Streetscepe --Median and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger # 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 100.0X --Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights 1t000 000 # is0061Q00 100.0% Total Landscaping and Streetscape . .2 ,doo s Z,000,000 ioo:oz TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $ 14 y97 500 ,.12L063,500 81.5X • Source: City of Huntington Beach 0898.HNT/bl Katz liol l is to cost $2.4 million, one-hundred percent of which is proposed for Project • funding. Waterline improvements will total $1.9 million, all of which is proposed to be paid through Project funding. Seventy-one percent of the $4.5 million in utility undergrounding costs is proposed for Project Fundin". Full Project funding is also proposed for $1.2 million in recreation/park/historical preservation costs. The total cost of the entire public improvements and. facilities program is estimated at $14.8 million, of which $12.1 million ., (81.5 percent) is proposed for funding from Project revenues. The Agency's land assembly and disposition program will focus on eliminating non-conforming and other blighting uses as well as becoming .a means of assisting the private market to properly develop vacant and underutilized.:parcels.. Although the Agency does not intend to pursue an aggressive land assembly policy, it is estimated that up to 107 acres of property could be acquired, at an average cost of $30 per square foot. As detailed in Table III-2, land assembly and related costs, including special site preparation, total an estimated $150.7 .million in 1987 dollars. Other estimated Project costs detailed_ in. Table III-2 include Project administration ($4.3 .million) and Low and Moderate Income . Housing Fund deposits of $41.8 million. When a ten percent contingencies factor and an escalation factor • of 15 percent are applied to the total of the above costs, the total estimated Project costs, exclusive of debt service on Agency bonds, become $264.1 million. In Table III-3 projected land sale proceeds of $116.5 million are netted against the above total Project costs, giving a potential bond issue size of $147.6 million. Debt service on an issue of this size would be $322.8 million. Total net Project costs, including bond debt service, are estimated at $470.4 million. This amount becomes the proposed tax increment limit for. the Project. C. Estimated Project Revenues ................_......................... .... ..._. .......... Potential revenue sources to, fund Project costs include: tax increment receipts and proceeds from tax increment bonds; loans, grants and contributions from the City, State or Federal Government and from Project developers; proceeds from the sale of Agency owned land; special assessment districts; and development fees. 1. Tax Increment Revenues ......._ . ....._............._...._.. ............. Agency .staff :have projected the scope, type and pace of new developments which may occur within the Project Area over the life of the Project. The scopes and types of these developments are .summarized in Table III-4. • (III-2) Katz liol l is • Table III - 2 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach -Boulevard Redevelopment Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS* (000's Omitted) Proposed Public Improvements and < 112 064 Facilities Projects (See Table III-1) , Site Assembly: - Land Acquisition (107Ac ® $30/sq. ft.) $139,850(1)(1) - Relocation 4,125(3) - Demolition 925(s) - Special Site Preparation 5,8000) Total Site Assembly 150,700 Administration (5 yrs ® $300,000; 5 yrs Q $200,000; 5 yrs @ $150,000; 10 yrs @ $100,000) 4,250 Low and Moderate Income Housing • (20X of total below) 41.,754 ................. ..... . . Total $208,768 Plus: Contingencies (10% of above total) 20,877. Total $229,646 Plus: Escalation (15% of above total) 341.447 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $2641.092 * Estimated Project costs do not include payments to affected taxing agencies to alleviate financial detriment, if any, caused by the Project, or for deposits into the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as a result of such payments. In addition, the cost of providing replacement housing for low and moderate income dwelling units demolished by the Project is not included in the estimated Project cost total. It is assumed that any replacement housing cost obligations incurred by the Agency would be funded by moneys deposited into the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. Source: ( )City of Huntington Beach (')Katz Hollis (')Pacific Relocation Consultants Katz Hol l ig Table III - 3 • Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Bonch-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project NET PF0JBCT COSTS . ... . ..... . ... (000's Omitted) Costs to be Net Financed ....... .... Total Estimated Project Costs (See Table III-2) $264,092 $264,092 Plus: Debt Service on Bond Issue (Interest Only)0) -- 322,809 Total $264,092 $586,901 Less: Estimated Land Sale Proceeds(z) <116,523> <116,523> _.............. ..._ .... ........................... ...... Total Costs to be Financed with Bond Issue $147,569. Round to g147,570 NET PROJECT COSTS (Tax Increment Limit) $470,378 Round to 80 • ------------------- (l)$147,570,000 issue; 12% interest, 25-year term (2)107Ac B $20/sq. Pt., plus 25%) • 0898.hnt/5 Katz 1fol l is • Table 11I 4, Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project PRWBCTBD NNW DSVBLOPMEff Motel Units 104 units Commercial 575,700 sq.ft. Office 300,000 sq.ft Residential Dwelling Unite 507 D.U.s Restaurant/Fast Food 16,460 sq, ft. Auto Dealerships 52,000 sq. ft. • Source: City of Huntington Beach • 0898.HNT/bl Katz I fol 1 is A projection of annual : -estimated tax increment revenuem • which would be generated within the Project Area over the life of the Project is- .,presented in Table III-5.: The projection, totaling some $515.0 million, is based upon:_ 1) the new' developments included in. Table III-4; and 2) an underlying severi percent annual growth to reflect transfers of ownership and other new construction. If a full 20% of this amount were deposited into the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund, the net tax increment funds available to the Project would total $412:0 million. 2. Loans Grants and Contributions from City State and Federal .......I...... ......... .............. Government and from Project Developers, Currently, Agency administrative costa are being funded by City advances and loans, a situation which will continue until other sources of revenues are available. It is likely.; that additional City funds or other loans will be necessary if all the implementation activities identified previously are to be timely completed. Such loans may include advances from future Project Area developers. A major component of the Project Area's existing blighting conditions is the existence of inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities. Local and freeway transportation, traffic and street improvement projects needed to alleviate the area's major traffic access, circulation and parking deficiencies total over $14.8 million. As detailed in Table III-1, nearly twenty percent of this cost is proposed to be borne by sources other than project funding. Such sources will include the City's general fund and • various public improvement funds, some of which are funded by contributions from state and federal programs. . 3. Land Sale Proceeds ........................._........... ................ ..................... The Agency's program contemplates the acquisition of privately owned parcels to be sold for development in accord with the Redevelopment Plan. For purposes of this Report it is assumed that sales prices from the Agency to private developers will average $20 per square foot, totaling an estimated $116.5 million. 4. Special. Assessment Districts The use of special assessment districts is not presently considered a viable alternative to the use of tax increment revenues to fund Project costs. By definition, and as described earlier in this report, the Project Area is a blighted area in which existing owners and potential outside private developers have shown a reluctance to invest. It is believed that required contributions above and beyond the normal costs of land acquisition and private development may become a self-defeating disincentive to private development. Under current conditions it is also unlikely that existing businesses and owners could afford to participate in an assessment district to finance major Project activities. (III-3) KatzH02118 �tington Beach RedeveIopunt Agency BEACNI ntington Bwh--BeacA Boulevard Aedeve?}psent hoject Table I1I-3 P40JCCTIDN OF INCREM IAL TAX REVENUE (000's bitted) 121 Tota! Inerteert Grose l3) t4) Fiscal Real Other Pre;s_t Over Base Tax 201 Reg Net Tax Year Propty (1) ProOty (1) Value S7421M Revenue Cumulative Set-kide Cumulative Revenue Cumulative -------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -------- sasssstsos --------- ssss---=ses --------- --=--===== 1986-97 217,?32 24,673 2421 +w5 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 1987-08 235,030 24,673 :5?,?J3 17,6?e 208 208 (42) (47) 166 165 1"1-99 257,676 23,138 2°2,315 40,910 479 687 (96) (137) 383 549 19l1-40 273,714 28,35E 304,-;* 62,064 726 11411 (143) (283) 5E1 1,1!3 1990-41 330,597 28,356 352,+5? 116,947 11364 2,777 (273) (50) 1,091 2,222 1441-92 361,571 28,356 3E°,9:2 147,927 1,721 41498 (344) (900T 1,377 3,599 !992-93 386,887 29,420 416,-�17 174,302 2,0231 61521 (405) (1,304) 1,61E 5,217 19971-94 413,969 30,243 444.212 202,207 2,341 81862 (468) 11,772) 1,P71 7,090 1994-95 43,061 30,243 493. ?a 251,298 2,901 11,763 (580) (2,353) 2,321 914!1 1995-96 502,866 30,243 `77.:I'8 291,103 3,352 15,l15 (670) (3,023) 2,E82 12,092 1996-97 538,066. 31,379 5:9,1i5 327,440 3,761 10,876 (752) Q J75) 31008 0,101 1947-9t? 585,0d?9 ?2,045 e':',1.44 375,939 41306 23,182 (261) (4,636) 31445 18,546 Ms-" 637,226 32,043 Fs=.-11 427,266 41891 28,063 (976) (31013) 3,903 22,450 �99-00 762,784 33,.446 �6 .21 ., 554,230 6,315 34,378 (1,263) (6tlh) 5,032 27,302 _'C00-01 91°1727 34,528 95':,--. 712,250 8,093 42,471 (1,619) (81494) 6,475 33,977 I&W-C2 9ea,14e 39,244 :, 3.?52 791,347 9,855 51,326 11,771) (10,265) 7,084 4t,06'_ 2002-03 11052,995 44,143 1,� 97,`.44 855,138 9,665 60,991 (1,933) (1.2,198) 7,732 481793 2003-04 !,126,705 44,149 1,!?0,3:� 926,848 10,470 71,461 (2,094) (14,292) 8,376 57,169 2004-03 1,205,375 44,14E 1,249,723 1,007,719 11,329 9217" (2,266) (16,339) 9,063 66,232 2005-06 11289,965 44,148 1,334,113 1,092,108 12,244 95,034 (2,449) (19,007) 9,795 76,022 2006-07 1,380,262 44,148 1,424,110 1,162,405 131221 109,255 (2,644) (21,651) 10,377 86,604 2007-08 1,476,88! 44,148 1,52:, 9 1,279,424 14,262 1 ,518 {2,852) (24,504} 11,41^ 98,014 2008-03 1,590,262 44,148 1,624,4:0 1,362,445 15,373 151,991 (3,075) (27,576) 121299 110,3I3 2009-!0 11741,725 44,14E I,7zI 'T. 11543,866 17,122 155,013 (3,424) (31,003) '.3,6% 124,011 2010-11 1,975,322 44,149 2,01°,470 1,777,465 19,659 174,672 (3,932) (34,934) 15,727 139,137 201!-12 2,113,594 46,010 2,1CO3-H 4 1,917,679 21,151 195,623 (4,230) 139,1465) 16,921 1569659 2012-13 2,261,346 4716F 2,-09,175 21067,230 22,738 2181562 (41548) (43,712) 18,191 1741B49 2013-14 21419,954 47,689 21467,!44 21225,539 24,412 242,914 (41902) (49,595) 19,530 194,379 2014-13 2,597,858 479689 2,645,1.47 2,403,342 26,292 269,266 (51250) (53,853) 21,033 2159412 2015-16 2,793,306 47,689 2,2iIV,79i 2,588,996 28,242 297,508 (59648) (59,502) 22,394 236,006 2.016-17 2,978,!3W 49,625 3,026,763 2,784,757 30,293 327,801 (6,039) (65,560) 24,235 262,241 2017-18 3,186,607 48,625 3,2 5, ,i 2,993,227 32,470 360,271 (6,494) (72,054) 25,476 288,217 2M-19 3,409,670 48,625 3,458, 35 3,216,290 34,793 395,063 (6,959) (79,013) 27,934 316,051 2019-20 3,648,347 46,625 3,!9b.:72 3,454,966 37,270 432,333 (7,454) (86,467) 29,816 145,867 00-21 3,903,731 48,625 3,95 ,356 3,710,331 39,912 472,245 (7,962) (94,449) 31,930 377,796 021-22 4,176,992 40,625 4,22:,E17 31963,612 42,731 514,976 (8,346) (102,995) 34,165 41!,48! TOTAL 314,976 (102,995) 411,98! i See footnotes on fallowing page, Katz 11ol l is Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Reach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project FmAnotee to Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue (Relates to Table III-5) 1. The estimated 1986-87 base year assessed valuation of the Project Area has been determined based upon local secured and unsecured values reported by the Orange County Auditor - Controller for fiscal year 1986-87. State assessed public utility assessment records were not available for incorporation in the base year valuation total. _1*. .Property values (i.e., land and improvements) reflect anticipated value added se a result of new developments identified by City/Agency staff within the Project area, as well as an annual two percent increase as allowed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution and a five percent annual increase to reflect unidentified transfers of ownership of new construction. Other Property values (i.e. personal property) are assumed to increase only as a result of anticipated personal property valuations of the new developments. The amounts of annual taxable value added as a result of identified new developments include • an assumed four percent inflationary growth factor annually escalated to reflect assumed market increases to the cost of property development and tenant improvements. 2. Gross. tax revenue is projected on the basis of a . representative area tax rate which includes the basic $1 per $100 rate plus an override rate. Future override rates reflect an assumed annual decline equivalent to the average annual decline of the override tax rate between 1980-81 and 1986-87. 3. Twenty percent Housing Set Aside - 20% of gross tax revenues are assumed to be set aside for purposes of low and moderate income housing pursuant to existing California redevelopment law. 4. Net tax revenue - For the purpose of this projection, annual tax . .. .. increment revenue shown is net of the twenty percent housing set aside requirement. No other tax revenue allocations are assumed or shown. I Kautiollis 5. Development Fees _.._...._..... ._.... • The City of Huntington Beach currently charges modest fees for permit processing and administration. For the same reasons as discussed above for special assessments, the City does not currently plan to increase the fee schedule as a means of financing redevelopment activities. It should be noted, however, that future Project Area commercial and residential development will likely be subject to development fees of 25 cents/sq.ft. and $1.50/sq.ft., respectively, which per AB 2926 (Chap. 887, 1986 Statutes, effective January 1, 1987) may be levied by local school districts to assist in building new and renovating existing schools. D. Proposed Financing Method _and Economic_Feasibility of_Project As shown on Tables III-1 through III-5, the Agency proposes a program of redevelopment activities which total an estimated $586.9 million. It will have funding resources. of $116.5 million in land sale proceeds, giving an estimated net Project cost of $470.4 million, including an assumed full twenty -percent annual deposit into the Project Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund. With estimated tax increment resources totaling $515.0 million over the life of the Project, all costs are fully fundable. Because tax increment revenues build up slowly in early years, the Agency will likely continue to use City loans to finance initial activities. • As revenues increase, such loans may be repaid, and the Agency may choose to fund the activities. through other financing sources secured by tax increment. One or more bond issues may be. sold by the Agency in order to leverage future revenue flows. Because of the 1986 federal tax act, such issues, if tax exempt, may be restricted to essential .government purposes such as the construction of public improvements and facilities. Based on the financing method discussed above, the Agency has established the following tax increment and bond limits in the Redevelopment Plan, as required by_ the Community Redevelopment Law: 1) the total tax increment bonds which may be outstanding at one time may not exceed $147,570,000 in principal amount, and 2) the total amount of tax increment revenues which may be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area may not exceed $4700380,000. Both of these limits exclude any payments made by the Agency to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment caused by the Project. Any such payments the Agency may be required to ..make could potentially reduce the funds available for Project activities, especially in the Project's early years. E. Reasons for Including Tax Increment Financing in Proposed _. . _._..._-....... ._... Redevelopment Plan A redevelopment program in addition to providing a proven method of securing desired developments in locations otherwise not attractive, also provides a financing tool in tax increments. The Agency and the City must look to this source of funding in order to assist in solving the Project Area's problems. Both entities have and will consider every • (III-4) Katz iiol l is • alternative source of funding available to finance Project improvements prior to considering the use of tax increment revenues. (See Section F below.) The financing method envisioned by the Agency for the Project, as described above, places heavy reliance on all such. sources - including substantial City contributions. It is believed that neither the City nor the private market could bear costs in excess of those assumed in the financing program. In the City's case, a cut-back in capital improvements and services needs in other areas of the City would be required. In the case of the private market, once the anticipated investment return on a property is reduced below a rate comparable to alternative investments, the development of the property is jeopardized. Like most cities, since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978 Huntington Beach has experienced severe funding shortages in the provision of. services and particularly in the installation and maintenance of public improvements and facilities. This problem has been compounded by state and federal cutbacks in local government funding programs. Table III-6 summarizes budgeted, requested, and funded amounts for each of the ten categories within the City's 6-year Capital Improvements Program during the current and prior two fiscal years. On the average, less than 75 percent of the cost of requested projects has been approved during this period. In the critical areas of community services, police protection, and fire protection, less than four percent ($164,250) out of $4.9 million in requested • funds could be approved. F. Tax Increment Use Limitations and Requirements As noted above, the proposed Redevelopment Plan establishes the following tax increment and bond limits, as required by the Community Redevelopment Law: 1) the amount of bonds. supportable in whole or. in part by tax increment revenues which may be outstanding at one time may not exceed $147,570,000; and 2) the total amount of tax increment revenues which may be allocated to the Agency from the Project Area may not exceed $470,380,000. Both of these limits exclude payments which the Agency may make to affected taxing agencies to alleviate fiscal detriment, if any, caused by the Project, and the 20 percent low and moderate income housing set- aside required relating to such payments. Any such payments the Agency may be required to make would potentially reduce the funds available for Project activities. In addition to tax increment and bonded indebtedness limits discussed above, there are several other statutory requirements relating to the Agency's use of tax increment funds. The Agency is cognizant of such requirements and intends to fully adhere to them to the extent .they are applicable to the Agency and to the Project. A summary of these requirements is presented below. I. Prior to paying all or part of the value of land. for and the cost of installation and construction of any publicly owned building, facility, . • structure, or other improvement within or outside the Project Area, the Agency will request the City Council to consent to such payment and to determine: (III-5) Katz Ho11 is Table III-6 26-Jan-87 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project CITY FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HISTORY {-------1984/85------j {-------1985/86------) (-------1986/87------) 5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED 5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED 5 YR CIP REQUESTED APPROVED PROJECT CATEGORY 84/85 85/86 (UPDATED) 86/87 (UPDATED) -------------------- ------------- ---- --- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- STREETS t5,223,000 $5,225,000 $:",612,000 $5,075,000 $4,712,800 $4,772,800 $5,378,000 $11,613,000 $11,613,000 DRAINAGE 504,000 504,000 347,000 715,000 727,600 727,600 990,000 1,860,000 410,000 WATER UTILITY 1,029,500 1,029,500 1,029,500 1,159,100 622,100 622,100 1,063,000 1,267,800 1,267,800 FACILITY MAINT. 1,013,000 1,013,000 0 595,000 800,000 0 715,000 650,000 0 SEWERS 328,400 328,400 328,400 279,000 407,200 407,200 355,000 688,200 688,200 LANDSCAPE/PARK EQUIP 453,000 453,000 0 265,000 . 510,D00 0 165,000 540,000 0 PARK Au. & DEV. 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,858,600 4,291,431 4,291,431 2,560,000 2,803,000 2,803,000 COMMUNITY SERVICES 492,900 492,900 0 224,800 359,560 0 1,350,000 1,496,000 0 POLICE PROTECTION 903,822 903,822 0 147,000 398,000 0 219,000 515,000 0 FIRE PROTECTION 309,000 309,000 0 640,000 225,500 0 2,033,000 164,250 164,250 . ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- TOTAL $11,896,622 $11,896,622 $6,956,900 *10,958,500 $13,114,131 $10,821,131 $14,828,000 $21,597,250 $16,946,250 -------------------- Source: City of Huntington Beach 0990hnt.wks4 010687/tmc • Katz HoI I i'5 a. That such building, facility, structure or improvement is of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood; and b. That . no other reasonable means of financing the building, facility, structure or improvement is available to the community. 2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to pay for all or part of the value of the land for,. and the cost of installation and construction of, a publicly owned building (other than parking facilities) the Agency will request the City Council to hold a public hearing and to make the above determinations. In connection with such public hearing a summary will be prepared to: a. Show the estimated amount of tax increment funds proposed to be used to pay for such land and construction (including interest payments); b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's determinations; and C. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for which such expenditure is being made. 3. The Agency will not, without the prior consent of the City Council, develop a site for industrial or commercial use so as to provide streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements which the owner or operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide. 4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or lease any property acquired in whole or in part with tax increment funds, the Agency will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after holding a public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the Agency shall make available a summary describing and specifying: a. The coat of the agreement to the Agency; b. The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed or leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under the Redevelopment Plan; and c. The purchase price or the sum of the- lease payments, and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the fair market value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at the highest and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an explanation of the reasons for such difference. • (III-6) Katz Hollis 2. Prior to committing to use tax increment funds to • pay for all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost of installation and construction of, a publicly owned building (other than parking facilities) the Agency will request the City Council to hold a public hearing and to make the above determinations. In connection with such public hearing a summary will be prepared to: a. Show the estimated amount of tax increment funds proposed to be used to pay for such land and construction (including interest payments); b. Set forth the facts supporting the Council's determinations; and c. Set forth the redevelopment purposes for which such expenditure is being made. 3. The Agency will not, without the prior consent of the City Council develop a site for industrial or commercial use so as to provide streets, sidewalks, utilities or other improvements which the owner or operator of the site would otherwise be obligated to provide. 4. Prior to entering into any agreement to sell or lease any property acquired in whole or in part with tax increment funds, the Agency will request the City Council to approve such sale or lease after holding a .public hearing. In connection with such public hearing the • Agency shall make available a summary describing and specifying: a. The cost of the agreement to the Agency; b. The estimated value of the interest to be conveyed or leased, determined at the highest uses permitted under the . Redevelopment Plan; and c. The purchase price or the sum of the lease payments, and, if the sale price or total rental amount is less than the fair market value of the interest to be conveyed or leased determined at the highest and best use consistent with the Redevelopment Plan, an explanation of the reasons for such difference. i (M-6) Katz Hol l is • Part IV. PLAN AND 1[BTBOD OF RELOCATION Section 33352(d) of the CRL requires the Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan to present a plan and method of relocation for those site occupants who may be displaced by Agency action. A. Agency Displacement As noted in Part III of this Report, the Agency anticipates that its program if upgrading and installation of public improvements and facilities needed within the Project Area will provide an incentive for the private sector to develop or redevelop vacant, underutilized and blighted properties. As an additional aid to the private sector, the Agency may also selectively acquire and dispose of property: 1) to eliminate non-conforming and other blighting uses; 2) in response to property-owner and developer initiated efforts where public assistance is necessary to assemble property needed for expansion of existing uses or to create developable sites for proposed new uses; and 3) "opportunity" acquisitions in which an existing owner may desire to sell in order to pursue opportunities out of the Project Area. Under this selective acquisition approach, it is estimated that up to 107 acres of property could be acquired over the Project life. To the extent that the Agency acquires occupied property for land assembly or other purposes, or enters into agreements with developers or others under which occupants will be required to move, the Agency will cause or will be • responsible for causing such displacement of occupants. The Agency. is not responsible for any displacement which may occur as a result of private development activities not directly assisted by the Agency under a disposition and development, participation, or other such agreement. B. Relocation in the_}went of Agency Displacement As noted above, displacement of persons, families, businesses or tenants is anticipated under current Agency plans. When such displacement occurs the Agency will provide persons, families, business owners and tenants displaced by Agency Project Area 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 Rules and .Regulations adopted by the Agency and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan for the Project. The Agency will pay all relocation payments required by law. The following portions of this Part IV of the Report to City Council outline the general relocation rules and procedures which must be adhered to by the Agency in activities requiring the relocation of persons and businesses. Also identified below are the Agency determinations and assurances which must be made prior to undertaking relocation. activities. The Agency's functions in providing relocation assistance and benefits are also summarized. • (IV-1) Katz Hol l is C. Rules_.an_d......R.e u.._..lations ......................... • The Agency has adopted rules and regulations that: (1) implement the requirements of California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Chapter 16 of Division 7 of "Title 1, commencing with Section 7260) (the "Act"); (2) are in accordance with the provisions of the California Department of Housing and Community Development's "Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines" (the "State Guidelines"); (3) meet the requirements of the California Community Redevelopment Law and the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan; (4) are appropriate to the particular activities of the Agency and not inconsistent with the Act or the State Guidelines. Such rules or regulations issued by the Agency shall be promptly revised as necessary to conform to applicable amendments of the Act, the California Community Redevelopment Law or the State Guidelines. D. Agency_.Determinations and Assurances 1. The Agency may not proceed with any phase of a project or other activity which will result in the displacement of any person or busi- ness until it makes the following determinations: a. Fair and reasonable relocation payments will be provided to eligible persons as required by law, the State" Guidelines. and Agency rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. b. A relocation assistance advisory program offering the • services described in Article 2 of the State Guidelines will be established. C. Eligible persons will be adequately informed of the assistance, benefits, policies, practices and procedures, including grievance procedures, provided for in the State Guidelines. d. Based upon recent survey and analysis of both the housing needs of persons who will be displaced and available replacement housing, and considering competing demands for that housing, comparable replacement dwellings will be available, or provided, if necessary, within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement sufficient in number, size and cost for the eligible persons who require them. e. Adequate provisions have been made to provide orderly, timely and efficient relocation of .eligible persons to comparable replacement housing available without regard to race, color, religion, sea, marital status, or national origin with minimum hardship to those affected. f. A relocation plan meeting the requirements. of law and the State Guidelines has been prepared. 2. No person shall be displaced until the Agency has fulfilled the obligations imposed by the Act, the California Community Redevelopment Law, the "Redevelopment Plan, the State Guidelines and the Agency rules and • regulations adopted pursuant thereto. (IV-2) Katz Hol v is 3. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be , decent, safe, sanitary and an otherwise standard dwelling. The Agency shall not displace such persons or families until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy. 4. If any portion of the Project Area is developed with low or moderate income housing units, the Agency shall require by contract or other appropriate means that such housing be made available for rent or purchase to the persons and families of low and moderate income displaced by the Project. Such persons and families shall be given priority in renting or buying such housing; provided, however, that failure to give such priority shall not affect the validity of title to real property. 5. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the community for low and moderate income persons and families to be displaced from the Project Area, the City Council shall assure that sufficient land is made available for suitable housing for rental or purchase by low and moderate income persons and families. If insufficient suitable housing units are available in the City for use by such persons and families of low and • moderate income displaced by the Project, the Agency may, to the extent of that deficiency, direct or cause the development, rehabilitation, or construction of housing units within the City. 6. Permanent housing facilities shall be made available within three years from the time occupants are displaced, and pending the development of such facilities there will be available to such displaced occu- pants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City at the time of their displacement. 7. Whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as part of the Project, the Agency shall, .within four years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop or construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed or constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of low or moderate income an equal number of replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the Project Area or the City. 8. At least 30 percent of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed by the Agency, if any, shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low and moderate income. Not less than 50 percent of the dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income shall be available at affordable housing cost to, and occupied by, very low income households. At least 15 percent of ,all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed within the Project Area by public or private entities or persons other than the Agency, if any, shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income. Not less than 40 percent of the (IV-3) KatZHollis dwelling units required to be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income shall be available at affordable housing cost to very low income households. These percentage requirements shall apply independently of the requirements of paragraph 7 above and in the aggregate to housing made available by the Agency and by public or private entities or persons other than the Agency, respectively, and not to each individual case of rehabilitation, development or construction of dwelling units. The Agency shall require that the. aggregate number of dwelling units rehabilitated, developed or constructed pursuant to these requirements remain available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low income, moderate income and very low income households, respectively, for not less than the period of the land use controls established in the Redevelopment Plan. E. Replacement...Housing Plan Not less than 30 days prior to the execution of an agreement for acquisition of real property, or the execution of an agreement for the dispo- sition and development of property, or the execution of a participation agreement, which agreement would lead to the destruction or removal of dwelling units from the low and moderate income housing market, the Agency shall adopt by resolution a replacement housing plan. For a reasonable time prior to adopting a replacement housing plan by resolution, the Agency shall make available a draft of the proposed replacement housing plan for review and comment by the Project Area Committee, other public agencies, and the general public. • The replacement housing plan shall include those elements required by the Community Redevelopment Law. A dwelling. unit housing persons of low or moderate income whose replacement is required by the Agency, but for which no replacement housing plan has been prepared, shall not be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market until the Agency has by resolution adopted a replacement housing plan. . Nothing, however, shall prevent the Agency from destroying or removing from the low and moderate income housing market a dwelling unit which the Agency owns and which is an immediate danger 'to health and safety. The Agency shall, as soon as practicable, adopt by resolution a replacement housing plan with respect to such dwelling unit. F. Relocation Assistance Advisory_ Program and Assurance..of Comarable Replacement Housing The Agency.. shall implement a relocation assistance advisory program which satisfies. the requirements of the State Law and Article 2 of the State Guidelines and the Civil Rights Act. Such program shall be administered so as to provide advisory services which offer maximum assistance to minimize the hardship of displacement and to ensure that (a) all persons and families displaced from their dwellings are relocated into housing meeting the criteria for comparable replacement housing contained • (IV-4) Katz Hoi 1 is in the State Guidelines, and (b) all pereone displaced from their places of business are assisted in reestablishing with a minimum of delay and loss of earnings. No eligible person shall be required to move from his/her dwelling unless within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement a comparable replacement dwelling or, in the case of a temporary move, an adequate replacement dwelling is available to such person. The following outlines the general functions of the Agency in providing relocation assistance advisory. services. Nothing in this section is intended to permit the Agency to displace persons other than in a manner prescribed by law, the State Guidelines and the adopted Agency rules and regulations prescribing the Agency's relocation responsibilities. 1. Administrative Ormanization a. Responsible isntity The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency is responsible for providing relocation payments and assistance to site occupants (persons, families business owners and tenants) displaced by the Agency from the Project Area, and the Agency will meet its relocation responsibilities through the use of its staff and consultants, supplemented by assistance from local realtore and civic organizations. • b. Functions ............................................ The Agency's staff and%or consultants will perform the following functions. 1) Prepare a Relocation Plan as soon as possible following the initiation of negotiations for acquisition of real property by the Agency and prior to proceeding with any phase of a public improvement or facility project or other implementation activity that will result in any displacement other than an insignificant amount of non-residential displacement. Such Relocation Plan shall conform to the requirements of the Section 6038 of the State Guidelines. The Agency shall interview all eligible persons, business concerns, including non-profit organizations, to obtain information upon which to plan for housing and other accommodations, as well as to provide counselling and assistance needs. 2) Provide such measures, facilities or services as needed in order to: a) Fully inform persons eligible for reloca- tion payments and assistance within 15 days following the initiation of negotiations .for a parcel of land as to the availability of relocation benefits and assistance and the eligibility requirements therefor, as well as the procedures for obtaining such benefits and assistance, in accordance with the requirements of Section 6046 of the State Guidelines. (IV-5) Katz Hol t is b) Determine the extent of the need of each • such eligible person for relocation assistance in accordance with the requirements of Section 6048 of the State Guidelines. c) Assure eligible persons that within a reasonable period of time prior to displacement there will be available com- parable replacement housing meeting the criteria described . in Section 6008(c) of the State Guidelines, sufficient in number and kind for and avail- able to such eligible persons. d) Provide current and. continuing informs- tion on the availability, prices and rentals of comparable sales and rental .housing, and of comparable commercial properties and locations, and. as to security deposits, closing costs, typical down payments, interest rates, and terms for residential property in the area. e) Assist each eligible person to complete applications for payments and benefits. f) Assist each eligible, displaced person to obtain and move to a comparable replacement dwelling. g) Assist each eligible person displaced from his/her business in obtaining and becoming established in a suitable replacement location. h) Provide any services required to insure • that the relocation process does not result in different or separate treat- ment on account of ,race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status or other arbitrary. circumstances. i) Supply to such eligible persons informa- tion concerning federal and state .housing programs, disaster loan and other programs administered by the Small Business Administration, and other federal or state programs offering assistance ,to displaced persons. j) Provide other advisory assistance to eli- gible persons in order to minimize their hardships. As needed, such assistance may include counselling and referrals with regard to housing, financing, employment, training, health and welfare, as well as other assis- tance. k) Inform all persons who are expected to be displaced about the eviction policies to be pursued in carrying out the Project, which policies shall be in accordance with the provisions provisions of Section 6058 of the State Guidelines. 1) Notify in. writing each individual tenant and owner-occupant to be displaced at least 90 days in advance prior to requiring a person to move from a dwelling or to move a business. (IV-6) Katz Hol l is 2. Information Pro ram ............__._...._._......._..._..__.._�__..B............ The Agency shall establish and maintain an information program that provides for the following: a. Within 15 days following the initiation of negotia- tions and not less than 90 days in advance of displacement, except for those situations described in subsection 6042(e) of the State Guidelines, the Agency shall prepare and distribute informational materials (in the language most easily understood by the recipients) to persons eligible for Agency relocation benefits and assistance. b. Conducting personal interviews and maintaining personal contacts with occupants of the property to the maximum extent practicable. C. Utilizing meetings, newsletters and other mecha- nisms, including local media available to all persons, for keeping occupants of the property informed on a continuing basis. d. Providing each person written notification as soon as his/her eligibility status has been determined. • e. Explaining to persons interviewed the purpose of relocation needs survey, the nature of relocation payments and assistance to be made available, and encouraging them to visit the relocation office for information and assistance. 3. Relocation Record The Agency shall prepare and maintain an accurate relocation record for each person to be displaced as required by the State of California. 4. Relocation Resources Survey The Agency shall conduct a survey of available relocation resources in accordance with Section 6052 of the State Guidelines. 5. Relocation Payments The Agency shall make relocation payments to or on behalf of eligible displaced persona in accordance with and to the full extent permitted by State Law and Article 3 of the State Guidelines. The obligations for relocation payments are in addition to any acquisition payments made pursuant to the Agency's real property . acquisition guidelines, which may be adopted at the time the Agency's relocation rules and regulations are adopted. • (IV-7) ft"atLH®llis 6. Temporary Moves Moves • 'Temporary. moves would be required only if adequate resources for permanent relocation sites are not available. Staff shall make every effort to assist the site occupant in obtaining . permanent relocation resources prior to initiation of a temporary move, and then only after it is determined that Project Area activities will be seriously impeded if such move is not performed. 7. Last Resort Housing ............................._..................................._.................. The Agency shall follow State law and the criteria and procedures set forth- in Article 4 of the State Guidelines for assuring that if the Agency action results, or will result in displacement, and comparable replacement housing will not be available as needed, the Agency shall use its funds or fund authorized for the Project to provide such housing. 8. Grievance Procedures The Agency has. adopted grievance procedures to implement the provisions of the State Law and Article 5 of the State Guidelines. The purpose of the grievance procedures is to provide Agency requirements for processing appeals from Agency determinations as to the eligibility for, and the amount of a relocation payment, and for processing appeals from persons aggrieved by the Agency's failure to refer them to • comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing. Potential displacees will be informed by the.Agency of their right to appeal regarding relocation payment claims or other decisions made affecting their relocation. 9. Relocation Appeals Board The Mayor of the City of Huntington Beach may appoint a relocation appeals board composed of five members, and approved by the City Council. The relocation appeals board shall promptly hear all complaints brought by residents of the Project Area relating, to relocation and shall determine if the Agency has complied with the applicable State relocation requirements and where applicable, federal regulations. The board shall, after a public hearing, transmit its Findings and recommendations to the Agency. • (iv-8) Katz 11ol!is Part V. ANALYSIS OF PRBLIWMARY PLAN The Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, adopted by the Planning Agency on October 21, 1986 by Resolution No. 1366, describes the boundaries of the Project Area, contains general statements of land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities, building intenties and building standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Preliminary Plan also shows how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law would be attained through the redevelopment of the area, and states that the proposed redevelopment conforms to the General Plan of the City. The Preliminary Plan also describes generally the impact of the Project upon the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area conforms with the standards and provisions of the Preliminary Plan. The Project Area boundary remains, with some minor technical corrections, the same. The Redevelopment Plan proposes the same land uses and provides for. all principal streets indicated in the Preliminary Plan. Building .intensities are in compliance with limits established in the Preliminary Plan. Proposed building standards also remain the same. As set forth in the Preliminary Plan, the proposed Redevelopment • Plan will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law by the elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation and disuse; by . the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by private enterprise acting alone without public participation and assistance; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of appropriate means; and through the installation of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities and utilities. • I (V-1) KatzHollis W Part VI. RBFORT. _.RM.MM*MMATIONS ,OF PLANNING COMUSSIgNI.._AND ,RNPORT_RI UIRRD.BY_SNOTION_65402 OF OOVNRNMENT OOOR Section 33352(f) of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the proposed Redevelopment Plan to be included in this Report to city Council. Section 65402 of the Government Code states that no real property should be acquired by dedication or otherwise for public purposes, no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized until such activities have been submitted to and reported upon by the local planning agency as to conformity with the jurisdiction's adopted general plan. When the Huntington Beach Planning Commission has adopted its report and recommendations on the proposed Redevelopment Plan and its report required by Section 64502 of the Government Code, they will be added to this Report to City Council or will be forwarded to the City Council for. addition to this Report. (VI-1) Part VII. I'ltOJI-X'T ARhA COMMITTEE. RRCORD Stict.ioir 33385 (if the Community Itedevelnpmu•nl. I,nw (CM.) providou 1-h:►f. Lhc Cif e7millCil slu►ll ct►ll upon the rescideritH and existing community 111,gi►nixnt.iocnti in thci Project. Aroa to farm it project area commit.Lee (PAC) if a :tubs Liml.00 slumber of low and moderate income familiee; are to be displaced by t.ho Projeel.. A. Formation of PAC As described more fully in Part III of this .Report, the Agency proposes a program of redevelopment activities which includes selective acquisition and site assembly. Some of the parcels acquired by the Agency could include non-conforming residential uses which may be occupied by low or moderate income families. Although Agency acquisitions are not likely to result in a substantial displacement of low and moderate income families, it was determined that formation of a PAC would be beneficial to Project adoption and. implementation. Accordingly, on. October 10, 1986 the IlunLingt.on Beach City Council adopted Resolution No. 5718 which called upon the residents, existing community organizations and businesses within the Project Area. to attend it public meeting to be held on December 3, 1986 for the purpos c. of forming a PAC. At the December 3 public meeting and a submequerrt meeting held on December 17 n PAC was formed. On January 5, 1987 the City Council, by Resolution No. 5746, approved the 21-member PAC its a representative Project Area Committee. A copy of Resolution No. 5746, including the: attached PAC roster, is included as Exhibit 1 to this Part VII of the Agency's Report to City Council. A. Information and Documents Made Available to PAC by Agency Following is a summary of information and documents; pretcented tc, t.hc, PAC by the Agency. Mariner/Date of Disseminat.iOn I nformat.ion/Documerrt.s, Public meetink held o Role and responsibility of PAC ors 12/3/86 o Summary of PAC formation process o Summary of project adoption activities o Project Preliminary Plan Inturim f AG .mcel.ing 0 Review of Beach Boulevard redevelopment held on 12/1'7/86 effort o Review of CRI, PAC requirements PAC moel.irig hc-ld o Summary of redevelopment plan adoption can 1/7/8 7 process and major documents involved c) History of Beach Boulevard redevelopment program and program objectives o Specific actions required of PAC • -(V11- 1) • Manner/Date of Dissemination Information/Documents PAC meeting held o Proposed Redevelopment Plan on 1/28/97 o Discussion of, eminent._ domain procedures o Discussion of relocation laws and benefits Letter, dated 4/17/87, o Role of Project Area Committee, per CRL, from City Attorney in relation to proposed Redevelopment Plan Letter, dated o Background information addressing points 4/17/87, to PAC raised at previous PAC meeting, Chairman from including: Deputy City - Summary of redevelopment proce- Administrator/ dares Redevelopment - "Housing and Redevelopment Semi- Annual Status Report to the Redevelopment Agency/City Council for Period 7/1/86 to 12/31/86" "The Use of Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing by Cities and Counties" (California Debt Advisory Commission) • - "Anaheim Redevelopments" (news- letter) "Economic Analysis, Disposition and Development Agreement, Main Pier Mixed Use Project" (Report prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, 8/85) - Project indebtedness. statements. (1986-87) for Oakview, Yorktown Lake, Huntington Center, Tabbert/ Beach and Main Pier Projects Copies of available agendas and minutes from PAC meetings are attached as Exhibit 2 to this Part VII of the Agency's Report to City Council. C. PAC Recommendations on Proposed Redevelopment Plan At its meeting of April 23, 1987 the PAC considered and voted upon three options regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan, as follows: Option 1: Approve the Plan as proposed Option 2: Approve the Plan with modifications and/or revisions I Option 3: Deny the Plan as proposed (VII-2) The PAC voted 18 to 3 to deny approval of the Huntington • Heach-He3ach Boulevard Project Redevelopment Plan as proposed. A copy of it leller from .)frmes A. Lane, f'AC ChairporNon, to the Redevelopment Agency and City Council t.ranKmitting the PAC's recommendation on the proposed flan it; atLaiched hereet.0 as Exhibit 3 to this Part VII of the Agency's Report to City Council. • i • (VII-3) RESOLUTION N0. 5746 • T OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE ..hZk.�EIVCITY F - D A RESOLUTION Y REPRESENTATIVEGTON PROJECTCAREAPROVING COMMITTEE IN APR 21 1981 THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD "TZ.HOLLIS. MILK REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT a issocarEs WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City. of Huntington Beach selected the project area of and established the boundaries for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project and approved and adopted a Preliminary Plan formulated for the redevelopment of the project area ; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution 5718 on October 7, 1986, wherein the Council called for the formation of a Project Area Committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard: • x'_development Project ; and WHEREAS, on Decemt.)er 3 , 1986 , 7 : 00 p.m. in the City Council Cha:noers , ana on December 17 , 1906 at 7 : 00 p.m. in Room b-6 of Civic Center duly noticed public meetings were conducted to form a Project Area Committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and WHEREAS, at said December 17, 1986 meeting, the residential owner-occupants , tenants, business persons, and representatives of community organizations in attendance voted to have a Project Area Committee consisting of 21 members and appointed the members thereof; i NOW., THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : I . I SECTION 1 . The Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area Committee (PAC) consisting of 'the residential tenants, "-residential owner occupants business persons and representatives of community organizations named on the list of PAC members attached hereto, labeled Exhibit "A" and by this reference. made :a part hereof, is -hereby approved as a : representative project area committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project . SECTION 2. The Redevelopment Agency and the redevelopment F staff are directed to consult. with and obtain the aavice of the Pro)ect .Area Committee concerning those policy matters which deal with the planning and provision of residential ;facilities or replacement noosing for those to be displacec by project activities ana other matters which affect the residents df the Project Area while preparing a Redevelopment Plan and for a perioc of three years after aooption . of the -plan . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of January 1987. Ma Re ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Cit Attorney RE4�VIEW D AND APPROVED: %ITIATED AND A PPROVE Eministrator Dep- Lftly City Administrator Rede elopment EXHIBIT "A" . RECEWtW r HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT APR 2 11387 AREA COMMITTEE "12.Mows.Cosa► a�swc�►ua BUSINESS PERSONS: Adkins, Charles W. Lane, James A. Residence: 3062 Madeira Avenue Residence: 637 Frankfort Avenue Costa Mesa, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 957-3062 536-0449 Business: 17122 Beach Blvd. Business: Big O Tire Huntington Beach, CA Beach & Yorktown 847-9681 536-8591 Banich, Anne A. - ALTERNATE O'Reilly, Ernest P. - ALTERNATE Residence: 1627 Port Barmouth Pl. Residence: 54620 Risenhbwer 640-8018 La Quinta, CA 92253 Business: 17731 Beach Blvd. (619) 564-9220 Huntington Beach, CA Business: 6841 Breeland 842-4715 Huntington Beach, CA 892-3182 Benevenia Irma B. iResidence: 17121 Sparkleber-ry Pearson, George A. Fountain Valley, CA Residence: 6082 Manorfield Drive 963-3619 Huntington Beach, CA Business: 17502 Beach Blvd. 841-0120 Huntington Beach, CA Business: 16990 Beach Blvd. 842-3505 Huntington Beach, CA 960-2471 Berry, Ronald A. - ALTERNATE Business: 16661 Beach Blvd. Rasmussen, William C. 842-0631 Residence: 16749 Cedarwood Circle Cerritos, CA Dains, David L. (213) 404-4715 Residence: 19194 Blue Ridge Business: 17772 Beach Blvd. Santa Ana, CA Huntington Beach, CA 544-0581 842-1473 X345 Business: 17751 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Rizzo, Joseph R. 847-1884 Residence: 600 Marguerite Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 96265 Jarrett, Kimo K. 646-7135 Residence: 20731 Hopetown Lane Business: 9071. Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, Huntington Beach, CA 92647 968-6801 847-9062 Business: 17472 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA �.` 847-1463 Page 1 of. 3. HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Russell, Richard D. Residence: 1 1 Olympus Irvine, CA 854-91 37 Business: 17042 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 842-3734 Salem, Anthony Residence: 6050 Montecito Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92647 840-9293 Business: 19501 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 960-4787 Spiegel, Mark A. Residence: 10365 Notchvale Road Los Angeles, CA 90064 (213) 839-3016 Business:" 2650 S. Bundy Dr. #225 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (213) 820-391 1 Ying, Ledy • Business:• 8032 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 941-3591 0722r Pages 2, af. 3" natZ not t S • Bzhibit 1 to Part VII Resolution No. 5746 • w EXHIBIT "A"" • U T ON A -BEACH BOULEVARD H N _INGT... . BE. CH ,.. _. . _... .__ _ ... . . REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RE5IDENTIAL OWNER-OCCUPANTS: Ackerman, Thelma W. Files, Ila S. - ALTERNATE Residence: 16911 "A" Street Residence; 1689ZTAW"Street Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 848-7104 $47-k720 Banich, John G. Ho, Arthur Pan Residence: 7911 Newman Residence: 17230 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649 846-84.70 Brackens, Elnorina Inda Business; 17436 Beach Boulevard Residence: 17421 Dairyview "A" Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 842 4160% 847 8331 8414485 1i Business: 16783 Beach Boulevard Hunt, Margie M4rcelle Huntington Beach, C_ A tie;t den ce. 16881 "B" Street . 491-3363 Huntington Beacht CA 842-4307 Buckingham, Lena P. - ALTERNATE B_usiness_: 8902 Hewitt Place Residence: 7942 Newman Carden C!rove, CA Huntington Beach, CA $94-7201 847-3229 Richmond, Frank A. Edwards, Deanna L. Residence: 18163 Beach Boulevard Residence: 17071 B Street, Unit A Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 842-6792 842--5047 Business; 19131 Beach Boulevard Business: 2080 Anaheim Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Anaheim, CA $42.-1919 937-6200 Fernandez, Barbara COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION Residence: 16920 "A" Street Huntington Beach, CA Qggrlund, Chuck 847-3737 Residence; 5902 Nordina Drive Huntington Beach_, CA 92649 Fernandez, Beatrice A. - ALTERNATE $46-5384 Residence: 16932 "A" Stree Huntington Beach, CA 841-1264 •0723r Page 3 of 3 Res. No. 5746 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OT ORAME ) ss CITY Of XMINGTON BEACH ) • 1, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a 'regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day Of January 19 87 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen:_ Winchell . Mays , Finley, Kelly, Green,' Bannister NOES: Councilmen: None • ABSENT: Councilmen: Erskine City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington beach, California Katz fool 1 is r Exhibit 2 to Part VII PAC meeting agendas and minutes UNTINGTON EACH BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) April 2, 1987 _ - - AAA Stephen V. Kohler MV'::. Principal'Redevelopment Specialist C...,�,j�yITY C= L7p�leNT. City of Huntington Beach Housing and Redevelopment 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Steve: • Enclosed are the minutes of the Project Area Committee meeting of March 25, 1987. Included with the minutes are the Attendees list and Agenda for the upcoming regular meeting on April 22, 1987. Thank. you for assisting the Committee with the mailing of these minutes to its members. All previous minutes are pending my review. I plan completion of the review for April end 1987. Again Stephen, thank you for your courtesy and .continued7.assistance. ,cSiincerely, l Elnorina I. Brackens Recording Secretary Enclosures (5) cc: James Lane, Chairperson (w/enclosures) a 'JUNTINGTON EACH , '• " BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT t to PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) �, � ►� AGENDA Wednesday, April 22, 1987 7:00 p.m. - Room B7 Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street 7 : 00 1 . CALL TO ORDER. A . Roll Call B . Approval of Minutes of March 25 , 1987 C . Introduction of guest speaker(s) 7 : 30 - 2 . DISCUSSION OF BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT. • Whether the PAC will approve , . recommend or reject the project . .8 : 45 3 . DISCUSSION OF BY-LAWS ; as to form and final adoption . of same . 9 : 00 - 4 . DISCUSSION OF ANY NEW BUSINESS . 9 : 15 - 5 . PUBLIC COMMENTS . 9 : 40 - 6. 1 ADJOURNMENT. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that 1 am employed by the C;ty of Hun'ineton eeacn,in the r *Mce and t'.:i I ras:e:this��enda on tno 8�I�iin Bcardint!:eoutatde post• ing bgard at the Citric Center on 4 -Y ,at a m P.M. g - y Signature UNTINGTON EACH BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT •� �' �.+. PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) r .` _ MINUTES OF -b--� - — HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) The regular monthly meeting of the PAC was held on Wednesday, March 25, 1987, at 7:15 p.m. at the Civic Center building, the Chairperson being' in the chair and the Secretary being present. The minutes of the last meeting were approved as corrected. The Chair introduced guest speaker, Mr. Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator. At the conclusion of Mr. LaBelle's talk, relating to individual and group meetings of the PAC, the Chair expressed that no special meetings shall be scheduled without prior approval from the Chair. The Chair introduced guest speaker of the evening, Sherry Passmore, Land • Use Consultant whose subject was Redevelopment and Land Use. Ms. Passmore expounded the following topics: • How redevelopment got started in the State. • The difference between public and private investment pertaining to blight. • -Referendum bonds and debts regarding property tax .increments. • The purpose of redevelopment. • How your vote for a tax increase also votes for. re.development. • How every redevelopment project in California affects us. • The why and how of a redevelopment agency debt pay off. • How a city helps create its own blight._ • The difficulties of obtaining a full loan when you live in a potential redevelopment area. • How joint venture and/or partnerships become a source of revenue for the City. : • How redevelopment can sell any amount of their debt. • That new legislation may allow an agency to start redevelopment without a public hearing. • How an employee of a redevelopment agency can not promise or guarantee new relocation. The chair opened the floor for questions. • Quick take and appeal: Can only contest the amount that the property is worth. Eminent domain: Can put a cloud over your property. Thereby, property could be put under a special assessment. Some property tax increases have been up to 400%. bEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PAC Minutes of PAC • March 25, 1987 Page Two Redevelopment: Means power, control and design of property. Realtors: Are to inform perspective buyers that the area is slated for redevelopment. What can we do: Go to public hearing - Make our report - Recommend in favor of or against adoption of the plan - Study the law as to whether the project is a necessary redevelopment - That the Committee meet together and not individually - Find out what other redevelopment is going on in the City - That we have to be active and involved as well as educated; otherwise, we stand a chance of being ran by the State. And, seek to get an exemption from eminent domain. Tax increment: Is a tool to implement a plan for redevelopment. After various comments from Mr. Clark, he concluded that Ms. Passmore is right and that he has no idea what the comment of the Council would be. Doug LaBelle summerized the negative and positive benefits of redevelopment and, will provide copies of the owner/participation success and agency/joint venture redevelopment projects document to the PAC. Co-chair Chuck Osterlund spoke on behalf of the school district and took excep- tion that they too. are trying to generate revenue, but has no feeling of support and that funding from the Lottery has gone from 3% to 1% of revenue for the school. The Chair called for a 5 minute break. The Chair reconvened the meeting by asking that old business from the Agenda be completed by amendment to the By-laws that an alternate may serve as recording secretary for the PAC. Chuck Osterlund made the motion and it was seconded .and adopted with a 2/3 majority vote that an alternate may serve as recording secretary for the PAC. Discussion regarding the response of City Administrator Charles Thompson's memorandum to the Mayor and City Council members opposing the PAC's request for special consultant was decided by the PAC that the Chair will respond in writing to Mr: Thompson's memorandum. Comments from the PAC with respect to the EIR draft that is due April 4, 1987 was discussed; that a subcommittee be formed to respond to this. A motion was made by Chuck Osterlund and seconded. that a subcommittee be formed. Chair- person Jim Lane asked for volunteers. The subcommittee members are: Ron Berry Jim Lane George Pearson • The Chair asked for a show of hands from the Committee of those interested in placing on the Agenda for discussion whether the PAC will approve, recommend or reject the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The show was 14 to 1 in BEACH BLVD REDF'.VELOPKENT PAC Minutes of PAC March 25, 1987 • Page Three favor of. Therefore; 6 -motion was made by Joseph Rizzo and seconded thatthis discussion be put on the Agenda for the next regular meeting on April 22, 1987. With no further business being discussed, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 P.M. The next regular meeting of the PAC is scheduled for WEDHESW o APRIL 22, 1987 at 7:00 O.M. l � ,�'� �1• )it Elnorina I. Brackens, Secretary • BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PAC PAC ATTENDEES OF • MARCH 25, 1987 MEETING MEMBERS AGENCY STAFF Thelma Ackerman Tom Andrusky Charles Adkins Tom Clark, Special Agency Counsel Ann Banich - Alternate Stephen Kohler Irma Benevenia Ron Berry GUEST Elnorina Brackens - Alternate Barbara Fernandez Dean Albright, Enviornmental Bd. Beatrice Fernandez - Alternate Barbara Chunn, •Enviornmental Bd. Ila S. Files Doug LaBelle, Deputy City Admin. Arthur Jan Ho Tom Livengood, Planning Commission Margie Hunt Charles Montero, Enviornmental Bd. James Lane Sherry Passmore, Land Use Consultant Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate for David Dains Dorothy Pendleton, Enviornmental Bd. Chuck Osterlund Kay Seraphine, Enviornmental Bd. George Pearson Corinne Welch, Enviornmental Bd. Bill Rasmussen Frank Richmond Joseph R. Rizzo Anthony Salem •. Mark Spiegel i, CITY. 0F .M`NTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 HOUSING AND RIEDEVELOPMENT January 12, 1997 7 Dear PAC Member: The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee has been scheduled as follows: Wednesday, January 28, 1997 7:00 p.m. Room B-7 Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street The agenda for this meeting will be as follows: • AGENDA 1. Call to order and roll call. 2. Approval of Minutes of'January 7, 1987. 3. Discussion of eminent domain procedures. 4. Discussion of relocation laws and benefits. 5. Presentation of Redevelopment Plan. �. Continued discussion of membership (representation of residential tenants and number of alternates). 7. Other business. 8. Adjourn. I look forward to seein y on January 28, 19 7. 1 you should have any questions, please do not hesitate t ou o t us. Very urs, Stephe . Ko e pal R v lopm t alist :sar Tel-F' .(714)6364W2 H CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648� ov. . HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT D c`1�1) �C 2 December 24, 1986 ,,, -� 1986 s Dear Beach Boulevard PAC Member: The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) has been scheduled as follows: Wednesday, January 7, 1987 7:00 p.m. Room B-8 Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street The Agenda for this.meeting is as follows: 1. Introduction of PAC Members and Staff. 2. Approval of Minutes of December 3 & 17, 1986. • 3. Staff Presentation on the History of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Program and Program Objectives. 4. Consultant Presentation on the Redevelopment Project Area Adoption Process and Schedule. S. Specific Actions Required of the PAC, 6. Discussion of PAC By-Laws. 7. Certification of PAC by City Council. 8. Other Business. 9. Adjournment. Congratulations on becoming a member of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee. We look forward to working with you on the formation of the Redevelopment Plan. Happy Holidays! Very truly yours,;. Stephen V. Kohler Principal Redevelopment Specialist SVK:sar Enclosures: Minutes of December 3 do 17, 1986. Roster of Members. Draft By-Laws. Telephone(714)63"542 MINUTES ' • BEACH BOULEVARD PAC MEETING JANUARY 79 1997 The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Lane at 7:10 p.m. Mr. Lane called the role of the Project Area Committee and determined those PAC Members who were present are as follows: Ric be Jeanie Russell Elnorina Brackens Joseph Rizzo Margie Hunt Ledy Ying Bill Rasmussen Ron Berry - Alternate Thelma Ackerman George Pearson John Banich Arthur Jan Ho Ernest O'Reilly - Alternate Kimo Jarrett Mark Spiegel Irma Benevenia David L. Dains Frank Richmond Ila Files - Alternate Erdem Denktas Barbara Fernandez Allan A. Robertson Jennifer N. M. Coile The Minutes of December 2 and 17, 1986 were approved as written. The Chair requested staf f to commence the presentation and Mr. Kohler, of the • Redevelopment Agency Staff, reviewed the history of the Beach Boulevard Project Area effort. He discussed the preparation and adoption of the Community and Neighborhood Enhancement Program in 1981 and 1982. He presented a map depicting the five (5) current Redevelopment Project Areas within the City of Huntington Beach and discussed the highlights of development within each. Mr. Al Robertson and Jennifer Coile, of Katz, Hollis, Coren, reviewed the major documents which will be produced to accomplish the adoption of a Redevelopment Project Area. These included those to be reviewed by the PAC: The Redevelopment Plan. .The Environmental Impact Report. The Owner Participation Rules. Mr. Robertson also discussed the schedule of presentation of these documents to the Project Area Committee. He emphasized that the formal review of documents by the PAC would commence with distribution of the Redevelopment Plan, tentatively scheduled for the PAC's meeting of January 28, 1987, and conclude with the approval of the Project Area Committee Report to the City Council which should be accomplished by the PAC's April meeting. Following the presentation staff and the consultants addressed questions of the Project Area Committee Members. The PAC Members requested copies of the City's General Plan be distributed and requested that Agency Council be available at its next meeting to discuss eminent domain. MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PACMEETING JANUARY 7, 1987 • The PAC then discussed the Draft By-Laws which were distributed with the Agenda packet. The PAC approved the By-Laws by a Minute action with changes (see corrected copy attached). The motion was made by Mark Spiegel and seconded by Pearson to request the City Council to provide independent legal council for the PAC. After further discussion this motion was withdrawn. The PAC discussed limiting the number of alternates which might be appointed, and also that Elmorina Brackens, who has been appointed in the "Residential Tenant" category does not live within the Project Area. PAC agreed to consider these issues again at its next meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:10 p.m. to January 28, 1987 at 7:00 p.m. Secretary SVK:sar 0831 r • i i • I �, CITY OF F-IUN T'INGTON BEACH Lo-ka 2000 MAIN $TREET CALIFORNIA 92'648 MOUSING AND REDEVEOIRMENT RECENE-C ,. - DEC 28 1986 04- "--b. "q*A A�Slt11�f!j� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REDE 11 VELOPMENT AGENCY BEACH @OULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA INTERIM PRP4ECT AREA COMMITTEE AGENDA 1 . INTRODUCTION OF STAFF 2, REVIEW OF PURPOSE OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) • 3. REVIEW OF PROGRESS AT PAC MEETING OF DECEMBER 3, 1986. -AND_ NEED FOR REPRESENTATIVE PAC 4 . INTRODUCTION OF INTERIM PAC MEMBERS S. CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS TO COMPLETE PAC MEMBERSHIP 6 . MOTION: TO CONSTITUTE PEACH BOULEVARD PAC AND REQUEST THE CITY COUNCIL TO CERTIFY REPRESENTATIVENESS OF PAC 7. ADJOURNMENT SUGGESTED NEXT MEETING: WEDNESDAY JANUARY 7, 1987 7:00 PM HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER TNpphom(714)5364M MINUTES BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE" WEDNESDAYj DECEMBER 17, 1986 7:00 P.M., LOWER LEVEL, B-8 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER The meeting was called to order by the interim chairperson Chuck Osterlund at 7:10 P.M. Mr. Osterlund reviewed the schedule for the project area adoption, stated that an interim Project Area Committee was established on December 3, 1986, reviewed the categories of representation and the suggested percentage of positions for each category, and recommended that the PAC consider establishing its maximum membership at twenty-five persons. The interim chair went on to state that the objective of tonight's meeting was to constitute a Project Area Committee and elect its officers. Staff reviewed the history of the Beach Boulevard redevelopment effort as well as the need for a PAC. Special Agency *Counsel, Tom Clark, reviewed the Health and Safety Code requirements for a PAC and the requirement that a PAC be representative of the residents, businesspersons,- and community organizations. Applications for membership for the PAC were distributed to all those present. Everyone was requested to state on the application the category. of representation for which they would apply. On a motion by Kimo Jarrett, seconded by Mr. Pierson, the following composition of the • PAC was suggested: (1) residential - owner 7, tenant 1 8 (2) businesspersons 12 (3) community organizations - 1 TOTAL MEMBERSHIP: 21 The motion carried by all ayes, except one no vote. It was suggested that the candidates present divide into two groups; one representing residential interests, and one representing business interests, and through these independent caucuses the members representing each group be determined as nominees to the full Project Area Committee. At the conclusion of this caucus, a spokesperson for both residential interests and business interests, read into the record the names of .the nominees and alternates from each group. On a motion by Frank Richmond, seconded by Elnorina Brackens, the nominees and alternates were appointed by the Project Area Committee by a unanimous vote of those present (see roster attached). On a motion by Mr. Osterlund, seconded by Mr. Richmond, the Project Area Committee unanimously voted to adopt Roberts Rules of Order as their operating procedure, with exceptions to be determined by bylaws of the Project Area Committee to be subsequently adopted. On a motion by Osterlund, seconded by Banich, the PAC unanimously voted to establish the offices of a chairperson, vice-chairperson, and a corresponding secretary. • BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE • MINUTES - DECEMBER 17, 1986 Page Two In response to the call for volunteers for the officer positions on the _PAC, Jim Lane and Charles Osterlund placed their names in nomination for chairperson and each made a statement of his qualifications. The two candidates for chairperson left the room and the remainder of the PAC determined that each would be assumed to abstain from the vote for chair, and determined that the nominee receiving the second highest number of votes would assume the vice-chair position. With these parameters established, nine members of the PAC voted for Mr. Lane, and seven members voted for Mr. Osterlund as chairperson. Both candidates returned to the room and the results of the election for chairperson were announced. Chair and vice-chair assumed the seats of office and requested a volunteer to serve in the office of corresponding secretary. Elnorina Brackens was the sole volunteer and was selected by acclimation of her peers. The PAC also determined that alternates were welcome to attend all meetings of the PAC, however, alternates were eligible to vote only when their corresponding representative was not present. It was also determined that alternates would fill seats vacated through resignation. The PAC's next meeting was established for Wednesday, January 7, 1997, at 7:00 P.M., in the Huntington Beach Civic Center. A motion to adjourn was made at 9:00 p.m. • 2974h CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92640 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT Dear Interested Party:. As you know, at the first organizational meeting of the Project Area Committee for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area, it was agreed that a second. meeting would be called as follows: Wednesday, December 17, 1986 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers Huntington Beach Civic Center 2000 Main Street • It was the consensus of those attending the first meeting of the PAC in-formation that those interested in serving 'would seat themselves as the Project Area Committee at this meeting. Enclosed for your information are the Minutes of the First Organizational Meeting of the PAC. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at t r below. Very truly urs, Stephen V ohler i Redev pment ec alist SVK:s Enclosure xc: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment. Thomas Andrusky, Redevelopment Project Manager Thomas P. Clark, Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth 1 • Tehphom 1714)636-5542 RECEIVED D _ �. CITY OF HUNTINGTON " 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT I FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE I AGENDA 1. STAFF INTRODUCTION (AGENCY STAFF). 2. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS AND SLIDES OF THE PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA (AGENCY STAFF). • 3. THE PROCESS FOR ADOPTING A NEW REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA--. (AGENCY SPECIAL COUNSEL). 4. THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC). A. Role and Responsibility of the PAC (Agency Staff) B. Time Requirement for Membership (Agency Staff) C. Categories of Membership (Agency Counsel) D. Completion of PAC Membership applications (Agency Counsel) E. Requirement for representative Membership (Agency Counsel) F. Election of PAC Membership/By-laws (Agency Counsel, all Staffing Requirements of PAC (Agency Counsel) H. Next Formation Meeting of Project Area Committee, if necessary - Wednesday, December 17, 1986, 7 P.M. City Council Chambers, Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street (Agency Staff) S. COMMENCE PAC FORMATION, RESIDENTS AND EXISTING COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS (AGENCY COUNCEL) Tehiphom(714)6364M 9 RESEW MINUTES PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FIRST ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING PROPOSED BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Wednesday, December 3, 1986 - 7 p.m. Meeting was called .to order by Stephen V. Kohler of the Agency staff with the following agency staff members in attendance: 1. Stephen V. Kohler 2. Tom Andrusky 3. Florence Webb 4. Margaret Ward 5. Tom Clark - Special Agency Counsel The meeting was conducted in the City Council Chambers and staff provided .a presentation of slides depicting existing public improvement and land use conditions within the proposed project area. Special. agency counsel reviewed the process for adopting a new redevelopment project area and the role and responsibility of a project area committee. . Agency staff responded to a number of questions from the audience regarding the history of the redevelopment effort for the Beach Boulevard corridor and on the role of a project area committee in the formulation of a redevelopment plan. • It was the consensus of those .present that formal action on the organization of .a Beach Boulevard project area committee would be postponed until Wednesday, December 17, 1986. However, approximately "17 volunteers expressed their interest in serving on the project area committee (see list attached). This group adjourned to an adjoining room and appointed themselves as an "interim project area committee". Determining the interest of those volunteering to serve on the PAC, staff suggested that the composition of these volunteers was approximately representative of the current mix of land uses within the project area. The consensus of the interim PAC was to appoint Mr. Chuck Osterlund (representing the Ocean View School District) as an interim chair person. It was requested that staff prepare press release relating the first organizational meeting of the Beach Boulevard PAC and announcing its next meeting of December 17, 1996. The meeting was adjourned at 10:15 P.M. SVK/mhg 0700r Ms. Ingrid Woken Ms. Pattie Dodd P Q C oA Q e- •8202 Lancaster Drive 19322 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA v4 A 842-7215 964-9188 Dr. David L. Danis Ms. Jan Hu 17751 Beach Blvd. 17416 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 847-1884 846-8470 Ms. Deanna Edwards Kimo Jarrett 17071 B Street Unit A 17472 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 842-5047 847-1463 Elmorina Brackens Mr. Bill Rasmussen 17421 Dairyview Circle Unit A 17772 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 491-3365 842-1473 Ms. Barbara Fernally Mr. George Pearson 16920 A Street 2120 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 847-3737 960-2471 Ms. Irma Benevenia Mr. Ric Russell 17502 Beach Blvd. 17042 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 842-5505 842-3734 " Ms. Margie Hunt Mr. Ron Berry 16881 B Street 16661 Beach Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648 842-4307 842-0631 Ms. Thelma Ackerman Mr. Chuck Osterlund 16911 A Street 5902 Nordina Drive Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649 848-7104 846-5394 Mr. Anthony Salem 6051 Montecito Drive Huntington Beach, CA • h-840-9293, w-960-4787 0702r Kati ilol 1 is Exhibit 3 to Part VII PAC recommendation on proposed Redevelopment Plan • UNTINGTON EACH PPS Z µ�uSt+O E OPOEN[ �•s.r coo out,%�Y o BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE (PAC) Z.• MEMORANDUM .ww.r• ...�..� R`C E I V ' D TO: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency AP R 1t} 1987 Huntington Beach City Council kAY� Hp�161AIii ER FROM: Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee DATE: April 23, 1987 SUBJECT: Current Status of the Proposed Huntington Beach Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project COPIES: See Distribution List 46 April 22, 1987, the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project. Area Committee (PAC) voted deny the approval of the proposed Redevelopment Project for Beach Boulevard. According to the information received from Gail Hutton, City Attorney, the PAC considered the following three opitions: Option 1: Approve the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan as proposed. Option 2: Approve the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan with modifications and/or revisions. Option 3: Deny the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan as proposed. A copy of these Options is attached. The detail, points, facts and information were compiled from the many meetings, community input and information supplied to the PAC from various entities. They reflect the thinking of the entire PAC. After extensive review and discussion of the Options, the PAC voted overwhelmingly to deny the project. The results were: Option 1: 1 - vote Option 2: 2 - votes Option 3: 18 - votes isPAC believes that this project is unnecessary and that there are other ways to do the ired infrastructures that will be necessary in the future. The PAC recommends that the City Council deny approval of the Huntington Beach Beach Boule- vard Redevelopment Plan. Fla BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PAC Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach City Council April 23, 1987 • Page Two The PAC wishes to thank the Redevelopment Agency for providing the CRA staff, legal counsel, consultant, and information which was necessary for our study of the proposed Huntington Beach Beach Boulevard CRA Plan. Their attendance at our meetings was most helpful in answering any of our questions and concerns regarding the proposed project. Thank you for your coop- eration and response to our needs. The next meeting of the Beach Boulevard PAC will be on June 3, 1987. We encourage you to send a representative. Sincerely, ?ames��A. s Lane Chairperson JAL/eb Attachments (4) • I I i • i. LOAM BEACH BLVD REDEVELOPMENT PAC DISTRIBUTION LIST Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee Members Sherry Passmore Huntington Beach Tomorrow Huntington Beach Flood Prevention Group Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Huntington Beach Board of Realtors Environmental Board Planning Commission Main Street Pier Redevelopment Project Huntington Beach Company Orange County Register Newspaper Huntington Beach Daily Pilot Newspaper Los Angeles Times Newspaper Ocean View School District • • OPTION 1 APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED • BENEFIT 1) The.EIR Report has,described portions of the project- area as exhibiting signs of blight and.-blighting influences including deterioration and- dilapidation of structures and poorly maintained lots. This condition creates an undesirable environment for continued growth and development in the area: The project area also contains irregular or substandard lot sizes that further hamper development. Implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan would allow the Redevelopment Agency to provide improvements, consolidate parcels and incorporate thematic signage and landscaping that would create a more suitable environment to encourage private development. 2) The Plan as proposed would allow a greater flexibility in choosing financing mechanisms to fund the project .improvements. Therefore, more revenues could be made available at a faster rate to complete the goals of the Plan. 3) The Plan would promote joint partnerships..between the public and private sectors thus encouraging an environment for greater improvements and development projects. 4) This Plan could increase the community's supply of housing to include • opportunities .for low-and moderate-income households. S) The Plan would eliminate certain environmental deficiencies, i.e. , water run off, as outlined in the Draft EIR Report. 6) The Plan would eliminate substandard vehicular circulation systems and other deficient public improvements, facilities and utilities adversely affecting the Project Area. 7) The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines. 8) The Plan would also encourage the provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses within the Project Area. 9) With the adoption of this Plan, faster changes in the projects land uses could be realized; creating the encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns. 10) The benefit of provisions for increased fees, taxes and revenues to the City and Redevelopment Agency. 11) Without approval of this Plan, the projects goals could be realized at a much slower rate and borrowing costs could go up to finance the proposed improvements. Negative impacts to this OPTION 1 will be discussed in OPTION 3 in more detail. 0 OPTION 2 • APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS The Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee approves the proposed Redevelopment. Plan with the following specific modifications. �-..w (a) That the use of -eminent domain (Sectifin -308 -of the Plan) be eliminated for residential and commercial/business properties when the reuse of the property would be for a private purpose. Any use of eminent domain for public uses such as streets, parks, public improvements would remain in the Plan. EFFECTS 1) This revision is proposed because blight can be caused by unreason- able delays between the announcement of the project and subsequent eminent domain actions. The delays may result in loss of tenants, restrictions on private financing of property sales and construction of -improvements located within the proposed take area and depreciation of the market value. 2) The PAC believes that when eminent domain is used for another's private purpose that the public interest and necessity do not require the project. Eminent domain should only be used when the project is planned . or located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. If a project area is develop- ing on its own, the private property sought to be acquired is not really necessary for the project. 3) This modification would result in the protection and retainment of private property and its related investment value for both residential and commercial owners. (b) All increased levels of property taxes shall be spent inside the Pro- ject Area until all the projects debts are paid off. EFFECTS 1) This revision is proposed to help the project area to pay off its debts at a much faster rate than is normally the practice of redevelop- ment project areas. When the debts of a project are paid off, the property tax increments are returned to all taxing agencies who have been waiting to realize the benefits of the redevelopment project. 2) The PAC wants to assure that all future city councils will act in an expeditious manner to retire project debts. (c) The Relocation Plan shall be submitted to the PAC 30 days before the legislative body holds the public hearing adopting.or rejecting the • proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (d). The relocation committee shall include members of the PAC AND SHALL BE DRAWN-UP AND PASSED FROM THE SAME CRITERIA AS THE PAC. (e) That a report be made of the evaluation of previous relocations of previous redevelopment projects as to the satisfaction of the relo- OPTION 2 - Continued APPROVE THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS • catees be made, (Section 6060) and given to the Beach Blvd. PAC 30 days before the legislative body's public hearing on the proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. EFFECTS 1) In the event that future councils or the present council fails to adopt the deletion of eminent domain for residential and business properties, this change would help to protect those who have to go through the relocation process. A relocation appeals board should be established under Section 33417.5 of the Health and Safety Code. (f) That the completed EIR be given to the PAC for review 30 days before the legislative body's public hearing on the Beach Blvd. Redevelop- ment Plan. • - 2 - OPTION 3 • DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED The Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) recommends denial of the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan for the following reasons: (a) The Beach Blvd. PAC cannot support the Redevelopment Agency's land use goals. In Land Use Element 87-1, the Agency submitted four proposed land use changes that clearly outline future action and goals of the Agency. 1) The CRA staff recommended 51.3 acres be redesignated from residen- tial to commercial. (Note* The Department of Developmental Services recommended 9.5 acres be redesignated and an additional 20.4 (area 2.7) be designated as mixed-use/commercial, medium density/resi- dential and public park). 2) The CRA staff did not seek owner participation in the General Plan Amendment for land use changes. 3) In public statements the Ocean View School Board indicated that they had not been consulted in the proposed change in the use of their property. (2.5 and 2.7). In fact, the school district clearly stated that they had no intention of closing their school at Talbert and Beach Blvd. (2.5). Their desire to continue to operate the Bus Barns • on 7 acres on their school site on Beach and Warner was not included in the Agency's Land Use Proposal (2.7). 4) Chevron submitted a letter (see attached Exhibit "A") with their concerns regarding proposed land use changes 2.4 Beach and Memphis. They also indicated that they had not been consulted. 5) Throughout the public hearing process, residential and businesses impacted by the proposed land use changes complained about a lack of communication in the notification process. (b) That the project area defined by the Redevelopment Plan is neither charac- terized or predominated by any of the elements of "blight" as set forth in Healt and Safety Code Sections 33030- 3032. Nor is any substantial portion of such area so characterized or predominated. The Project Area, in fact, does not exhibit a preponderance of deteriorating structures wherein the inhabitants of the area are subjected to physical dangers or health hazards. Nor is there a preponderance of high crime in the area. (c) The Orange County Assessor's records demonstrate that the taxable valuation of property within the Project Area has experienced continued appreciation in value during the last ten years in spite of a significant change in assessment, valuation procedures caused by Article XIIIA, California Constitution which causes total assessment valuations to reflect a total value of the area in question significantly less than true market values. • The assessed value of the property within the Project Area has continued to rise through private enterprise acting alone without the aid and assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. (d) That there is presently inadequate information to determine the economic Vrituir J - Continued DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AS PROPOSED • feasibility of the Redevelopment Plan, and the Plan could .cause unreason- able amounts of public debt. (e) That most of the goals included in the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plar_ are merely infrastructure improvements or other public improvements that can be alleviated through other financing mechanisms or processes of government. The City should explore other methods of raising the financ- ing necessary to implement the public improvements and goals contained within the plan. These improvements can be financed from a combination of sources such as State Highway Funds, Gas Tax Revenues, 1915 assessments and other city revenues qualifying for public improvement projects. Park- ing districts could be created if there is a parking shortage. Code enforcement of the Sign Ordinance could alleviate any signage problems. Planned Use Development zoning could control haphazard criteria so as to assure high standards for site design. Uniform land use patterns can be controlled through proper zoning. (See Exhibit "B"). (f) The plan would have a significant economic detrimental effect on the Project Area.residents and businesses as it embraces eminent domain for private reuse of property. The ability of one to borrow for repairs or improvements is greatly affected when the property has the cloud of eminent domain. There can be a loss of tenants and difficulties in selling the property along with depreciation of the market value when there is an odious project proposed. • (g) The Plan included areas solely for the purpose of obtaining tax-increment financing and bond issuance capabilities. (h) The Redevelopment Plan fails to adequately describe the specific redevel- opment projects that are contemplated. (i) There is insufficient time between the completion of .the downtown CRA project to measure the secondary effects such as traffic patterns and the economic factors that might spill over onto other areas deleting the need to create another CRA project. (j) That there was inadequate time and insufficient information provided for a proper analysis of the EIR Report as to the detrimental effects of this proposed Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Plan. (See Exhibits loci# and "D"). (k) The PAC has not received any evidence that there would not be adverse detrimental effects on other taxing agencies that serve the Project Area. (1) The PAC has received negative comments regarding the adoption of this CRA project. Area residents and businesses as well as other Huntington Beach citizens have complained. W . The PAC has received a report of the CRA doing. preliminary negotiations with project. property owners. Doing this in fact will make the public hearing process a complete sham since this project is not even adopted. • To be cutting deals before the fact is not acceptable to the PAC. - 2 - OPTION 3 - Continued DENY THE BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED • (n) This Project will result in unfair competition between existing businesses who have already improved their own property and other owners or future owners who Vill receive special CRA benefits and incentives to improve their business or property. • - 3 - Cho= EXHIBIT (A) Chevron USA. Inc. P. 0. Box 606, la Habra.CA 90631 . Phone(213) 694-7570 QO • February 10, 1987 Land Use Mement Amendment 87-1 City of Huntington Heads Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Commissioner: Chevron has studied the proposal before you tonight with regards to Area 2.4 and agrees with the Huntington Beach Company that the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential should be retained. Moreover, we question the need to even consider a zoning change at this time. City staff have not, to my knowledge, approached Chevron to discuss future development possibilities, nor does Chevron have current plans to develop all or a portion of Area 2.4. A decision now to alter the status quo appears to be premature, • Inefficient and could unnecessarily restrain.consideration of future development planning options. For these reasons, Chevron requests that the current-designations on the site be maintained until a more appropriate occasion arises to dilly debate the complicated issues associated with the City's Land Use Planning. V Yours, O. McCamish LOM/sd cc: Mr. William D. Holman Project Representative Huntington Beach Company • EXHIBIT (C) • April 2, 1987 TO: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency FROM: Project Area Committee - Beach Boulevard SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project To complete the major task of the Project Area Committee, we feel there has been insufficient time to adequately review the draft E.I.R. Report before the due date of May 14, 1987. The E.I.B. Report, itself, is inadequate and incomplete and does not contain enough information to make an adequate recommendation. We also feel that this incomplete E.I.R. Report has not been sent .to all necessary affected taxing agencies. (Examples: Cal-Trans and Orange County's Fiscal Review Committee.) Due to the limited time provided, the Committee's remarks concerning the B.I.R. will address the following issues: A. Lack of Information on Existing Uses. Page 1, First Paragraph, • states "Elimination of Blighting Influences currently preventing the full and effective use of the land". The Committee feels strongly that the wording needs to be changed. The statement is aisleading and does not mention the tremendous amount of recycling and renovation of existing property in the proposed redevelopment area that has already occurred. The E.Z.R. is to be an information document (Page XVIII) and complete information is not provided. The Executive Summary also does not provide adequate description of existing uses. B. Transportation/Circulation (3.13). The E.I.R. is inadequate in several areas concerning analysis and.proposed mitigating measures for this important item. 1. No discussion concerning impact of Beach traffic during the summer months. The .proposed increased density anduse will tremendously impact an existing serious traffic circulation problem. 2. No discussion concerning impact of Downtown Redevelopment Projects on Beach Boulevard and twelve major East-West arterials. Resort destinations, i.e., hotels, tourist attractions, mean an increase in vehicle traffic trying to reach freeways. 3. There is not an adequate review of the Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Report as approved by'touncil. The impact o use' gas in the project area and the elimination of the flyover at Beach/Warner. would change the impact on the mitigating measures outlined in the Super • Streets Report. Two land use changes at Beach and Warner (approximately 24 acres) would generate nearly 206000 daily trips over existing land use. Lx"It" I (13) DRAFT t:1K KLFUKI • TABLE 4 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BEACH BOULEVARD REDBVSLOPXZNT PROJECT "Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Edinger - Signal Coordination and Modification - New Signals - Access Controls - Parking Restrictions - Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections - Intersection Widening, including New Right-Of-Way - Bus turnouts, Including Right-of-Way Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher. 2,200 ft. of 24" an�" storm drain. - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east side . one-half mile 48" wide storm drain. - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west. side) 48" and 36" wide storm drain. - Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown 2,700 feet of 12" line Waterline Improvements 8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd. , complete loops and replace 6" .20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" water main, crossing every 1/2 mile. Locations: Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, Atlanta. 200' length per crossing. Utility Undergroundingr . Entire length .Beach Blvd. Landscaping and Streetsca e - Median n •ian and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights Recreation and Park Improvements i Historic Preservation - Bartlett Park Y Agency Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment a • Redevelopment Agency April 2. 1987 Page 2 There are 509 acres in the project area. Does the Super Street Project .. address these major proposed changes? Volume of traffic is addressed; however. how to handle, the 73Z more trips in the project area is not adequately covered. Page 94. Table 23 clearly shows intersections at unacceptable.level of service at intersections in the study area. 4. The elimination of parking on Beach Boulevard with the installation of bus turnouts. widening and red curbing -is not even covered in the E.I.R. The tremendous impact on existing businesses and residential areas needs to be carefully analysed with mitigating measures. C. Lack of Economic Analysis Within the Draft E.I.R. The P.A.C. Committee recommends the Redevelopment Agency/City Council carefully review the Committee's concerns of the draft E.I.R. and accept input from the Environmental Board, Planning Commission, and other agencies, and not certify the E.I.R. until the concerns are adequately addressed. The Project Area Committee believes that there must be a final Public Hearing on the proposed final draft of the E.I.R. The final draft E.I.R. must be made available prior to the Public Hearing. All public agencies. businesses, property owners and the general public must be notified of the Public Hearing and have access to the document thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting. When the final E.I.R. Report -is sent to the Planning Commission to determine if the E.I.R. is in conformance with the General Plan. that meeting should be scheduled as a Public Hearing. On your present Calendar Schedule. July 6 is a holiday weekend and would be an inappropriate date for a meeting to be held. PAC:dc • � Environmental Board EXHIBIT (D) .�,]L-Jz CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH l9 w6%4.w%1114 of Pu51 011ice Box 100 • HunUngion Beach. CAIII)IIIIJ !12648 • March 111 1987 Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/ Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 I Gentlemen: At the PAC meeting of the Beach Boulevard Redevlopment Committee held on February 25, 1987 and the Environmental Board meeting held on February 26, 1987, Steve Kohler stated that the Environmental . Board's responses had been incorporated into the DRAFT EIR for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment project. The Board's Adhoc Committee met on March 4, March 9, and March 10, 1987 to review the DRAFT EIR. The Committee was still unabl• to find these responses as stated by Mr. Kohler. Enclosed is a copy of our response to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY, Page XIV. Would you please refer the enclosed material to the Planning Commission for .their review prior to the March 24, 1987 Public Hearing on this project. Thank you. Sincerely., • Dean Albright Chairman Beach Boulvevard Redevelopment Adhoc Committee DA:cmw Enclosures cc: Kent Pierce, Chairman, Planning Commission Tom Livingood, Planning Commission Tom Androusky • • Responses to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL YMPACT SURVEY Page XIV 1. Air A major concern would be stalled traffic which would contribute to a concentration of lead and pollution. (Refer to page 26, DRAFT EIR, for comments from the AQIKP. Page 35, DRAFT EIR, Is there an error with regards to 9986 co decreased to 9658 co? All other figures on this table showed an increase. 2. Land Use No comments 3. Traffic/Circulation The flyover at Beach and Warner was not addressed. The city recently approved the Beach Boulevard Super Street Final Report, but denied the Warner flyover. How would this be mitigated? The DRAFT EIR did not address the Downtown Redevelopment project nOr the two- hr.-ee months of Beach traffic during the summer months. These are three very serious problems. 4 . Earth Ninety-Ninety-five percent site coverage would result in loss of water perculation and loss of ground water. In high areas, such as Indianapolis, west of Beach, water could collect behind a project; undermining the soil and result in of earth,slippage - Areas south of Adams are most _. . pp_g _ susceptible to this problem. (Example; Blue Bird- Canyon in Laguna Beach is an example of development in a manner that stored water in the land mas8, resulting in eventual landslides. ] 5. Surface and Ground Water The DRAFT ' EIR does . not adequately cover -impact on the Talbert Channel DOUI p . _ ' protection of area . (. (Exam le, southireS' of Beach and Indianapolis that flooded in 1983. $tudy_ 's show existing proposed flood control improvements wily not solve flood control problems of existing • development, let alone proposed projects.. Mitigating measures must include recommendations for improving the main channels. 6. Noise • Will mitigating measures adequately cover existing residential and commercial property? 7 . Light and Glare No comments S. Water Is the city's present water supply adequate for any new development? 9. Sewer The mitigation measures do not address the realities of life with the expansion of existing treatment plants nor the building of new ones. Throughout the report the treatment plants are not addressed. 10. Storm Drains Where is the terminus of the storm drains and will thi terminus be able to handle the extra water? The mitigati measures are contingent upon the upgrading of the Oran County Flood Control Channels. 11. Schools No comments 12 . Risk of Upset Methane gas, underground pipelines and abandoned wells have not been addressed. .13. Population No comments 14. Housing Under California Redevelopment Law there are guidelines to protect the residents. The Redevelopment Agency needs to insure that ,the 180 units housing approximately 500 people are protected. 15. Parks and Recreation As stated in the Master Plan for Parks, preservation neighborhood parks must be taken into consideration. (Example: Rancho View and Crest. view) . • 16. Health Hazards The proposed project is expected to generate 73% more tr+'as within the project compared to existing conditions. ':he Committee. feels this will create. a health hazard due to the ., -increase in traffiC'�tirh^ich would generates--•more. pollutants_ iiitd" tA6' air. 17. Fire Protection The additional traffic caused by the development will cut down on response time. SUMMARY: Flood In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project it will be necessary to upgrade the Orange County Flood Control Channels in order to receive the run-off from the storm drains, which also need to be upgraded. Sewage • In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. it will be necessary to upgrade Sanitation Plant #2 in order to receive the additional affluent which will occur. • OFFIca OF CITY ATTORN EY y r • 1.C.max V40 'tt WN MAIN STREET HUNTINOTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 "IL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attermy (71416364665 April 17, 1987 TO: JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE Beach Boulevard Project Area RE: Role of Project Area Committee The Project, Area Committee ( "PAC" ) has asked my office to advise as to the role of the PAC in connection with the consideration of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Beach City Council . By way of introduction, Health & Safety Code Section 33385 provides, in relevant part, as follows: • The legislative body of a city or county shall call upon the residents and existing community organizations in the redevelopment project area, within which a substantial number of low- and moderate-income families are to be displaced by the redevelopment project, to form a project area committee. . . . Although there are no specific" plans to displace a substantial number of low- and moderate-income families, the City Council decided, in an abundance of caution, to call upon the residents and existing community organizations to form a PAC. PAC was formed in accordance with Health & Safety Code 5 33385 and subsequently approved by the City Council . Thereafter, the Redevelopment Agency forwarded a copy of the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the PAC for its review. I am advised that the PAC has now reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and seeks direction in terms of its recommendations to the City Council and Redevelopment Agency. In this regard, the PAC can either; ( 1 ) Recommend approval. of the Redevelopment Plan as • submitted to it by the agency, JIM LANE AND MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE • April 17, 1987 Page 2 ( 2 ) -Recommend denial of the Redevelopment Plan as submitted to it by the agency, or ( 3 ) Recommend approval provided that the agency make specified modifications to the Redevelopment Plan . In accordance with Health & Safety Code S 33366, (attached) these are the results of the exercise of the various options : 1 . If PAC recommends approval, council may adopt the redevelopment plan by a majority vote of the entire membership qualified to vote on the plan; 2 . If Pac recommends denial or approval of the plan with modifications which are later rejected by the council then, in such event, the plan may still- be adopted by a 2/3rds vote of the entire membership_ of the council eligible and qualified to vote on the plan . 3 . If PAC recommends approval of the plan with modification, which modifications the council incorporates in the plan, the council may adopt the plan by majority vote of the entire membership eligible and qualified to vote on such a plan. 4 . If PAC recommends approval of the plan with modifications and the council elects to incorporate such modifications, the plan as modified must be presented to the Planning Commission for its report and recommendation. Health & Safety Code S 33363 . 5 . Under any of the other circumstances where no such modifications or changes are contemplated, the agency may act on the plan as set forth hereinabove. Should you have any further questions or comments, a representative of my office will be in attendance at your meeting of April 22, 1987. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney i h-itz liol l is Part VIII. REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 21161 OF PUBLIC RSSOURCSS CODE ....... . .... (PROJECT SNVIRONYBIdTAL Il[PACT REPORT) A draft environmental impact report (Draft EIR) was prepared by the Agency and circulated for public review and comment during the period February 18, 1987 through April 4, 1987. On March 16, 1987 a duly noticed public hearing was held by the Agency on the Draft EIR. On 1987. the Agency adopted Resolution No. which among other things certified the final environmental impact report (Final EIR) for the Project and adopted a statement of overriding considerations in accord with Section 15093 of the State EIR Guidelines. A copy of the Final EIR will be submitted separately to the City Council for addition to this Report.to City Council. • • (VIII-1) KatzHolhs Part IX. REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER The Orange County Auditor-Controller, as the fiscal officer charged with tho responsibility of . allcx:ating tax increment fundK under Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), has issued his report dated December 23, 1986 on Project Area and taxing agency taxable valuations and tax revenues. The Project Area base year taxable values reported by the Auditor-Controller in his December 23 report do not include values for the property assessed by the State Board of Equalization (SBE). A copy of SBE's report of base year taxable values, dated January 15, 1987, was received by the Agency on January 21, 1987. As required by Section 33352(m) of the CRLj the Auditor- Controller's report, including the SBE's portion, is included in this Part IX and is'analyzed by the Agency in Part XII.B. of this Report to City Council. I I • I (IX-1) i �. S. E LEWIS D AUDITOR-CONTROLLER OUNTY OF DEC 2 C 198b FINANCE BUILD F70 NORTH BRO INC-,A(1W AY 2 _' - P. O. BOX 067 5 ; RANGE CITY OF NUNTINGM QFACH sANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 1.0 ABM►N1STRATIVE OFFICE TELE.PHON E: 834-2450 AREA CODE 714 OFFICE OF AUDITOR—CONTROLLER December 23, 1986 Charles Thompson, Executive Director City of Huntington Beach P. 0. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: City of Huntington Beach - Beach Blvd. Project Pursuant to Section 33328 et seq. of the California Health and Safety Code, you will find enclosed your copy of the Fiscal Impact Report for the subject redevelopment agency. Further inquiries may be directed to the: • 9 Y County of Orange Auditor-Controller's Office Attn: Tax Section 630 N. Broadway P.O. Box 567 Santa Ana, CA 92702-0567 C. H. Krueger I Manager Property Tax Unit CHK:hti Fnr I o,,ure . • I • The attached letrer W►44 sent GQ the f.nllp�;ing: . City of Huntington Beach Metropolitan Water District Municipal .Water-District of Orange bounty . Orange County Transit District Orange County Vector. Control District Orange County Water District Orange County Cemetery District Midway City Sanitary District Orange County Sanitation District #3 Orange County Sanitation District #11 Don Datko, Dept. of 44uc4tion Lynn Hartline, Dent. of Educatiop Bill Hodge, CAP County Counsel Steve Clayton, EMIt Management Services • TABLE I - HEALTH-,: & SAFETY CODE 33328 (A) • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT 1.986-87 BASE YMAR ASSESSMENT ROLL Secured Assessed Value - Local Roll $ 203,394,189 State Board of Equalization. - Public'Utility Roll Unsecured Assessed Value - Local Roll 38,.610,959 Total Assessed Value within the Project 242,005,148 * Not Available At This Time I • i i i 1 • TABLE I.I - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (B) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD; PROJECT REPORT OF IDENTIFICATION OF 'TAXING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE PROJECT Dist # 0312A Huntington Beach Elementary School District 310A Huntington Beach Union High School District 300B Coast Coinmuni ty College 60OA/601A Orange County Department of Education 001E Orange County 710A Orange County Flood Control District 713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks District 054A City of Huntington Beach 703A Orange County Cemetary District 707A Orange County Transit District 744A Orange County Vector District 820P Metropolitan Water District 863B Municipal Water District of O.C. 926A Orange County Sanitation District #11 960A/961A Orange County Water District • . 313B Ocean View Elementary School District 918A Orange County Sanitation District #3 760A Midway City Sanitary District • TABLE III - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (C) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - .BEACH BLVD. PROJECT REPORT OF 1986-87 BASE YEAR REVENUE EACH DISTRICT - CAN EXPECT FROM WITHIN THE PROJECT Bonded Basic Levy Indebtedness Total Fund Dist. Agenvy Name Revenue, Revenue 1986-87 Revenue 0049 054A City of Huntington Beach $ 472,672.61 $133,935.93 $ 606,608.54 0100 001E Orange County 371 ,963.07 665.00 '372,628.07 4001 710A Orange County Flood Control District 63,386 .01 3,517 .55 66,903.56 4051 713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches &Parks Dist. 41,372.02 -- 41,372.02 5321 744A Orange County Vector Control District. 4,614.96 -- 4,614.96 5331 707A Orange County Transit District 10,626 .68 -- 10,626 .68 5881 960A Orange County Water District 18,806.32 -- 18,806.32 . 590i 961A Orange County Water District WR 270.64 -- . 270.64 7141 310A Huntington Beach Union High School 518,456.77 13,376.96 531,833.73 7311 300B Coast Community College 219,024.30 -- 219,024.30 8251 312A Huntington Beach Elementary 250,901.66 10,423.14 261 ,324.80 8841 600A Orange County Department of Education 31,002.40 -- 31,002.40 0072 Metropolitan Water District -- 36,434.54 36,434.54 9091 926A Orange County Sanitation District #11 26,509.07 1,297 .06 27 ,806.13 9041 918A Orange County Sanitation District #3 59,984.66 - 59,984.66 8431 313B Ocean View Elementary 330,460.31 128,099 .78 458,560.09 0066 760A Midway City Sanitary 0 -- $2,4202051.48 J 27 ,749 .96 2$ ,747 ,801.44 • • TABLE IV - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD- PROJECT REPORT OF TOTAL AD VALOREM REVENUE EACH DISTRICT HAS AVAILABLE FROM, WITHIN AND OUTSIDE THE, PROJECT The revenue data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal Review Report does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill 8. An inordinate manual effort and expense would be required of the County Auditor- Controller's staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the Fiscal Review Report does not contain the total Ad Valorem Revenue information for the project area. There has been included, however, a supplemental table of comparative assessed values for each taxing district to give a relative indication of Base Year Revenue percentage given up to the CRA. See Table IV (D) , Supplement. • TABLE IV - HEALTH & SAFETY CODE 33328 (D) SUPPLEMENT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT REPORT OF BASE YEAR 1986-87 CRA A.V. PERCENTAGE RELATIONSHIP TO TOTAL TAXING DISTRICT' S Taxing District's Percentage of A.V. Within the Taxing District' s Project A.V. Dist. Ag_ency _Name Project A.V. - County-Wide To District A.V. 312A Huntington Beach Elementary 112,623,451 3,4541058 ,524 3.2606 310A Huntington Beach Union High .242,005,148 11 412,950,318 2.1204 300 Coast Community College 242,005,148 26:861 ,494,9.29 0.9009 60OA/601A Orange County Department of Education 242,005,148 103,944,.930,259 0.2328 001 Orange County 242,005,148 103,9441930,259 0.2328 710A Orange County Flood Control 242,005,148 103,822,626,208 0.2331 713A Orange County Harbors, Beaches & Parks 242,005,148 103,944,930,259 0.2328 054A City of Huntington Beach 242,005,148 8,000,260,977 3.0250 703A Orange County Cemetary District 242 ,005, 148 103,944,930,259 0.2328 707A Orange County Transit District 242,005,148 103,944,930,259 0.2328 744A Orange County Vector Control District 242,005, 148 103,921,2961338 0.2329 820 Metropolitan Water District 242,005,148 103,825,999,186 0.2331 863 Municipal Water District of O.C. 242 ,005,148 80,313,353,086 0.3013 926A Orange County Sanitation Disttrict. #11 75,885,640 5,273,164,992 1.4391 960A Orange County Water District 217,320,279 68,256,606, 142 3. 1840 961A Orange County Water District - WR 217 ,320,279 67 ,917 ,877 ,102 3.2000 313 Ocean View Elementary 129,381 ,697 3,567,888 ,900 3.6263 918A Orange County Sanitation District #3 141,434,639 20,774, 117 ,040 0.6808 760A Midway City Sanitary 2,468,333,691 0.0000 One Percent = 1.0000 • • • • TABLE V - HEALTH-b SAFETY CODE 33328 (E) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT REPORT OF AGENCY'S REVENUE IN FIRST YEAR The Auditor-Controller has been advised by the City of Huntington Beach that no major structures and improvements will be made within the Project boundaries during the first year, so therefore we anticipate an average growth in value 'of the area within the Project boundaries to increase by 8.0 percent. Total 1986-87 Base Year Revenue $ 2,747 ,801.14 Total Expected Percentage Increase in Value 8.0 1987-88 Increment. Tax Revenue Estimate $ 219 ,824.09 • • TABLE VI - HEALTH S SAFETY CODE 33328 (F) • CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BLVD. PROJECT REPORT OF ASSESSED VALUATION BY BLOCK WITHIN THE PROJECT Health and Safety Code, Section 33328 (f) requires: "The assessed valuation of the project area, by block, for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board roll." The assessed valuation data necessary to complete this section of the Fiscal Review Report does not exist because the valuation files maintained by the County do not contain historical assessed values by block. An inordinate manual effort and . expense would be .required of the County Assessor's and County Auditor's staff to gather any reliable substitute data. Therefore, the Fiscal Review Report does not contain the preceding five-year assessed valuation information for the project area. . We are however, providing five year assessed valuation information for the entire city: Total Secured Unsecured Total 1986-87 $7,495,321,296 $5049939,681 $8,000,260,977 1985-86 6,970,664,670 441 ,125,438 7,411,790,108 1984-85 6,367,234,992 466,570,592 6,833,805,584 • 1983-84 5,921,976,950 370,949,364 6,292,926,314 1982-83 5,509,212,165 374,691 ,841 5,883,904,006 FCV Full Cash Value Fse 1 LmpRe p/Ta x • STATE OF CALIFORNIA .....src� ST BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ] 1(� ""F;`�•;o"~'XORI w 102jjTREET, SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA j gj 2"1 1 87 (P O. 1799. SACRAMENTO. CA 9SHOS) `' CONWAY,N. C�64 Shad 0~.c A (916) 322=2323 January 15i . 1-987ERNESTi. ORONEy6uRG. >a. U.d D n.a.son D.C. RICHARD - -V!NS Fevi#awns".F..ad"o KENNETH CORY " 1 1 L' ► �-' �1 Gara4r•.Soe•aw.�wa it i Mr. Stet'en E. Lewis 1�� - ooua:•s c ae„ ': C_ Orange County Aujitor-Coniro'_ler 631) N. BroadNav _ _ ��� Santa Ana-, CA 92701 L. 1 t Dear Mr . Lewi r:.rS ar.: tc ion 33325 et s q: c,f t h a t;ea'tti atid 843*ety Comae, t! a 1966- , 355c55=!: 1:65 of a propert iocat6d witmi1 file bollit-ales 0. the c�'ropcs?d Hi:Gtingtoh Beach = Beach Boulet•aiAd P.eoeve-opher"t Cr0]E:t art enclosed. ne'sr as_eSSE'O va uEs »_.l I ccniihue EO D? Va-17 if thO- Pi-djett bb-vidai ries remain- • _i :2� a..'. t`12 crdlnsn.e odb t inq and apprclving t`e edeve_Ooinent c_-en for this Prior to A;JguSt 20, :96' V y tru'v, v urs:• Area _="r ice ka nicit a br VA: IIUATION V SI0N o[.'ci:mb Enclosure cc: ,Mr.`harles A1. Tho^l_psOR,� It Dir. City of Huniington Beach 1. r Nv HUNTINGTON BEACH - ._BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT �.,w . 2� • 1986-1987 Assessed Velues Company Land Improvements Persona'_ Tax-Pate Area 4001 So. Calif. Edison Co. 493, 740 So. Calif. Gas Co. •76", 750_ Gen. Te'_e. Co. of ,Ca_if. 565,020 Golden West Refining Co. 81,460 10,400 Western Union Teleg. Co. 30 TOTAL 81,460 1. 145,910 30 Tax-Rate Area 4010 a So. Calif. Edison Co. 290,280 1,525,430 So. Calif. Gas Co. _93, 2'_0 Gen. Te'_e. Co. of Calif. 1,621,400 Western Union Te_ea. Co. _ 2,440 5,090 TOTAL 290,290_ 3, 342, 4230 5,090 Tax-Ra:e Area 4013 JJ. Calif. E_4isorl cz. 155,030 So. Calif. Gas Co. 30, 380 Gen. Te_e. Co. o: Calif. 82, 240 • ,older. West Re:ir.i- _ Co. 81,460 25,c:0 Western Gr.ion Te-eg. Co. 430 TOTAL 81,460 301.320 400 Tax-?ate Area 4038 So. Calif. Edison Co. 270 GRAND TOTAL WITHIN PROJECT 453,200 4,789,980 5,520 • hit llolI`i �. Part Y. RBPORT OF FISCAL RSYIBt QOl10d-T-'rHB Section 33353 of the Cofamufiity Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides that a coufity 6r any affected taxing -entity may call for the creation of a fiscal revieW committee within 15 days after receipt from a redevelopment agency a preliMlhary report prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 33344:5 of the CRL: As defined in Section 33353:1 of the CRL, the fiscal review committee is coioposed of one representative from each of the affected to iifig agencies: The purpose of the comiinittee would be to identify the fiscal effects of the p' ro id--- p osed Rsdeiielopinent -Plan - upon the affected fazing bMitiee; specify additional inforiaati6hp- if any, :leaded to efiable those fiscal effects to be identified and analyzed; and iuggeiit possible provisions in the Redevelopiaerit Plan Which would alleviate or eliminate a financial burddn ifr detriineiit The pralipii hi&a k Report for the Huntington Beach=Beach . Boulevard Redevelopimerit Project wail tkiih iM-Ated to all' Project Area affected taxing agencies oti ; 87 On Mki rrdl 6; 1987 the dred ge County Watei District and the County of Orange each by letter advised the Agency that. it had called for the creation of a fiscal review t dMiittee for i6b Pr`o3e6t. • On LO 1987 cd �iea of the ro Wed Redevelop merit .,��`,�., , P p po P Plan and Draft EIR were ransaiitted to the Orange County representative to the fiscal review coinittit CAM coaiIIiittee'e initial chairperson: A hearing bf the fiscal review c"O—k ittee was }field on May 1, 1987 and continued to May M 1987: Wtieii the committee's `report has .been prepared and iesiiedi it will be add&f tb this Part % of the Agency's Report to City Council; br . subiaitted giij%r—tely to the City d6ihibil foe addition to this Report. • i (X-1) hilt/. l iol l is Part XI. NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT REPORT . _... Section 33352(1) of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) requires -the preparation of a neighborhood impact report if_a redevelopment project contains low or moderate income housing. The purpose of the report is to describe in detail the impact of the project upon the residents of the project area and surrounding areas in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, _environmental quality,. availability . of community facilities and services, effect on school population and quality of education, property assessments and taxes, and other matters affecting .the physical and social. quality of 'the neighborhood. The neighborhood impact report is also to .include: (a) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income expected to be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market as part of .a redevelopment project; (b) the number of persons and families [households) of low or moderate income expected to be displaced by the project; (c) the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413 of the California CRL; (d) the number' of dwelling units housing persons and families of low an moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation, other than replacement housing; (e) the projected means of financing the proposed dwelling units for housing persons and families of low and moderate income planned for construction or rehabilitation; and (f) a projected timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation and replacement housing objectives. • Because the Project Area contains dwelling units some of which are likely to be inhabited by persons and families of . low or moderate income, a neighborhood impact report is included herein. Due to overlapping among the data required in the Environmental Impact Report, the Method or Plan for Relocation, the Physical, Social and Economic Conditions in the Project Area and the Neighborhood Impact Report - all of which are contained in this Report- to City Council - cross-referencing is employed in order to reflect the most comprehensive data source .and to avoid repetition where possible. A. Impact on Residents in Project Area and Surrounding Area 1. Relocation, Traffic Circulation, Environmental Quality and Community Facilities and Services ......_.................... . -.. _....._.._ _. .... The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"), referenced in Part VIII of this Report to City Council, presents information on the. potential Project impacts upon residents of the Project Area and the Rurrounding areas, in terms of relocation, traffic circulation, environmental quality, availability of community facilities and services, and other matters affecting the physical and social quality of the neighborhood. Part II of this Report to Council, "Description of Physical, Social and Economic Conditions Existing in Project Area," also presents pertinent information concerning the above-named impacts to Project residents and adjoining neighborhoods. • (XI-1) hats lio1 l is =� Part X. RBPORT OF FISCAL RBYISW CIONMITTBR ................._...__............................................._....____.._.._....................... Section 33353 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides that a county or any affected taxing entity may call for the creation of a fiscal review committee within 15 days after receipt from a redevelopment agency a preliminary report prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 33344.5 of the CRL. As defined in Section 33353.1 of the CRL, the fiscal review committee is composed of one representative from each of the affected taking agencies. The purpose of the committee would be to identify the fiscal effects of the proposed Redevelopment Plan upon the affected taxing entities, specify additional information, if any, needed to enable those fiscal effects to be identified and . analyzed, and suggest possible provisions in the Redevelopment Plan which would alleviate or eliminate a financial burden or detriment. The Preliminary Report for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project was transmitted to all Project Area affected taxing agencies on , 1987. ....... On March 6, 1987 the Orange County Water District and the County of Orange each by letter advised the Agency that it had called for the • creation of a fiscal review committee for the Project. On , 1987 copies of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Draft EIR were transmitted to the Orange County representative to the fiscal review committee, the committee's initial chairperson. A hearing of the fiscal review committee was held on May 1, 1987 and continued to May 15, 1987. When the committee's report has been prepared and issued, it will be added to this Part X of the Agency's Report to City Council, or . submitted separately to the City Council for addition to this Report. (X-1) Katz.11ol I is These are an estimated 74 single family residential dwelling units and 101 dwelling units in multifamily structure within the Project Area. The Project Area's resident population is estimated at between 385 and 483 persons. Most of the existing dwelling units are non- conforming uses, thus over the 35-year life of the Project all may be phased out, resulting in displacement. Some of this displacement will likely occur as a direct result of Agency activities. Most will occur through the efforts of the private sector as new uses are developed. Any displacement which occurs as a result of Agency redevelopment activities will be mitigated by the relocation assistance including financial payments, advisory assistance, and replacement housing plan provisions of state law relating to Agency- assisted developments. These provisions are further described in Part IV of this Report to City Council and in Part XI.B. below. 2. School Population and Quality of Education Three school districts, the Ocean View School District, Huntington Beach City School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District, provide elementary, junior and high school education to the Project Area. Two school sites are located within the Project Area. Both of these schools, Rancho View and Crest View, are part of the Ocean View School District. Rancho View is currently inactive and used as • administrative offices. The District has set the site aside for a long-term commercial lease. The Crest View School's current enrollment is 537 students in grades kindergarten through eighth. District glans for this school include continued educational use for five to ten years, with a potential commercial lease option thereafter. Elementary/middle school (K-8) student enrollment .throughout Huntington Beach has generally declined over the past 11 years from 14,000 in 1976 to 8,500 presently. As a result, several school sites in the City have been closed or converted to other uses. However, current projections indicate that this trend is leveling off, thus school enrollment may experience a slow increase. The Huntington Beach City School District has identified five schools that may be potentially impacted by the Project. These schools are Dwyer, Perry, Kettle, Smith and Sowers. The Peterson School, located less than one-tenth of one mile from the Project Area between Indianapolis and Atlanta, is presently closed. The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that enrollment is currently at or near capacity for operating schools. Residential development within the Project Area and additional employment generated by the Project may add additional school- aged children to the area. Accord to 1980 U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 40,193 children enrolled in school in the City and 61,322 dwelling units. • Based on this, the housing required for the Project could generate approximately 304 to 412 additional children of school age. (XI-2) Katz 11«I I is The CRL requires the Agency to use up to 20 percent of the tax increment money to benefit low and moderate income housing. This may result in additional housing which may have an impact on schools in the area. However, the CRL provides that the 20 percent may be used to provide additional housing or to improve existing housing, which would not result in additional impacts on schools. Furthermore, the Agency is not required to spend this allocation within the Project Area boundaries. The money may also be used to assist in the development or improvement of senior citizen housing projects, which historically the Agency has actively participated in. For example, the Agency was involved in the development of a 164-unit senior citizen housing project which it now . owns. Any additional senior citizen housing projects benefiting from the 20 .percent tax increment funding from the Project would not have an impact on the school system. If redevelopment activities impact school enrollment, there are a number of options available to the school districts to address the situation. The Ocean View School District will provide transportation to other schools in the City of Huntington Beach for those students that may be displaced as a result of the closure of Crest View school. This would reduce this impact to a level of insignificance. The • Huntington Beach City School District could also open the presently closed Petersen School site which is located within one-quarter mile of the proposed residential developments in the Project Area. The school districts should continue to acquire, to the extent available, California State Lottery monies for additional teaching staff to reduce student-teacher ratios. The California legislature has changed the rules governing school facilities financing by authorizing school districts to directly levy school impact fees, dedications, or other requirements for temporary or permanent facilities construction. This legislation (Assembly Bill 2926, 1986 Stats. Ch. 887) also allows school districts to impose "any other form of requirement" on developers, including the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. This legislation (which became effective January 1, 1987) does, however, place a ceiling on the cumulative amount of developers fees which can be levied for school facilities. Residential development fees are capped at $1.50 per square foot, and commercial and industrial fees at $.025 per square foot. These caps will be annually adjusted to reflect inflation. These measures would further reduce any potential impact on the school system resulting from the Project. 3. Property Assessment and Taxes ...._......_........._.................. _...._.............. In general the taxable valuations of property within the Project Area and adjoining the Project Area should increase as development • of the Project Area occurs. New development within the Project Area will be assessed at market value, as determined by the assessor. Within and outside the Project Area the assessor may increase property valuations for (XI-3) Kati Ei(P11 is existing proporties at the maximum rate of two percent per year allowed under Proposition 13, regardless of Project-related actions. And, in cases. where property changes hands, the assessor will likely assess the property at the newly recorded market value. Additionally, the assessor will reassess the added value to property and improvements due to any new development or rehabilitation which occurs. The only other matters potentially affecting property taxes in the Project Area and surrounding areas would be the possibility of additional levies resulting from formation of special. assessment districts. There are no proposals for formation of special assessment districts at this time. A parcel evaluation would be undertaken at a later date should it be desired to create a special assessment district within the Project Area. If any such district were created, it would likely be in connection with parking facilities developed within the Project Area. Special assessment districts for various legally permitted purposes may be established by the City in the manner provided by the law where feasible irrespective of whether a redevelopment project is proposed or has been adopted. B. Relocation and Low and Moderate Income Housing ................_............_........_........._........................ ......_.........._._............._............._......................._......._.........................._._.... 1. Housing. Units to be Destroyed or Removed . .. . . Implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan is expected to include Agency acquisition of property within the Project Area • for the reasons discussed in Part IV.A above. Over the 35-year life of the Project the Agency could potentially acquire up to 107 acres of property and all 175 dwelling units within the Project Area. Since the Agency expects the private sector to accomplish most Project Area development and redevelopment without Agency participation (in response to the Agency's public improvements and other implementation activities), the likelihood of the Agency actually displacing the 175 dwelling units is not considered high. The Agency has not surveyed existing owners and I tenants living within Project Area dwelling units. Consequently, current information on family income levels is not available. An analysis of 1980 Census data for the City of Huntington Beach suggests that approximately one-third .of the City's households .are of low or moderate income. Applying this proportion to the Project Area, it is estimated that there are no more than 58 housing units inhabited by low or moderate income families that could be destroyed or removed from the housing market over the life of the Project. Whenever dwelling units occupied by persons and families of low or moderate income are removed from the housing market as part of. the. Project, .the. Agency would be required to construct, develop or rehabilitate, or cause the construction, development or rehabilitation of, low and moderate income dwelling units equal in number to those destroyed or removed. This must occur within four years of such destruction or removal. Further, twenty percent of the Project .tax increment revenues received by the Agency_ must go to the provision of low and moderate income housing unless certain findings ar made_ by the City Council in accordance with the CRL. • These low and moderate income "set-aside" revenues may be used by the Agency to provide replacement housing. (XI-4) Katz 1follis 2. Pebjecti§6 Residential bisplac6ifibht Am ridt6d above; up to 175 d*Mlirig Urdtu (:i)ijld bet dimplow.nd the 35-yoflir 106 bt thfi Nojfsct, Alth6ligh digpidcomoht duo to direct. AgOfiiY action is likely to b6 considerably less; If and Wh6n actual displacibyh6rit Wi4fei- contemplated, the Agency would conduct individual hbudi§hbld surveys in order to determine the nuifibdjr, type and location of dbibp6thible reijjla66m'J6ht h6ii6inj units and the fdqUiedd number of rdfori-iilb thbrotd peidi- to distakd6m6rit of any pefsovis of low of moderate ihboftid; See Part IV of this kdObti to City Cbuncii toe Afi 6-VdrVib* of the i3t606 iri the- relocation jjr6diDdo that must be undertaken by the Ajjbfiby prior to displacing any perabn(d) of fEiviily(ies). 3; Number i and Locationaiion of 96plAbefi.bht Housing .......................................... ......... ............................................. . . ...........The specific hijifibdt and type of re'jjlaicbzzi6nt housing unAk required Oijf6U&ht to bliL Section 33413, it any; are not known at this time since the Agency has riot det6finih6d 6p6cific, acquisition Bites. As noted above, Up to 59 "replacement housing units. could be required over the life of the Pe6j&A hlih6diih the AeAuiii riuifibiif is anticipated to be much • less. The City 06Uhbii and the Agency Will make findings necessary tb provide such houi3thk either inside or bUtMdie the Project Area. When the Agency acquires property, enters into a disposition and deve1djjW6fit Ajif6difiehti ijairticitiAtion- dgrd6ifiefit de other Agee-eibbnt, or Und6rtak&i any other' activities k6quiririg or causing the destruction or removal of h6diiihit unitii from the low and inbderiite ifidbifid Housing market, the Agency Will Ofbiiidb Niplademe--ht hobikinji r­6kju­if6d puis-iiarit to Sectibil 3340 or the dkL.. 4. Number u.T......b.........e.........r.... ........a...I....n....d ....L....o....c...a.. tion of Low__an.d . Moderate Ihdofi6 . . HoUNr# PlAfihdd Othdi thdft Replacement Housing The specific nuifib6i- and type as well as thb 1666tidli Of low and moderate income h6iiiiihg units planned for construction or rehabilitation o5th6ir than eepl&bdrh&M- hbuififtit ijfiitli is hot known at this tune. The A#ehdY presently has ho"'i fpldriii to d6viiiop such unite itself. the Ptbject Area Will likely d6fitairi new e6iiidefit'idl usidii after ftill, UfijOI6id6ftiAtion (if the pfbObAdd J?6d6V6lbj3ffient Plan As dx&Odfitly dftVisio'n-'ddj grid at least 1.5 i3efedfit of all iiiidh UhW3 in the aggregate must be hiikihibld at affordable- housing costs (L6.-j 30 percent of a hou66holdik monthly ihdoiihe) to ptiiabhii and ffaihilidii of 16W of moderiAd iftd6rhei 5; Fift6fidihg Mdthod for ReipbacEiffidrit Housing Requirements ........... ....... ...........-..................................... Replacement • The Agenc'k will er6ploy as necessary any of the 66thddEi outlined in Part III of this ]16poft to City Council to meet replacement housing reqUirem6nt6 and other obligatiofis under the Rediivelopm6fit Plan and Community R6devel6pm6ftt Law. Not 16si3 than 20 percent of all taxes KatzHolfis which may be allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 33670 of Article 4 • of the OR1. Rhall be used by the Agency for purposes of increasing and improving the Rupply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income and very low income households, unless certain findings prescribed in the law are made. 6. Timetable for Provision of Relocation and Housing ..........._........._........... ................... . ..........................._........................................................._.. ........_.........................._..._._.._ Objectives If replacement housing is to be provided pursuant to Section 33413 of the CRL, the Agency shall take necessary steps to cause the construction, rehabilitation or development of such housing in accordance with the time limits prescribed by law. The relocation plan(s) prepared by the Agency for a particular development activity shall contain schedules to insure comparable replacement housing is available in accordance with the requirements of the CRL and the State Relocation Guidelines. C. Other Ma....................._................_. .. . . Environment The Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Project will have a beneficial impact upon residents, property owners, and businesses in the area. Implementation of the Project will bring about coordinated growth and development, making. the Project Area a more attractive and livable community. The Redevelopment Plan will help the City to reverse decline without the need for more extensive and expensive measures in the future. Through rehabilitation and new construction of . low and . moderate income housing, including housing for senior citizens, the redevelopment process will increase the availability of quality housing in the Project Area and City for a cross section of income groups. In addition, the commercial, and residential development projects that will be brought about as a result of redevelopment action . will stimulate the job-producing economy. Thus, unemployment conditions in the Project Area may be improved, which in turn will improve the loci-economic situation of the residents. Land use classifications within the Redevelopment Plan are intended to conserve neighborhoods by limiting commercial development into residential areas. The land use provisions contained in the Plan are intended to upgrade the environment in the Project Area and discourage additionally commercial traffic in residential neighborhoods. i (XI-6) Katz Hoi i is PART XII. ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFF_ICM SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS,.WITH AFFBCTSD..TAXING AGBNCISS; AND ANALYSIS OF AND RB3PONS8 TO REPORT OF FISCAL RSVIgW COYIQTTBS .... . ............. ...............__....._.........._..._............_...................._..................._...._....._.._................................_........_.................._._...__....._..................... A. Introduction Pursuant to Section 33352(m) of the CRL, a report to city council must include an analysis of the county fiscal officer's report as well as a summary of the consultations of the agency, or such attempts to consult, with each of the affected taxing agencies. Section 33352(m) also requires a report to city council to include the redevelopment agency's analysis of the report of the fiscal review committee, if any, which shall include the agency's response to such report, any additional information the agency may desire to provide, and any measures to mitigate detrimental fiscal impact the agency may desire to propose. This Part XII of the Agency's Report to the City Council addresses the requirements of Section 33352(m). B. Analysis of _Report to County„Fiscal Officer. 1. Report Requirements Section 33328 of the CRL requires the county fiscal • officer (i.e., Auditor-Controller) responsible for the allocation of property taxes to prepare and deliver a specific report to the Redevelopment Agency and each affected taxing agency. (Affected taxing agencies are those governmental entities which levied a property tax on all or any portion of Project Area Property "...in the fiscal year prior to submission of the [redevelopment] plan to the [fiscal review] committee"). The following items are required to be included in the Auditor-Controller's report: a. The total assessed valuation of all taxable property within the Project Area as shown on the base year assessment roll.. b. The identification of each taxing agency levying taxes in the Project Area. C. The amount of tax revenue to be derived by each taxing agency from the base year assessment roll from the Project Area, including state subventions for homeowners, business inventory, and similar subventions. d. For each taxing agency, its total ad valorem tax revenues from all property within its boundaries, whether inside or outside the Project Area. e. The estimated first year taxes available to the Redevelopment Agency, if any, based upon information submitted by the • Redevelopment Agency, broken down by taxing agencies. l 193.hnt.7.1.2 051987.tmc (XII-1) Katz l iol I is f. The assessed valuation of the Project Area for the preceding year, or, if requested by the Redevelopment Agency, for the preceding five years, except for state assessed property on the board roll. 2. Analysis._of Data Reported by County Fiscal Officer The report of the Orange County Auditor-Controller was transmitted to the Agency on December 23, 1986. The report, although not addressing the fiscal effect of the Project upon affected taxing agencies, is nevertheless referred to by the Auditor-Controller as the "Fiscal Impact Report." . The report does not include taxable value information on state- assessed property since the State Board of Equalization (SBE) report on such values had not been issued at the date of the Auditor-Controller's report. The Agency subsequently received a copy directly from the SBE. Copies of both the Auditor-Controller's report and the SBE report are included in Part IX of this Report to City Council. a. Total Assessed Valuation of Ail_ Taxable. Property .... ..... .. ... Within Project Area as Shown on Base Year Assess- _.._.........._... .............. ......... .._......._........................._.........._............_................ .. .. ...... .. meet Roll. The 1986-87 base year value reported by the Auditor-Controller for the Project Area is $242,005,148, which includes • $203,394,149 in local secured value and $38,610,969 in local unsecured value. The Auditor-Controller's reported values are aggregated figures, and do not distinguish between land, improvements, or personal. property values. While such categorical distinctions are not required. by law, such information is useful in projecting. future values due to different assessment parameters applicable to real property and other property. The SBE .reports an additional $5,248,700 in state- assessed value for the Project Area, giving a combined total taxable value of $241,253,848 for the Project. b. Identification _of. Each Taxing Agency. Levying ,Taxes .. ......... .... .... ... in„_Project Area.„ The Auditor-Controller's report identifies the following Project Area taxing agencies: City of Huntington Beach Coast Community College District Huntington Beach Elementary District Huntington Beach Union High School District Metropolitan Water District Midway City Sanitary District Ocean View Elementary School District Orange County Orange County Cemetary District • Orange County Department of Education Orange County Flood Control District (XII72) Katz 1fol l is Orange County Harbors, Beaches 8. Parks Dist. Orange County Sanitation District #3 Orange County Sanitation District $11 Orange County Transit District Orange County Vector Control District Orange County Water District As noted above, taxing agencies are defined to include governmental entities who levied a .property tax on all or any portion of Project Area property in the prior fiscal year. Neither the Orange County Cemetary District or the Midway City Sanitary District levied a property tax in the Project Area in 1985-86. Nor is either district, according to Table III of the Auditor-Controller's report, expected to levy a property tax during the 1986-87 base year. Accordingly, these two districts appear to have been erroneously identified as affected taxing agencies for the Project. All other taxing agencies listed in the report levied a tax either as a portion of the basic $1 per $100 tax rate, or to apply to debt service on voter approved debt ("tax override"), or both. C. Amount of .Tax Revenue to be Derived by Each . .... ......... .. . ........._.......... ............_.. _.._ ... ...._. .. Taxing Agency Prom the Base Year Assessment Roll from the Project Area, . Including_ State Subventions for Homeowners, Business Inventoryi. and Similar • Subventions. Table III of the Auditor-Controller's report presents, by taxing agency, the amount of property tax revenue each agency will derive from the 1986-87 base year roll, both from the basic $1 tax rate and, where applicable, from tax overrides. A combined total of $2,420,051 in property taxes will be generated by the basic $1 tax rate, and another $327,750 in combined taxes will be derived from override tax rates. d. Total Ad Valorem Tax Revenue for Each Taxing. ......... .. _ .. . ....._.._.............. ......_... ...._..... . . Agency from All Property_ Within_ It's Boundariesr Whether Inside or Outside Pr..... Area. The Auditor-Controller's report does not include the total ad valorem tax revenues for each taxing agency from within its boundaries, whether inside or outside the Project Area. The report asserts that "the revenue data necessary to complete this section of the ...[report] does not currently exist because of the impact of Assembly Bill 8," and "an inordinate manual effort and expense would be required...to gather any reliable substitute data." As a substitute, the report provides a supplemental table of comparative assessed values for each taxing agency, to give a relative indication of base g year revenue percentage given up to the CRA." The supplemental table . provided by the Auditor- Controller shows that five taxing agencies, including the ,City of Huntington • Beach, have more than three percent of their total assessed value within the Project Area; one agency has just over two percent of its assessed value in (XII-3) Katz I lol I is the Project Area; one has approximately 1.4 percent; and the remainder all have less than one percent. e. Estimated, First Year Taxes Available to .........................._.......... ......_...................._...... . .................................._......_............................................ Redevelopment . Agency Broken .Down.." by „Taxing Agencies. ........ ......... The Auditor-Controller estimates, on the basis of an assumed eight percent growth from base year revenues, that the first year revenues available to the Agency will total $219,824. This amount is not broken down by "taxing .agencies. This figure is somewhat higher than the $208,000 projected in Table III-5 in Part III of this Report to City Council. f. Assessed Valuation 'of Project Area for Preceding ............._..................... .................._..._....................._......_..................... ....... ... Year, or for..Preceding Five Years, Except for State ......... Assessed Property on Board Roll. The Auditor-Controller's report does not include assessed valuation data for the preceding year or the preceding five. years for the Project Area. "Inordinate manual effort and expense" is again cited as the reason for omission of this data. In lieu of the required data, the report substitutes a five year history of total secured and unsecured values for the City of Huntington Beach as a whole. The substituted data has little bearing on an • analysis of Project Area valuation and taxation data, unless a comparison could be made between City-wide valuation growth and Project Area valuation growth. Such comparison cannot be made "because the. necessary data has been omitted from the Auditor-Controller's report. C. Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the publication of notice of joint Agency/Council public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, to consult with each affected taxing agency with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and the allocation of tax increment revenues. When the Agency has completed. such consultations, a summary will .be prepared and added to this Report to City Council or submitted. separately to the City Council for addition to this Report. D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review ............. . ............. . Committee As noted in Part X of this Report to City Council, a fiscal review committee has been called for in connection with the Project. When the report of the fiscal review committee has been issued, it will be added to Part X of this Report or submitted separately to the City "Council for addition .to this Report. In addition, as required by Section 33352(m) of the CRL, the Agency will analyze and respond to the fiscal review committee's report, and such analysis and remponmei will 'be added; to this Report or • submitted separately to the City Ccxunc:il for addition to thiw- Report. (XII-4) w ' hatzliollis DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550 This Report to City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is prepared pursuant to an Agreement for Consulting Services between the Redevelopment Agency. of the City of Huntington Beach and Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1985, and amended April 6, 1987, which Agreement provides for services involving preparation of certain reports and documents (including a Project EIR) and the coordination of fiscal review analyses and related activities. Total compensation under the Agreement is not to exceed Sixty Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), including out-of-pocket expenses. _ _ _ __ __ �� �� 4 i ,\ KatzHollis r SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL on the PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN for the HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared by Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc. for the HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY June, 1987 062487.b1 1299.hnt/7 Katz Ho11 is TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ...................... INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1 PART VI. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, AND REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF GOVERNMENT CODE.............................................................................................VI-1 PART X. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.......................................X-1 PART XII. SUPPLEMENT TO REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER; SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS WITH AFFECTED TAXING AGENCIES; AND ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO REPORT OFFISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE..................................................XII-1 A. Introduction........................................................................XII-1 B. Analysis of Report of County Fiscal Officer.....................XII-1 C. Summary of Consultations with Affected• •.•.•••.••...•.•.•.•••.....XII-2 Taxing Agencies................................ 1. Affected Taxing Agencies with Whom Fiscal Detriment Alleviation (Pass- Through") Agreements are Proposed or Potentially Proposed ..................................................XII-2 a. Local School District............................................XII-2 b. Orange County Department of Education........................................................XII-3 c. County of Orange.................................................XII-3 d. Orange County Water District.............................XII-4 e. Orange County Sanitation District Nos. 3 and 11 ......................................................XII-4 2. Other Affected Taxing Agencies................................XII-4 a. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California.............................................XII-4 b. No Impact Agencies..............................................XII-5 c. Undetermined Agencies-Presumed No Impact.............................................................XII-5 D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review Committee.....................................................XII-5 • Katz Hol l is REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION As required by Section 33352 , of the California 'Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency prepared a Report to the Huntington Beach City Council on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.. On June 1, 1987, the Agency adopted Resolution No. 144 which approved its Report and authorized submission of the Report and the proposed Redevelopment Plan to the City Council. At the time the Report to City Council was approved, certain portions of the Report were either not available or were not complete. These included: Part VI, Report and Recommendations of the Planning Commission; Part X, Report of the Fiscal Review Committee; and Sections C (Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies) and D (Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review Committee) of Part XII. The purpose of this Supplement is to submit to the City Council the above sections of the Agency's Report to the City Council which were not available or were incomplete when the original Report was approved. The part and section numbers contained in the Supplement correspond to the part and section numbers established in the original Report. • 1 Kati Ho l I is Part VI. REPORT AND .RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING COMMISSION, AND REPORT REQUIRED BY SECTION 65402 OF GOVERNMENT CODE .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._........................._... Section 33352(f) of the Community Redevelopment Law requires the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission on the proposed Redevelopment Plan to be included in this Report to City Council., Section 65402 of the Government Code states that no real property .should be acquired by dedication or otherwise for public purposes, no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized until such activities have been submitted to and reported upon by the local planning agency as to conformity with the jurisdiction's adopted general plan. On June 2, 1987 the Huntington Beach . Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1380 which reported that the Commission found the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach, and that the public activities and undertakings which may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Plan conform to the General Plan. • In adopting Resolution No. 1380, the Planning Commission made no recommendation for or against approval of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. The Commission, did, however, have the following comments on the proposed Plan (as extracted from the minutes of the meeting at .which Resolution No. 1380 was adopted): PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS .........._............................................................._........................_._........................................._................ 1. The Project Area Committee recommended denial of the Redevelopment Plan. 2. There has . been no formal Planning Commission public hearings on the Redevelopment Plan which .is necessary for adequate public impact. 3. The reports and calendars that the Planning Commission has been identified as taking an action mainly focused on the Planning Commission finding the Redevelopment Plan in conformance to the General Plan and not approval of the project area. 4. There is a lack of definition in the Redevelopment Plan. 5. There is an unrestricted use of eminent domain. 6. The Redevelopment Plan has a potential of increasing density • in the area. (VI-1) Katz Hol I is A copy of Resolution No. 1380 is included . in this Part VI of the Agency's Report to City Council. V • 6 (VI-2) RESOLUTION NO. 1380 AIA rA A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has sub- mitted to the Planning Commission a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and - The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has formulated and adopted a Preliminary Plan for the Project and finds it in conformance with the General Plan; and Section 33346 of the Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000, et seq. ) provides that the Planning commission -is to review the proposed Redevelopment Plan and make its report thereon to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council, including a determination that the. Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach; and • Section 65402 of the Government Code provides in part: " (a) If a general plan or part thereof has been adopted, no real property shall be acquired by dedication or otherwise for street, square, park or other public purposes, and no real property shall be disposed of, no street shall be vacated or abandoned, and no public building or structure shall be constructed or authorized, if the adopted general plan or part thereof applies -thereto, until the location, pur- pose and extent of such acquisition or disposition, such street vacation or abandonment, or such public building or structure have been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency as to con- formity with said adopted general plan or part thereof . . . " (c) A local agency. shall not acquire real property for any of the purposes specified in paragraph (a) nor dispose of any real property, nor construct. or authorize a public building or structure, in any county or city, if such county or city has adopted a general plan or part thereof, until the location, purpose and extent of such acquisition, disposi- tion, or such public building or structure have • been submitted to and reported upon by the planning agency having jurisdiction, as to conformity with said adopted general plan or part thereof . " and The above required reports and recommendations, including matters referred . to in Section 33346 of the Health and Safety Code • i and Section 65402 of the Government Code, are to be made to the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council for their consideration in acting on the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan; and The Planning Commission has considered the proposed Redevelop- ment Plan, including the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the General Plan of the city and other pertinent reports and documents . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, as follows : 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: (a) Pursuant to Section 33346 of the Community Rede- velopment Law,. the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project (attached hereto as Attachment No. . l) conforms to the General Plan of the City of. Huntington Beach. (b) Pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code, with respect to public activities which may be undertaken within the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan, and that are referred to in said section., such activities and undertakings con- form to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. 2. Report . The Planning Commission hereby reports to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach the findings referred to in Section 1 . In the event that prior to its adoption of the Redevelopment Plan, the City Council desires to make any further minor, technical , or clarifying changes to the Redevelopment Plan, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that: any such minor, technical, or clarifying changes need not be referred to it for further report and recommendation. 3 . Transmittal . The Planning Commisson' s Secretary shall transmit a copy of this Resolution to the Huntington Beach Rede- velopment Agency and the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach for consideration as part of the Agency' s Report to the City Council pursuant to Section 33352 of the Community Redevelopment Law, and this Resolution shall be deemed the report concerning the proposed Redevelopment Plan and contemplated public projects and activities thereunder, as required by applicable provisions of law. -4 . The Planning Commission makes no recommendations for or • against the approval of the Redevelopment Plan.. • PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd. day of June, 1987, by the following vote: AYES: Silva, Higgins, Pierce, Leipzig, Livengood NOES: Schumacher, Summerell ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CPlairman, Huntington Beach Plaiiining Commission AltiT'EST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r ary, Huntington Beach City AttorPtley Plan ng Commission hatzHollis Part X. REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Section 33353 of the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL) provides that a county or any affected taxing entity may call for the creation of a fiscal review committee within 15 days after , receipt from a redevelopment agency a preliminary report prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 33344.5 of the CRL. As defined in Section 33353.1 of the CRL, the fiscal review committee is composed of one representative from each of the affected taxing agencies. The purpose of the committee is to identify the fiscal effects of the proposed redevelopment plan upon the affected taxing entities, specify additional information, if any, needed to enable those fiscal effects to be identified and analyzed, and suggest possible provisions in the redevelopment plan which would alleviate or eliminate a financial burden or detriment. Following transmittal of the Preliminary Report for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project to all Project Area affected taxing agencies, on March 6, 1987 the Orange County Water District and the County of Orange each by letter advised the Agency that it had called for the. creation of a fiscal review committee for the Project. Following the calling for formation of the fiscal review committee, copies of the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Draft EIR were transmitted to the Orange County representative to the fiscal review committee, the committee's initial chairperson. A hearing of the fiscal review committee was held on May 1, 1987 and was continued to May 15, 1987. On May 11, 1987 the fiscal review committee chairman (the County's representative) issued a transcript of the May lot meeting. At the May 15th meeting, the committee approved the transcript and adopted the approved .transcript as the official report of the committee on the proposed Redevelopment Plan. A copy of .the approved report (transcript) is included in this Para X of the Agency's Report to the City Council (%1) R E C E IV LARRY PARRISH t5C3 MTY O F COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER JUN — 4 1987 ROBERT E.THOMAS HALL OF ADMINISTRATION • cOREH 10 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA.SANTA ANA,CA 92701 ,I� p /� C ,IpT ASIXICIAT68 �/�7�V V1 G (714)834.2345 i COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE - _IOP,ir"M1T 6 May 11, 1987 TO: Fiscal Review Committee Members SUBJECT: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Enclosed is a transcript from the May lst meeting. The City • requested one and our attorney advised me that it could also be used as the official report of our hearing; consequently, I 've chosen to use it that way. _ Please review it and if you have any additional written material you would like to add to it for the Agency, please bring it with you for Friday's meeting. Sincerely, chard A. Keefe Administrative Manager x RAK:mm Enclosure • RECEIVZ.D REPORT OF THE FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REGARDING THE J UN - 4 11 HUNTINGTON BEACH, BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT "�TAASSOCiiens J6 HEARING HELD MAY 1, 1987 Members Present: Mr. Richard Keefe, County of Orange, Chairman Mr. C. M. Brahmbhatt, Coast Community College District S Mr. Gary Burgner, Huntington Beach City Elementary School District Ms. Garri Daily, Orange County Water District Mr. Monte McMurray, Ocean View Elementary School District Representatives of the City of Huntington Beach: Mr. Stephen Kohler Mr. Mark Huebsch • Mr. Keefe: Is the City prepared to make a brief overview of the project? Mr. Kohler: If you like we could certainly do that. Just by way of the the background and progress on the adoption process to date, the Redevelopment Agency has contracted with the firm of Katz, Hollis, Coren some months ago to assist in the preparation of the variety of documents necessary to create a new Y redevelopment project area. That effort was officially commenced by approval of Preliminary Plan by our Planning Commission in October of last year. Since that time the Project Area Committee has formed itself, met on several occasions, and has concluded its work at this point in time. Future actions that we expect are certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the Public Hearing of the Redevelopment Agency and City Council • 1 is scheduled for July 6, 1987. The documents that have been prepared are • owner participation rules, the Preliminary Report on the project area, the Plan itself, and that Environmental Impact Report. Each of you has received as a taxing agency a copy of those documents. Transmittal was authorized by a resolution of the agency when these documents were complete. The Environmental Impact Report comment period closed on April 4, 1987 and we • u expect the agency to certify the document in about two weeks. Again, since you hav time to review the documents you know that the majority of the impis planned for the use of the tax increment which may be gained b F P Y 9 Y option of this project area are those public improvements. Those include the improvements called for in the Orange County Transportation District Super Street Study which was prepared and approved by various city councils affected by it throughout the Beach Blvd. corridor about 18 months • ago. The plan incorporates exactly those improvements as they are en- visioned for that section of the Blvd. in Huntington Beach. In addition to that, the area also lacks a variety of public improvements-water and sewer improvements are necessary-and some drainage improvements as well . At various locations throughout the project area normal public improvements are lacking such as curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. Other improvements that we'd . hoped to undertake are undergrounding of utilities and a unified design plan for the entire corridor including streetscape, furniture, landscaping improvements to make the corridor more pleasant and a more viable economic contribution to the community. This is a very brief overview. Mr. Keefe: Any members of the committee have any questions? • The purpose of the fiscal review committee is to enable the affected taxing 2 agencies to enter into the record and provide for the redevelopment agency information related to the fiscal impact or burden that the redevelopment • rma t p p project will have upon their taxing agencies- and also to suggest alternatives to the plans of the city, or the redevelopment agency that would help allevi- ate those burdens. I would like to begin with introducing into the record a few comments with regards to the impact that the redevelopment project on Beach Blvd. will have upon the County of Orange. Followir- that I would like to ask each of the members of the Committee to d ise. The Redevelopment Project according to the Preliminary Report provided by the Redevelopment Agency anticipates tax increment revenue .to the extent of $515 million. Division of that $515 million by taxing agencies is as follows: • The Orange County General Fund approximately $79 million; the Orange County Flood Control District $13 million; the Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District $13 million; total cost to County funds $106 million. Since the passage of Proposition 13, the .greatest problem that the County of Orange has had is in controlling an independent revenue source. The total s revenues for the County between fiscal year 1977-78, the year prior to passage of Proposition 13 and 1984-85 the latest year for which we have complete figures indicate a considerable change in the fiscal condition and health of the County of Orange. The largest single revenue source which we had prior to that time - the property tax-was cut by nearly 50 percent. Now the only revenue source of any significance remaining under County control is of all things charges for current services which accounted for 11.1 percent • 3 • of total County revenues in 1984-85. The share of total County revenues derived from property tax has declined from 35.3 percent in 1977-78 to 23.1 percent in 1984-85. State aid which comprised 24.2 percent of total County revenues in 1977-78 increased to 34.8 percent of total County revenues in 1984-85. This largely reflects the additional funding for Health and Welfare programs provided by the State as part of the Proposition 13 bail out legislation. There was also a slight decrease in the overall County share of County revenues received from the Federal government during this time period from 20 percent in 1977-78 to 15.1 percent in 1984-85. County revenues expressed in Curren t . ars increased by $336.4 million or 84.9 percent between 1977-78 ,,a� 84-85. After adjusting for inflation, however, total County revenu ctually experienced an increase of only 9.1 percent during this time period. The current dollar revenue growth of Orange County (84..9 percent) did not keep pace with cities (on average 175 percent) or the State General Fund (133 percent) . Total revenues do not tell the complete picture because many of our funds are obligated by State law or specific State mandated programs. Moneys which are not restricted as to purpose for which they can be expended are known as general purpose revenues. General purpose revenues are used to finance both the County's cost for programs required by State law and those programs desired by local citizens. County general purpose revenues have .not kept pace with the County cost of certain State required programs for the past seven years. Between 1977-78 and 1984-85, County general purpose revenues increased by 37.3 percent. During the same time period County costs for Health and Welfare programs increased by 88.7 percent. County trial court • costs increased by 170 percent and County jail costs increased by 65.6 4 percent. As a consequence, the high growth rate of State-required program costs which are provided to all County residents relative to the growth of • general purpose revenues has been greater. As a consequence, program requirements such as those for roads, for criminal justice, the courts , jails, must be accommodated within a gradually shrinking pool of funds. Last year's County budget was balanced using revenue sharing funds which no longer l exist. At the present time the County of Orange is under court order to reduce overcrowding in the main jail which will require construction of two more jails in the near future at a cost of approximately $500 million. In addition, these jai,"must be staffed and operated. These services are provided to all gy residents. Alleh The Count h�a contingent liability of approximately $15 million as a Y 9 Y PP Y result of a tax case in Los Angeles County. The County General fund for the coming fiscal year, has a projected deficit of $23 million and a potential-. elimination .of 2000 jobs. During the life of the project the costs to the County group of funds will exceed projected revenues by $5,458,000. The cummulative impact of redevelopment projects in Orange County also has a detrimental affect on the County's ability to finance its operations. Not 4 only the results of Proposition 13, which has restricted the growth of County funds, has led to the current malaise of the County general fund. In addition, 4 percent of property tax revenues generated Countywide go to redevelopment projects. That is up from 3.2 percent for FY 1980-81. This steady growth if allowed to continue will severely impact the County's ability to fund services in the future. For the purposes of the record and the item I handed out was our fiscal analysis of the specific impact on the • County group of funds that the Beach Blvd. project will have upon the County 5 i of Orange. That figure was as I mentioned in the testimony approximately $5 million. Ms. Daily: I am not quite as prepared as Richard was. His summary of what' s happened to the County as a result of Prop. 13 and redevelopment projects has affected the Orange County Water District the same way. This project in particular e will probably by the end of the 35 year project life cost the district more than $3 million if a pass through isn't offered to the District. The func- tion of the Orange County Water District is to make sure that the ground water basin has supplies enough for the various cities .and other purveyors in Orange County to local supplies and not to have to rely on imported water from the % opolitan Water District. • This year, for example, the cost in providing that ground water is $123.00 an acre foot and a replenishment assessment is charged against our pumpers. Thats fixed at $32.00 an acre foot. There is a discrepancy there, which has to be made up in taxes. On this particular project from the first year, that discrepancy will cost us $96,000 which is not much when we are talking about County figures, but, to us it's a lot of money. The biggest thing I want to stress is that any redevelopment project is going to instigate more water use no matter what it is, even if it's just road improvement. It's being done to handle more people, more business and that's going to raise the water use. The more demand on our ground water supply. The discrepancy in the replenishment assessment and the cost per acre foot can't be met simply by increased supply generating more revenue. It does not work that way. The more demand that we have, the more capital projects we have to enter into. • More research has to be done to find ways to get ground water. In our. case it works backwards. I have more backup to submit to the record. 6 P McMurray: As far as the impact of the project on the schools it takes a little different bent in that currently about 45 percent of the taxes collected • go to schools. The current way that financing schools is organized is that the State makes up the difference in the loss. Our concern is that with the 35 year project there is no assurance that this kind of fill-in by the State would be continued. A couple other points are that 20 U percent of the increment must go to low cost housing and of course that impacts. Housing brings in students and that impacts a district in services that need to be provided as well as increased commercial develop- ment brings demands upon the schools in that creates jobs and people move to an area and they hawe' too a serviced in the two elementary school �t A districts and the oigl! ool .'stricts that bound this project. Those are our Tafin p c ns. Mr Burgner: I would reiter'a#�'`what Monte said about the impact on our school district. There is no doubt that when redevelopment comes in they by law provide low cost housing. They provided two million square feet of commercial property also generates students for our school district and the argument that the State makes up any loss of local revenues is fallacious on its face. As we sit here right now we are faced at the State level with a deficit on our general fund, our regular operating budget, of approximately 112 of 1 percent. I think if we took a look at redevelopment locally as well as Statewide we would find out if there were no redevelopment there would be no deficit. The Gann Limit is placing increased pressure on the State. Given today's facts that the State does not make up the difference in funding losses from redevelopment locally and statewide that the Gann limit will have further impact on that and their over 35 year projection • I I 7 • more or less in much shorter term of the next two or three years it may be possible that those funds will not be made up and we could suffer a tremen- dous loss. We currently have overcrowding,- inadequate facilities , in some of the schools that are currently serviced by not only the proposed Beach Blvd. redevelopment but also the downtown project. We have inadequate facilities and there is currently no local and no state means of bringing 0 those facilities up to the standards to which they should be. I would suggest to the redevelopir}ent`agency the proposal that to examine the fact that quality schools are integral part of an improved quality environ- ment. r • ; Mr. Brahmbhatt: When schoo'hs are;-'impacted the kids grow up and come to college. In the last fiscal year, we have lost and have had a declining enrollment of • about 37 percent of our student in declining enrollment. State is not matching the money which we have to spend as a fixed cost to run the three campuses which are Orange Coast College, Coastline College, and Golden West College. Right now, our facilities like Orange Coast College is a 40 year old facility and have not enough money coming from the State for education purposes and you can see those facilities have really a different maintenance. We are looking for the ways because of 4 Proposition 13 we cannot generate any more tax dollars and our facility is really not in a good condition right now. We are looking at all different ways how we can improve the facility. When you offer 600 housing development that will have impact with student coming. into the community colleges; and we are not getting enough dollars from the State to support all the activities for the entire college. I do not have the • numbers or dollars of how much the impact is , but for my further review for the meeting we will bring what kind of impact it will have on the community colleges. 8 Mr. Keefe: Would the redevelopment agency like to reply or to ask questions? • Mr. Huebsch: Mr. McMurray, has your district enacted fees on new redevelop- ment? Mr. McMurray: Yes. Mr. Huebsch: Did you enact the ma 'ees..that were allowable for indust- rial , commercial , aresidential . Mr. McMurray: Yes, in cooperation with the high school district and Hunting- ton Beach City Elementary District. Mr. Huebsch: Ok, so both of the districts have done that? • Mr. McMurray: Yes. Mr. Huebsch: For the County, I am very curious on the last page of the fiscal impact review handout that Mr. Kohler and I were given. It indicates in comparing general fund in the first numbers on the page, years 1-35 net fiscal impact without taxing increment financing versus tax increment. financing. For years 1-35 it shows -$96 million and for years 1-65 it shows -$276 mil- lion. My understanding of those numbers is that there is a revenue short- fall for the County that's greater over a '65 year period than a 35 year period. Is my understanding correct? • 9 Mr eefe: That is a glitch that' s in the program. We are not concerned about that column because the length of the project is only 35 years. Mr. Huebsch: Well , maybe you can explain that to me what that is suppose to mean because it looks like there is a shortfall that increases after the termination of the plan. o Mr. Keefe: That was based on the assumption in the program that will be removed because we are reworking this program: the assumption the redevelopment project would go beyond 35 years. Mr. Huebsch: That it will go for 65:.yea M efe: Yes. That's why I 'm saying you can. ignore that column. We are only concerned about the figures in the first column. Mr. Huebsch: Ok, is it reasonable to infer from the formula that there is a positive revenue impact on the County from years 35 through 65 of the, difference between $276 million and $96 million? What I 'm saying is is that just an extrapolation out? 6 Mr. Keefe: That's right it is. Yes a Mr. Huebsch: Ok. To the County again, you discussed some impacts of Proposition 13 and some • historical comparisons between 1977-78 and 1984-85 and you discussed 10 i increased costs of particular items particularly in the State mandates area. Do you have any data available on the changes if any in County fees • either in rates or gross amounts or kinds -of fees assessed over that same period? Mr. Keefe: I can indicate what the increase was for the period in question. That would 4 be found in the column entitled charges for current services. Look on table one percent change in the far column to the right. Over this period we are talking about, 1977-78 and 198AAt, those fees have increased roughly 87.7 9 percent. O Mr. Huebsch: Are there any increased. fees or imposition of additional fees that are being contemplated by the County or under study at this time? • Mr. Keefe There could be. I wouldn't be necessarily aware of them. Generally fees are reviewed on an annual basis. Most of the fees in question here by State law can be increased only to cover the actual cost of services. So as costs of services increase when we review fees then we come back to the Board with some recommendations for increasing. Generally this is done annually. Mr. Huebsch: Absent a redevelopment plan would the County be proceeding with financial support for any improvements to Beach Blvd. There has been some discussion of the super street concept. • 11 Mr eefe: I don't know. The super street concept, as you all know has inadequate fund- ing over any near term period at all . As a consequence, absent any plans by the cities to do anything specifically, the plans for funding the program are still open for discussion. Mr. Kohler: So it could be our intention to use some tax increment funds to fund those 0 improvements would be a benefit and perhaps would relieve some pressure on the County General fund. Mr. Keefe: Conceivably. Mr. Kohler: I just have a couple of questions. First, Garri Daily, you mentioned about the need to purchase water to maintain the underground supply. Do you also get treated water from the Sanitation District to use as for that purpose as well? Ms. Daily: Not for underground supply. That's used for basically one of our barrier projects that prevents sea water intrusion into the ground water basin and what it does is creates a wall so that the sea water can't come in and destroy the ground water basin. The job of the district is not just to keep Y the supply in the basin; it's also to protect the quality. By the way, the cost I mentioned wasn't just for purchasing water; it's also cost for developing ways of sinking water into the basin. Mr. Kohler: The technical necessity of getting it back underground? Could you repeat the cost versus revenue figures again on a per acre foot basis? • 12 Ms. Daily: For this year our cost per acre foot is $123.00. Our replenishment assess- ment fee is $32.00. • Mr. Huebsch: Is there a reason you don't raise the fee? Ms. Daily: A lot of reasons. Basically the District Act prohibits us from just raising the fee. The fee itself can't fund every project that we have. I 'm not real clear on which ones it can and can't fund. But there is no way that we could just make up for tax loss by _si►mpply raising replenishment assessment fee. It wouldn't work that way. Mr. Kohler: To continue on the Sanitation District Water that you get, does that help offset the need for, would you have to purchase water or find another source to create that barrier if that weren't there? • Ms. Daily: We would either have to replace ground water into that zone or we would have to buy imported water. Mr. Kohler: So it is of assistance in that regard? For Mr. Keefe, did you restate something we discussed in the past? Was that the result of the analysis was a net loss of $5 million over the life of the project area? Mr. Keefe: That's correct. Mr. Kohler: For the Community College District, you mentioned the 35 percent declining • 13 i enrollment. What share of the costs of maintaining the facilities for these • total operations is made up with enrollment? If you had increased enroll- ment would that also not help meet the current financial problems? Mr. Brahmbhatt: In 1981-82, our District had 32,000 ADA generated. We get good money for 32,000 ADA. With the change in the class you can offer and get the 1 credit or the money from the State . had been changed in 1980-83 at the same time the high school graduate, coming to the community college because of levy of enrollment fees by the governor has significant f9 impact. Now we can' t just cl s. ;fur campus. We have to maintain so the t� fixed cost to maintain r19w over the entire budget, we are looking at more than 85 percent of our cost is fixed cost. There is no other way for us to reduce those costs. We are not getting money from the • State on a different maintenance as much as needed. For our Coastline building even strict leases they are not going to give any money, we borrowed money just to provide facility to the community. We go outside to the bond market to raise money to have the building and we are paying a high cost for it. Mr. Kohler: Would you ultimately reach a point where you wouldn't rely on the State? If enrollment increased, would fees from enrollment and other things be suffi- cient? Mr. Brahmbhatt: Yes, but our projection right now with the high school graduate coming up for the next 10 years. We are not looking at there will be any significant increase in our ADA. Our last three fiscal years our in- crease or decrease in ADA is kind of stabilizing now; its less than 100 14 ADA per fiscal year more or less. We kind of stabilize but all the cost of all the building that is already there ground work we cannot just • shut it down. Mr. Kohler: Are enrollment fees that you can charge stipulated by the State? You have no control? Mr. Brahmbhatt: No. No control . We do not keep those fees at all . Those fees are also calculated by the State that they are giving us money back and not to keep for ourselves. They pay us only 2 percent of the fees what we call our operating costs. Mr. Huebsch: To the County, could you briefly descri�6tie County efforts to support CY affordable housing? It's a very ge�Ol question, I know. To break that • down a little, what's the magnitude of- the funding effort for the current fiscal year? Mr. Keefe: I don' t have those figures. Mr. Huebsch: There is an active County supported program I assume to promote affordable housing of the County and County general funds is used for that? Mr. Keefe: No. Mr. Huebsch: No County general funds are used for that? Mr. Keefe: Not that I 'm aware of. • 15 Mjuebsch: Could your office provide follow-up information after the meeting, we could digest that. Mr. Keefe: Let me make one additional comment. Going back to the question about the super street, the question you asked was whether or not the County antici- pates spending any money on the super street in simple terms. Over a period of 35 years it is not possible for me to say what might happen in the future. At the present time there are no general fund moneys whatsoever being devoted to the road fund; consequently the general fund is not likely in the near term, nor does the County have any plans in the near term to fund the super street project. Mr. a I need to make a few comments aboi " question related to developer fees. • 1 ' We are.alT well aware that deve�gper fees in terms of school districts hit the books in January I and we-, re 3 months 4 months into' the collection-of those fees in any school districts. The record should state that there are currently 62 pieces of legislation that I 'm aware of in Sacramento to modify, clarify, change those developer fees as they are right now. . If our lawyers give us correct information they can only be used for capital I ` improvement. None of the other aspects associated with the operation of the school district such as deferred maintenance, transportation, and all. other ongoing costs that are associated with the school district. Those fees cannot be used for that. Their collection is even in doubt. I have v advised our school district to not spend any of the already collected fees on the possibility, (I hope its a remote one) that we may have to ulti- mately refund those fees. That .is definitely a state of uncertainty at this point at best. 16 Mr, Keefe: Any other members of the committee? Steve, you wanted to make a closing comment. • Mr. Kohler: Just a closing comment if I may. We have been in touch with all of you except this gentlemen independently, and we expect to continue to do that between now and the next time this committee might meet, and see if we can't reach satisfactory negotiations with each of you. I don't know how you would like to proceed. If you want to set another meeting, I would suggest two weeks from now is a comfortable date with the aspiration perhaps that it won't be necessary. Mr. Keefe: It is required for this committee to draft a report. So we will have to g•� reconvene for the members of the fri,stq review committee to review and rn r • approve the report and so regardV9s30of whether we reach agreements or not at this point in time we are going` have to proceed with the process. So if it is agreeable with everyone, two weeks sounds fine to me. That should provide sufficient enough time. Same time and place. May 15th. Mr. Huebsch: I would like to request that the City of Huntington Beach have a copy of the draft fiscal review report before that meeting so they have a chance to review it also. Mr. Keefe: There being no further business I am adjourning this meeting to May 15, 1987 9:00 a.m. • ER/27 17 Katz liol I is PART XII. SUPPLEMENT TO ANALYSIS OF REPORT OF COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER; SUMMARY OF C......_.....................................................................................I.................................................................... TAXING AGENCIES;_ AND ANALYSIS OF AND RESPONSE TO ..... ......................_............ ...... _.... ._...... ............. _......................... _...... ................ ..................... ....... ..... ........ REPORT OF FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE A. Introduction ......................................................... Pursuant to Section 33352(m) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (CRL), a report to city council must include an analysis of the county fiscal officer's report as well as a summary of the . consultations of the agency, or such attempts to consult, with each of the affected taxing .agencies. Section 33352(m) also requires a report to city council to include the redevelopment agency's analysis of the report of the fiscal review committee, if any, which shall include the agency's response to such report, any additional information the agency may desire to provide, and. any measures to mitigate detrimental fiscal impact the agency may desire to propose. This Part XII of the Agency's Report to the City Council addresses the requirements of Section 33352(m). B. Analysis Report to County Fiscal Officer ................ _......_............ ..................................... This Section of Part XII was included in the original Report to City Council. • C. Summary of Consultations with Affected Taxing Agencies Section 33328 of the CRL requires the Agency, prior to the publication of the. notice of the joint Agency/City Council public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, to consult with each affected taxing agency with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan and to the allocation of tax. increment revenues. The joint public hearing is scheduled for July 6, 1987; the date of the publication of the first notice of such hearing was June 8, 1987. On October 20, 1986, in accord with the California CRL, the Agency transmitted a Project boundary description, a Project Area Map depicting the boundary of the Project Area, and a Statement of Preparation of Redevelopment Plan or Amended redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project to the governing bodies of all affected taxing agencies, the Orange County Assessor, Treasurer-Tax f Collector, and Auditor-Controller, and to the State Board of Equalization. Included in the letter of transmittal to the governing bodies of affected taxing agencies was an Agency request to advise the Agency of the name, address and telephone number of the official whom should be contacted to arrange for consultations with respect to the proposed Project Redevelopment Plan. As summarized below, the Agency has had discussions and meetings with several affected taxing agencies regarding proposed Project • activities and the potential fiscal impact of such activities upon the .taxing entities. Such discussions are continuing to occur, and in some cases they are centering upon the terms and conditions of proposed fiscal detriment (XII-1) Katz Hollis alleviation agreements pursuant to Section 33401 of the CRL. A verbal summary of such discussions, if needed, will be submitted to the City Council at the joint public hearing for addition to this Report to City Council. 1. Affected Taxing Agencies with Whom Fiscal. Detriment Alleviation ("Pass-Through") Agreements Are Proposed ........................._.......................__._.....__.._......_......._......................................................................._.........._......_.........._........._.._.............................................._..................... or Potentially Proposed a. Local School Districts ....................................................................................................... In October, 1986 Agency staff began contacting the three local school districts (Ocean View Elementary, Huntington Beach City Elementary, and Huntington Beach Union High School District) to discuss Project goals and objectives and to assess potential fiscal impacts. In February, the three districts retained outside legal counsel to jointly represent them. At subsequent meetings the Agency was represented by both staff and special legal counsel. The following persons represented the three districts during fiscal impact discussions: Representative District .................................. Ocean View Elementary Monte C. McMurray School District Assistant Superintendent • Business Services Huntington Beach City Gary A. Burgner Elementary School District Assistant Superintendent Business Services Huntington Beach Union Lee Eastwood High School District Assistant Superintendent Business Services All three districts Alan R. Burns Special Legal Counsel During the course of the various meetings, the districts' representatives advised that their districts would be detrimentally impacted by the Project: 1) due to the Community Redevelopment Law requirement that the Agency use 20 percent of its tax increment revenues for low and moderate income housing (thus drawing more school-age children into the districts' boundaries; and 2) through increased school demands due to new commercial development. These assertions were reinforced by "An Open Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council" sent jointly by the three districts on April 23, 1987. A copy of this letter is included as Exhibit 1 to this Part XII of the Agency Report to City Council. It has been proposed by the districts that the Agency pay to the districts 9 percent of Project tax increment revenues, • with the apportionment formula to be determined by the parties. (The three districts combined currently share an estimated 45.5 percent of Project (XII-2) i KatzHol is property tax revenues generated by the basic $1 tax rate.) Based on the evidence of detriment presented by the districts' representatives, Agency staff and legal counsel have agreed to recommend to the Agency that an agreement be prepared and approved reflecting these terms. b. Orange County Department of Education ........................ ........ .- ..............................._....._......................... In meetings. between Agency staff and legal counsel and the representative of the Orange County Department of Education,- Robert D. Ours, it was stated by the Department that because of current budget deficits, the Project would have a detrimental impact on the Department. The Department has requested that commencing in 1993-94 (the sixth year the Agency will receive tax increment from the Project) the Agency pay an annual amount to the Department representing 25 percent of its 1.28 percent proportionate share of tax increment revenues generated by the basic $1 tax rate. Agency staff and legal counsel have agreed to prepare and recommend Agency Board approval of an agreement reflecting these terms. C. County of Oran. ire ............................ ..... Based on information contained in the Agency's Preliminary Report on the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment • Project, and additional information provided by the Agency pursuant to County staff request, the County prepared a computer analysis of the fiscal impact of the Project upon the County. ' (The "County" includes the County General Fund, the County Flood Control District, and the County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District.) A .copy of this analysis, .which is based on population, dwelling units, employees, residential and non-residential acreage and non-residential square footage), is included as Exhibit 2 to this Part XII of the Agency's Report to City Council. In the County's analysis, which was presented by Richard A. Keefe of the County Administrative Office at a- meeting with Agency staff and legal .counsel held on April 17, 1987, it was demonstrated that the net loss to the three County entities over the 35-year life of the Project would be approximately $5 million. Based on this figure, Agency staff and legal counsel have agreed to prepare and recommend Agency Board approval of an agreement providing for Agency payments to the County entities as follows: County General Fund: ........................... ...._.._.................. Annual payment commencing in the sixth year of an amount equal to 6.29 percent of Project tax increment revenues produced by the basic $1 tax rate, after deduction of a). Agency 20 percent deposits into the Project low and moderate income housing fund, and b) the General Fund's prorata portion of taxes resulting from Project base year assessed value growth of up to two percent per year. • (XII-3) Katz 1 oI i is County Flood Control District: ......................................_...................................................................................................... Annual payments commencing in the first year of increment receipt by. the Agency equal to 2.5 percent of all Project tax increment revenues. d. Orange County Water District ................................ Consultations with the Orange County Water District, represented by Garrison Daily, Property Manager, were commenced . on February 9, 1987 and continued through several subsequent meetings between Ms. Daily and Agency staff and legal counsel. The District presented evidence that due to Project induced growth the District would lose approximately $3.1 million in property taxes over the 35-year life of the Project. Based on the evidence submitted by the District, Agency staff and legal counsel have agreed to recommend Agency Board approval of an agreement providing for annual payments to the District of an amount representing 85 percent of the tax increment produced by the District's .79 percent prorata portion of the basic $1 tax rate. e. Orange County Sanitation District Nos. 3 and 11 Agency staff and legal counsel have meet with William Butler, Director of Finance, for County Sanitation District Nos. 3 and 11, have had discussions with two of the District's board members, and have • received a letter, dated December 2, 1986 from the District's Director of Engineering which details the impact of the Project upon the District. A copy of the District's letter is included as Exhibit 3 to this Part XII of the Agency's report to City Council. District representatives have suggested that a fiscal detriment alleviation agreement be entered into, but have not suggested an appropriate amount to be paid by the Agency, or other measures to alleviate detriment. At the date of this Supplement, no agreement has been reached, and further discussions are proposed. A status report and summary of such discussions will be presented to the City Council at .the joint public hearing on July 6, 1987. 2. Other Affected Taxing Agencies a. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California ............_.............._....._................._................................................._.................._................................. The governing body of . the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California adopted Resolution No. 8146 on April 14, 1987, as provided for in Section 33676 of the California CRL, to elect to be allocated, in addition to the portion of taxes allocated to the District pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 33670 of the California CRL, all of the tax revenue otherwise allocated to the .Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project pursuant to subdivision (b) of said Section 33670 which is attributable to 1) any increase in this District's tax rate, and 2) the annual inflation adjustment in the assessed valuation of project property, either of • which occurs after the tax year in which the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project becomes (XII-4) Katz Hol 1 is effective. A copy of the resolution was forwarded to and received by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and City Council. b. No Impact Agencies The following taxing agencies have indicated either through letters to the Agency or conversations with Agency staff that the Project will not have a detrimental fiscal impact upon their districts: o District Manner of Communication .............._.._.............._...................._.._....._.............................................. Orange County Vector Control Letter from Gary Reynolds, Biologist, dated February 9, 1987 Midway City Sanitary District Telephone conversation on February 11, 1987 with Garland Green Municipal Water District of Telephone conversation on Orange County February 12, 1987 with Carl Seckel C. Undetermined A........... . The following Project Area affected taxing agencies have either not responded to the Agency's attempts to consult or have not submitted evidence of fiscal detriment and/or. have not suggested payments or other. fiscal detriment alleviation measures to the Agency at the date of this Supplement: - Orange County Transit District . - Coast Community College District - Orange County Cemetery District In the event that any of the above agencies submit evidence of fiscal detriment or request any fiscal detriment payments or other measures, a report of such will be presented at the July 6, 1987 ',joint public hearing. D. Analysis of and Response to Report of Fiscal Review Committee As noted in Part X of this Report to City Council, a fiscal review committee was called in connection with the Beach Boulevard Project. The report of the fiscal review committee, consisting of a transcript of the committee's hearing on May 1, 1987, are included in Part X, and are analyzed and responded to below. • The following affected taxing agencies had representatives in attendance at the fiscal review committee hearing on May 1st: (ILII-5) K1tr I iol I is - Orange County - Orange County Flood Control District - Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Parks District - Huntington Beach City Elementary School District - Ocean View Elementary School District - Coast Community College District - City of Huntington Beach At the hearing, evidence was presented by certain of the above representatives of fiscal detriment to their respective districts by the Beach Boulevard Project. Most of the evidence had been presented earlier to Agency staff and legal counsel during separate consultations with each of the districts. As . noted above, Agency staff and legal counsel have agreed to recommend that appropriate fiscal detriment alleviation agreements be entered into with each of the districts who attended the fiscal review committee hearing who have submitted sufficient evidence, and who have requested such agreements. (Agency staff have also agreed to recommend agreements with two districts that did not attend the fiscal review committee • hearing.) In approving such agreements, the Agency acknowledges that in the absence of such .agreements the affected taxing agencies would suffer fiscal detriment as a result of the Project. • (%II-6) Katz Flol 1 is Exhibit 1 to Part XII Open Letter to City Council 'ell U K'9r - 29 t�T April 23, 1987 ,6 P�` CITY OF HUNTINGTrQN V:tvl: • An Open Letter to the AR11NISTFATIVE OFFICE Huntington Beach City Council We, the Boards of Trustees of the Huntington Beach Union High School District, the Huntington Beach City School District and the Ocean View School District, desire to directly communicate our position with respect to the redevelopment of the Beach Boulevard Project Area to the City Council . � J We must first relate to you that we were pleased and encouraged by your decision to offer to share the tax increment generated by this project area with our school districts. We believe that you share our opinion that an investment in education is one of the best uses of redevelopment money to revitalize any community. While we were pleased with your decision, we are taking this opportunity to ask you to reconsider the extent of your generosity for the reasons set forth herein. As you are aware, the placement of a redevelopment plan in an area will "capture" the increasing tax increment on the project area for the benefit of the Redevelopment Agency, to the exclusion of all other taxing agencies, for the life of the plan. We are aware that the Plan has a proposed life of. 35 years. Using the County's projections of an 8% growth rate for the area covered by tne. Plan, this will produce about 38 million dollars in added tax money for the Agency over this 35-year period. This is money that would otherwise have gone to the other taxing agencies within the area, such as the school districts. Forty-five percent of these tax monies are normally allocated to the school districts. Although the State currently replaces this local loss from general tax revenues, there is no guarantee that this will continue forever. • Page 2 • Tne area that is proposed for redevelopment is a large corridor along Beach Boulevard. We have been informed that the redevelopment process is available to cities to rectify the condition of "blight". While the factors that may constitute blight have been statutorily defined,. it is our understanding that those factors must not only be present, but that those factors must constitute a serious physical , social or economic burden on the community which cannot be alleviated by private enterprise alone. While we relieve that many situations can be envisioned that might qualify for such' a condition, we think that you will agree that the Beach Boulevard corridor area proposed for redevelopment is not one of the typical examples of a blighted area that first comes to mind. in point of fact, we believe that. the area is a very successful commercial. area whose viability may be gauged by the full • parking lots outside the business establishments or by the high rise buildings that have been constructed in the area by private enterprise acting alone and unaided by government suosidy. With the above in mind, we ask you to consider how your decision to impose a redevelopment area may affect the school districts. The first impact will be created by the redevelopment law requirement that 20% of all increment generated in the Project Area must be used for low and moderate income housing. This housing, whether constructed within or without the project area, will cause a burden to the school districts in that more school -age children will be attending our districts' schools. In addition, other studies have shown that increased commercial development, in and of itself, causes increased school demands. • Page 3 �inile the school districts will therefore be burdened and may suffer financial detriment, others will benefit. Of course the immediate beneficiary • is the Redevelopment Agency, but we know that the Agency will not amass large sums of money simply .to horde it, but will spend the money for redevelopment purposes. We understand that street improvements have been proposed as the purported object of all of the redevelopment activity because traffic congestion on Beach Boulevard has been recognized to be a significant problem. We certainly understand that such a problem may exist. We are not so naive, however, to believe that all of the 38 Million Dollars is going to go for street improvements. In point of fact, we believe that bonds will probably be issued and that a large portion of this money will be provided to developers as project incentives in the form of land write-downs and free public improvements to attract commercial development, which will in turn raise land values and bring in more sales tax, transient occupancy tax, etc. , • all of which will ultimately benefit the City's general fund. While the City and private developers thus stand to gain considerably by the redevelopment process, it will gain at the expense of the school districts and our children's education. We also understand that some may say that school districts will receive replacement money from the State for sums that are taken away by redevelopment and that the real burden is therefore borne by the State. Our response to this assertion is that there is no guarantee that this replacement money will continue for the next 35 years. Replacement money also will not address increased demands put on the schools by redevelopment. Page 4 We nave asked the Agency's representatives for a pass-through agreement • that provides for a cumulative amount for all three districts that would amount to 9% of the total tax increment. As previously indicated, we now are entitled to approximately 45% of the taxes collected. We believe that 9% is eminently reasonable considering the amounts given in other pass-through agreements in and around this area as follows: 1987 Riverside Agency/Riverside School Districts 12% 1934 Buena Park Agency/Anaheim Union Nigh School District 12% 1984 Anaheim Agency/Placentia Unified School District 9.65% 1984 Anaheim Agency/Orange Unified School District 9.65% 1980 Anaheim Agency/Placentia Unified School District 9.65% • As you can see from the above, our request of 9% would be reasonable if it were being made on behalf of one district. It is even more reasonable in that .this request is being made on behalf of all three districts, which will determine amongst themselves how to apportion the funds and through what mechanism. It is our understanding that you have authorized your representatives to offer the districts .3% of the increment each, but only on the part of the districts within the project area's boundaries. We believe that such an offer is effectively an offer of 6% of total tax increment. When it is considered that school districts must by law allocate to themselves 2% of the increase in tax increment unless a different deal is negotiated, this means that the Agency has really only effectively offered the districts 2% over what would • lawfully be the districts' without any showing of "detriment". Page 5 In light of all of the above, we hope that the Agency may want to reconsider its commitment to cooperation and partnership with the districts • and to hopefully view our reasonable request for 9% of total tax increment favorably. We stand ready. to meet directly with the Agency members if necessary to consummate a cooperation agreement but we. hope that our viewpoint in this matter has been thoroughly conveyed to you in this letter. We request that you give this matter careful consideration and look forward to your response. Huntington Beach Union High School District B4Pdent, Board of Trus s • Ocean View School District y President, Board o rustees Huntington Beach City School District By resi enY, Board of Trustees 0875J i Katz Hollis Exhibit 2 to Part XII Orange County Fiscal Impact Analysis • r + • BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT LAND USE PHASING EXISTING YEAR 35 YEAR E,5 POPULATION 472 2, 110 2, 110 DWELLING UNITS 175 761 :E1 RESID. ACRES 101 101 101 NON-RES. ACRES 350 394 3c`4 EMPLOYEES 5, 160 9, 200 9, 200 NON-RES. SG FT 2, 570, 000 4, 600, 000 4, 600, 000 --------------------------------------------------------------------- BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TOTAL COSTS NO GROWTH . YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 --------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------- GENERAL FUND 36, 428, 696 67, 652, 906 FLOOD CONTROL 1 , 641, 500 1, 73 i , 5,00 • HBP 207, 692 372: 14--------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 38, 278, 088 . 69, 756, 554 WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT -------------------------- .YEARS 1-;5 YEARS 1-65 ---------------- ------ GENERAL FUND 51, 885, 215 112, 003, 476 FLOOD CONTROL 1, 696, 500 1, 786, 500 HBP 516, 047 1, 250, 327 --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 54, 097, 762 115, 040, 303. BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TOTAL REVENUES NO GROWTH YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 GENERAL FUND 35, 304, 545 65, 520, 188 J FLOOD CONTROL 2, 186, 882 4, 061, 353 HBP 1, 449, 573 2, 692, 065 ------ ---------------------------------- TOTAL 38, 941, 001 72, 273, 606 _s WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WITH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING rIL3r 11, OUV, OVJ Jam', C:OL', OJ7 -------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 118, 307, 690 340, 943, 129 BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NET FISCAL IMPACT "WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING" VS. "WITH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 e GENERAL FUND -96, 063, 133 -276, 181, 507 FLOOD CONTROL -16, 360, 450 -47, 036, 295 HBP -10, 679, 573 -30, 703, 772 --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL -123, 103, 156 -353, 921, 5 44 BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NET FISCAL IMPACT "NUJ GROWTH" VS. "WITH TAX INCREMENT. FINANCING" c YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 y ERF;L FUND -5, 162, 585 -14, 755, 980 ROD CONTROL -35, 344 I. 51. 1 HBP -260, 450 -74 1 , G29 TOTAL -5, 458, 379 -15, 495, 498- YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 GENERAL FUND 45, 598, 479 95, 114, 778 0 FLOOD CONTROL 2, 206, 538 4, 117, e64 HBP 1 , 4 97, 278 2, 829, -'15 --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 49, 302, 295 102, 061, 857 WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING -- ------------------- --------------------------------------- --- YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 GENERAL FUND 141, 661 , 612 371, 296, 285 FLOOD CONTROL 18, 566, 989 51, 154, 159 HBP 12, 176, B50 33, 5.32, 966 --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 172. 405, 451 455., 983, A30 BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT COST/REVENUE BALANCE NO GROWTH YEARS 1 _5 YEARS 1-65 • ---------------- GENERAL FUND -1, 124, 151 -2, 132, 717 FLOOD CONTROL 545, 382 2, 329, 853 HBP 1, 2A 1, 681 2, 319, 916 ------------------7-------------------------------------------------- TOTAL 662, .912 2, 517, 052 WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WITH TAX INCREMENT FINANCING --------------------------------------------------------------------- YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 ,GENERAL FUND -6, 286, 736 -16, 888, 697 FLOOD CONTROL 510, 038 2, 331, 364 HBP 981, 231 1, 578, e88 --------------------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL -4, 795, 467 -12, 978, 446 WITH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, WITHOUT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING --------------------------------------------------------------------- YEARS 1-35 YEARS 1-65 • GENERAL FUND 89, 776, 397 259, 292, 809 FLOOD CONTROL 16, 870, 489 49, 367, 659 HBP 11, 660, 803 32, 282, 659 --------------------------------------=------------------------------ TOTAL 119, 307, 690 340, 943, 128 KatzHollIS Exhibit 3 to Part XII Letter from County .Sanitation Districts • `�"%T ~` COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA �, • P.O. BOX 8127, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92728-8127 o 3.....0 ¢ 10844 ELLIS, FOUNTAIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA 92708-7018 ��hcc coy" (7.14) 962-2411 December 2, 1986 U 1086 . C)fAM.JNfl0!!S!t!3 APlo Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Mr. Tom Andrusky, Redevelopment Project Manager Subject: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project This letter is in response to a Notice of Preparation for subject project received in this office on November 5, 1986. Portions of the project are located within County Sanitation District No. 3 and portions are within County Sanitation District No. 11. It is difficult for this agency to comment-without knowing the precise nature and magnitude of the proposed development. However, the Sanitation Districts do need to be closely involved in the planning to • insure adequate capacity exists in the collection facilities in the area. There will be different levels of impact to our facilities. In general , District No. 11 lines will be more heavily impacted than will those in District No. 3. District No. 11 includes anything on Beach Boulevard south of Garfield Avenue. As you are aware, the Districts' facilities have been sized to accommodate master planned flows. The Districts operate under a NPDES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; this permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids. The staff projects that each million gallons per day of additional flow will add one part per million to the biochemical oxygen demand after treatment, therefore, signifi- cant land use changes will impact the Districts' facilities, and particularly industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce the load strength of the sewage. In addition, in order to reduce the total volume of wastewater to. the sewer, all available flow reduction measures should be incor- porated into the project.. Lastly, redevelopment areas do have a significant financial impact on the opera- tions and maintenance budgets of the Sanitation Districts because of the ' freezing of the.tax base. 'Contact should be made with Mr. William Butler, Director of Finance for the Sanitation Districts, to discuss the impacts of this project. {'4L Thomas M. Dawes ii • Director of Engineering THM:HJB cc: Mr. William Butler 5j • ' Final Environmental Imp-act act Report L p p k L Redevelopment Plan for the L Beachh Boulevard . Redevelopment Project I City of Huntington Beach State Clearinghouse No. 86111216 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency L April 1987 k Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. • E i 1 • FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT f STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 8611216 City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency . L L • April, 1987 it i Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. L 1028 North Lake Avenue, Suite 107 Pasadena, California 91104 i o.. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Executive Summary vi Introduction xviii Lo 1. Description of Proposed Project 1 2 . Description of Environmental Setting 17 i.. 3 . Environmental Impact Analysis 19 L` 3 . 1 Earth 20 3 . 2 Air 25 3 . 3 Water 40 4 3 . 4 Plant Life 45 L 3 . 5 Animal Life 46 3 . 6 Noise 47 3 . 7 Light and Glare 58 �- 3 .8 Land Use 59 3 .9 Natural Resources 69 3 . 10 Risk of Upset 70 L 3 . 11 Population 71 3 . 12 Housing 75 • 3 . 13 Transportation/Circulation 78 3 . 14 Public Services 102 3 . 15 Energy 111 3 . 16 Utilities 112 3 . 17 Human Health 128 200 3 . 18 Aesthetics 129 3 . 19 Parks and Recreation 130 3 . 20 Historical and Cultural Resources 134 4 . Alternatives to the Proposed Project 137 5. Analysis of Long-Term Effects 141 5. 1 Cumulative and Long-Term Impacts 141 of the Proposed Project Which Affect the Environment 5. 2 Significant Irreversible Environ- 150 mental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Project, If It Were Implemented 5. 3 Growth Inducing Impacts of the 151 Proposed Project • i 6 . ' Persons/Organizations Consulted 153 V . Responses to Notice of Preparation. 156 Responses to Comments .on Draft EIR 158 Ap(len%J iC e Appendix A Initial Study. A-1 Appendix B Traffic Projections B-1 Appendix C Responses to Notice C-1 t of Preparation t } L v • is 6. Persons/Organizations Consulted 153 7 . Responses to Notice of Preparation 156 8 . Responses to Comments on Draft EIR 158 Appendices or. Appendix A Initial Study A-1 %. Appendix B Traffic Projections B-1 Appendix C Responses to Notice C-1 t of Preparation 3 • ii 1 • LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Regional Location 2 2 Project Vicinity 3 �•• 3 Project Boundary 4 4 Proposed Land Use 10 �. 5 Fault Zones. 22 6 Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone 23 7 Flood Zones 42 8 Interpretation of Community Noise Levels 48 9 Typical Sound Levels 49 10 Noise Contours 51 11 Year 2005 Noise Contours 53 12 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges 55 13 Existing Generalized Land Use 61 14 Existing Zoning 63 15 Proposed General Plan Amendments 65 16 Regional Statistical Areas 72 17 Existing Traffic Volumes 80 18 Traffic Distribution and Volumes 88 19 Proposed Project Trip Distribution 92 20 GPA Alternative Trip Distribution 93 21 Neighborhood Park Service Areas 131 6 22 Related Projects 144 • iii • LIST OF TABLES Table Page w' A Environmental Impact Summary xiv 1 Proposed Plan 7 2 Development Potential Comparisons 9 'W 3 Public Improvements 16 4 Number of Days State Air Quality 27 " Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Average During 1984 5 Number of Days Federal Air Quality 28 Standards Were Exceeded During 1984 6 Number of Days State Air Quality 29 Standards Were Exceeded and Annual Maximum Hourly Average During 1985 I 7 Number of Days Federal Air Quality 30 .. Standards Were Exceeded During 1985 • 8 Air Pollution Sources and Effects 32 9 Composite Moving Exhaust Emission Rates 33 t. . Year 1986 10 Composite Moving Exhaust Emission Rates 34 Year 2000 11 Project Air Pollution Emissions 35 12 Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 36 13 Comparisons, of Project Emissions to 37 Source/Receptor Area 18 Total Emissions 14 Population, Housing, and Employment 74 Projections for Huntington Beach Housing/Employment Market Area 1984 to 2010 15 Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes 79 16 Operating Conditions for Levels of Service 83 17 Intersection Level of Service 84 • iv • LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Page 18 Trip Generation by Zone and Land Use 87 19 Proposed Project Estimated Trip Generation 90. 21 GPA Alternative, Estimated Trip generation 91 21 Traffic Volume Comparison 94. 22 Projected Volume/Capacity Ratios With and 95 Without Project Improvements for Existing and Year 2005 23 Proposed Intersection Mitigation Measures 101 24 Proposed Midblock Mitigation Measures 101 25 Daily Water Consumption 113 26 Projected Average Sewer Flow 117 y 27 Project Peak Sewer Flow 117 • Energy Usage J 28 Projected Annual Electrical �., 9Y a 120 9 29 Projected Monthly Natural Gas Usage 122 30 Solid Waste Generation 125 31 Maximum Development Potential 138 . 1 32 Related Projects 142 33 Cumulative Traffic Impacts 146 34 Cumulative Consumption/Generation Rates 148 35 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 149 YW d...l 4 v L.� • I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project The proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment �.. Location and Project in the City of Huntington Beach is Characteristics located along Beach Boulevard from Edinger Avenue south to Atlanta Avenue. The project v. area is approximately 509 acres and contains parcels along both sides of Beach Boulevard. The five-mile project area consists mainly of } commercial retail and auto dealerships, with L interspersed office uses. A small portion of the project area is mixed development, and approximately 175 residential units are within the project boundaries. Thirty acres within the project are designated as recreation/open space and approximately 32 acres are presently vacant. The proposed project, through the 35-year time frame of the redevelopment plan and. various t.r land use alternatives, could ultimately include between 4 . 16 and 4 . 21 million square feet of commercial retail, auto dealership, mixed development, and office space along with approximately 653 to 781 residential units • incorporated in planned developments. d- Environmental A determination was made by City staff that Impacts an EIR should be prepared for this project pursuant to Section 15065 of the State "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. " The site of the proposed project is located along a major commercial corridor in the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project includes recycling and intensification of �. existing uses through land acquisition and consolidation, and the construction of improvements to encourage such development. Significant Impacts This EIR identifies three potentially '-� significant adverse environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed redevelop- ment plan. These three impact areas are: Land Use; Air Quality; and • Transportation/Circulation. vi • Land 'Use. The proposed project would result in more intensive use of the site than the no project case. This .increased development may ;r not, at some locations, be compatible with adjoining residential use and may generate conflicts at the residential/commercial interface. However, the project is consistent with the current General Plan, except in two areas where General Plan Amendments have been requested, and is expected to result in more efficient use of available land and to result in the elimination of unattractive, dilapidated, and poorly maintained structures and land uses which prevent further improvement of the area. The City's zoning ordinance contains development standards for the development of individual parcels for commercial and office uses. Any plans for development would require approval through .Planning Commission, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, the. Board of Zoning Adjustment, Design Review Committee, and/or other appropriate boards or commissions. These development standards are intended to reduce potential impacts on surrounding areas. Air Quality. The proposed project would have direct and significant impacts on the air quality of the area, according to the suggested standards of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The impact on air quality may be partially mitigated by instituting a Transportation System Management Program and by reducing consumption of natural gas and electricity. Transportation/Circulation. Projected traffic would result in significant adverse impacts on Beach Boulevard and major east-west arterials. Some intersections within the project area are currently operating at unacceptable levels during the peak hours and increased development would contribute to this situation. Measures to reduce this impact include intersection widening, restriping, signal modification/coordination, parking restrictions, and Transportation System Management plans included in the Air Quality Management Plan. These measures would assist in reducing impacts on Beach Boulevard and arterials, but are not expected to provide full mitigation. vii Adverse, But Not Significant Impacts Earth. Being located in Southern California, the project area is exposed to the. potential for groundshaking. Soils in the area have been identified by Soil Conservation Service reports as having moderate to severe +w limitations for development. A portion of the project area lies within an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. Standard building code provisions and approved engineering con- siderations provide a satisfactory degree of protection from groundshaking and soil defi- ciencies and reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. Surface and Groundwater. Portions of the �.. project area are exposed to flooding from the Santa Ana River and local drainage channels. Although programs to provide flood protection are in progress or planned, providing adequate protection to the project area and downstream areas from flooding will be a long-term program costing many millions of dollars and �- taking many years. The completion of these • projects is not assured. The project would result in increased coverage of the project area with impervious surfaces which would increase the amount and speed of ' runoff during storms. Mitigation measures include requiring private developments to provide adequate drainage, installation of storm drains, and the current construction of c.. the Bartlett Retarding Basin in the Huntington Beach channel by the County Flood Control District to provide a higher level of protection. The mitigation of requiring all projects to provide on-site retention of flood waters at least equivalent to the amount of increased runoff resulting from the project would reduce adverse impacts of the project on runoff to a less than significant level . viii Noise. Project generated traffic would result in minor increases in ambient noise levels in this area. Sound insulation for all new multi-family construction in noise impact areas is required by the Huntington Beach building code and State law. Mitigation measures should reduce noise impacts in new residential construction to an acceptable level. During construction periods, construction- related noise may reach significant levels. Restricting equipment use to daytime hours would make this impact less than significant. Light and Glare. The project is located in a developed urban area. Lighting in the area L- includes street lights, interior, exterior, parking and security lighting. Increased lighting, both in terms of amount and intensity, would result from implementation of the proposed project. The City' s design review of all private projects includes review of lighting plans to minimize illumination of adjacent areas and direct viewing of light • sources. This would reduce potential adverse lighting impacts to a less than significant :... level . Water. Water is supplied to the project area from City-owned wells and MWD supplies. New development would result in increased consumption and demand on the City water system. This development, in conjunction with other development in other areas of the City, may require the City to drill additional wells. Replacement of substandard lines within the project area and encouraging water conservation measures would reduce this impact. Sewer. Sewage generated in the project area is collected by the Orange County Sanitation District. Proposed development would put additional demand on County treatment facilities. This demand is a small percentage of sewer plant capacity and is not considered significant in a regional context. 'The installation of additional sewer lines and measures that reduce the volume and load strength of effluent would reduce this impact. ix • Storm Drainage. Portions of the project area are located within the Federal Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) designated 100 year flood zone from ' flooding of the Santa Ana River and local drainage channels. Increased development is expected to generate additional runoff and expose structures to potential flooding. The installation of storm drains, requiring private developments to provide adequate site drainage or retention, and current County improvements to storm channels are expected to reduce this impact. Schools. Additional housing, employment generation, and Redevelopment Agency requirements to use 20% of tax increment funds on additional housing or improving existing housing may put increased demand on existing school services. Additional housing, through redevelopment funds, may also include senior housing which would not create an impact on schools. One current operating school site may be recycled to alternative uses as a result of the proposed project. In this case, the District • would provide transportation of these students ' to other schools within the district. In addi- tion, a closed school site is located within one-quarter mile of the project which could be reopened if a demand exists. School enrollment has continually declined over the years, and the potential new students generated from the project are not considered significant. Risk of Upset. The project itself does not represent an unusual or unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances beyond that. risk typical of other similar commercial , office, or residential developments. Regulations by other agencies .� regulating the storage and use of hazardous substances would provide an adequate level of safety. Population. The proposed project has the potential to provide an additional 3180 to 3300 jobs. The population increments expected °- to be generated from this project are a small percentage of regional growth and the impact would not be significant. x L f w it i L v 6.. W ro Executive Summary Y.. Housing. The proposed project would have a direct impact on housing in the project area. Approximately 175 residential units, most of which represent non-conforming uses, exist within the project area. It is anticipated that through the lifetime of the redevelopment plan, these. units would be recycled to alternative uses. The proposed project is also expected to include development of Japproximately 653 to 781 units contained in planned developments. The projected housing needs could be accommodated within the project and the existing vacant homes within the City and this impact is not considered significant. Parks and Recreation. Project development may result in the removal of a local Little League baseball field. Additional park development by the Redevelopment Agency would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. Cultural Resources. . Potentially significant archaeological sites have been identified in the project area and development in or near undisturbed sites may cause a potential • impact. Development should avoid damage to these archaeological sites wherever feasible. �- Measures included in Appendix K of the CEQA Guidelines shall be incorporated where avoidance is not feasible. This would reduce . the impacts on cultural resources. Impacts Considered, But' Not Found To Be Significant This EIR determined that the proposed project would not have a significant impact on plant ,.. and animal - life, natural resources, energy, police and fire protection, libraries, solid waste disposal, natural gas, electrical power, telephone, human health, aesthetics, and historic resources. Beneficial Impacts r Portions of the project area currently exhibit signs of blight and blighting influences including deterioration and dilapidation of structures, and poorly maintained lots. This condition creates an undesirable environment Xi • for continued growth and development in the area. The project area also contains irregular or substandard lot sizes that further hamper :r development. Implementation of the proposed redevelopment plan would allow the Redevelop- ment Agency to provide improvements, con- solidate parcels, and incorporate thematic signage and landscaping that would create a more suitable environment to encourage private development. Alternatives This Environmental Impact Report considered To The five alternatives to the proposed project: Proposed Project 0No Project - Some new development may occur in the project area but without the assistance of the Redevelopment Agency. No redevelopment plan would be adopted; public improvements included in the plan are not expected to be undertaken by the City for some time. ° Development .based on the current General ;., Plan - The redevelopment plan would be adopted and development would be based on • current General Plan potential . Development Based on the General Plan with Approved General Plan Amendments The redevelopment plan would be implemented with the approval of the two Redevelopment Agency General Plan Amendments (GPAs) . Development would be based on amended General Plan potential . ° Reduction of the Project Area - Proposes the reduction of the project area by :. eliminating potential parcels from the redevelopment plan. The linear configuration and the linkage with the other redevelopment areas within the City would be maintained. ° Reduced Intensity of Project Area - '— Proposes elimination or reduction of development intensity within portions of the project area. xii • The "No Project" alternative would reduce or avoid environmental impacts associated with the proposed project. However, benefits to the City of Huntington Beach in terms of increased tax revenue, increased employment, and secondary impacts would not be realized. In addition, abandoned and obsolete �- commercial , office and residential facilities would be expected to continue to exist in the project area, continuing an undesirable environment for the development of new businesses and delaying the improvement of the area. Traffic mitigation measures which may be partially funded by redevelopment funds would be delayed. Development at current General Plan and General Plan with GPAs potentially would result in increased development and impacts compared to the proposed project. This would v include increases in traffic, air quality, water, sewer, natural gas, and public services. Residential development at current General Plan potential could allow more units `- than the proposed project. Residential • development under the GPA alternative would allow a similar number of housing units. Reduction of the project area would result in fewer impacts compared to the proposed project, but is expected to have increased impacts over the no project case. It is anticipated that parcels outside the project area may develop at a slower rate due to a lack of improvements, financing, or restricted lot size or configuration. i. The reduced intensity alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative. This. alternative would allow the entire proposed project area to benefit from -- the proposed improvements but would have fewer impacts associated with increased development compared to the proposed project. However, since the proposed project proposes total development that is less than the current General Plan, further reduction would prevent the land from reaching its full development potential . Reduced development would also lower employment and revenue generating potential . xiii r t • t t r t t �- r • c r. � r._. . � r � • . t TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY ------ — -- - ---------- -------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- __lmeact—_ --Environmental Setting__________ __Potential .Environmental- -- lmeact ________-Mitigation_Measures --____ ------ ------------- _______ -------------------- -- _-- 1. Environmental_Imeacts_Found_To_Be_Significant Air Project is Located in an area that does Some increases in local pollutant emissions Regional mitigation measures through not meet National Ambient Air Quality and concentrations. Minor increases in Air Quality Management Plan. Local standards. regional pollutant levels, mitigation measures through required TSM actions by private users and "Super Streets" improvements by the ----=------ ----=---------------------------------- ------------------------- -Redeveloement_AgencY_`----------- --------------------- - Land Use Project area encompasses approximately Significant increase in intensity of develop- Project review by the City and City 509 acres consisting of commercial ser- ment and commitment of land to urban uses. development code would reduce impacts vice and retail, office and 175 residen- on adjacent uses. tial units. Traffic/ Project Located along designated State Project would contribute to increased traffic Measures identified in "Super Streets" Circulation Highway with an average daily volume and congestion in the area. program available for project funding ranging from 13,200 to 80,900 vehicles. including intersection widening, re- striping, parking restrictions, and signal modification would reduce ----------- —----------------------------------------------------------------------------- im acts. 1l. Environmental-Impacts Can Be Avoided Or_Mitigated ------ -- --------------------- Earth Area exposed to potential groundshaking. Exposure of people and property to earthquake Building code and approved engineering Portion of project area within ALquist- hazards. practices provide adequate level of Priolo Special Study- Zone. Soils safety. have moderate to severe limitations _for_building_site_dev_eloement_-__-__-__ r C . r i r` r r. �.. • r, C.. t r r 1 [. TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) -------- -------- --------------- ---- ------ -------------------- ---------------- ---------------------- - - ----- ---------------------------- Environmental_Setting____.____I____-----Potential Environmental Imeact_---_ _---_____Mitigation_Measures____--_ ------------------------ -- ---- Onsite detention equivalent to the if. Environmental Imeacts_That Can Be Avoided_Or Mitigated-(continued) increase in storm runoff from increase site coverage. Storm Portions of the project are located Project would result in increased coverage of Project plans include the installation Drainage within the designated 100 year flood area with impervious surfaces. increased rate storm drains to the extent redevelop- zone. Drainage deficient in some areas. amount of runoff expected. ment funds are available. Permits will be required for hook-up to ---------- ------------------------------------ Count s stem. Schools Two school sites within project area. Increased population and housing in the area Elementary school presently closed has Additional sites within close proximity. may increase student generation. The potential to be re-opened if demand potential closure of the Crest View School exists. District transportation X would dis lace about 540 students. ro rams could be ex anded. ---- ----- ---------------------------------------- ----------e-------------------- Risk of Project area does not have hazardous No unique or unusual risks posed by the Regulations of City and other agencies Upset use now. Surrounding uses do not pose project. regarding storage and use of hazardous unusual risk. materials would 'result in acceptable ----------- ------------------------ -- -level_of_risk. Population Project area could currently provide Between 3,000 and 4,150 additional jobs could Sufficient housing available to meet an estimated_5t160_iobs___________ _be ero_vided_in the eroject_area_ demand.--------------------------- Housing 175 residential units exist in project Development in the project area is expected to 20% of redevelopment tax increment area, most of which represent non- result in the recycling of the existing homes. income required to be spent to benefit conforming use with the current General The proposed project could result in 653 to low- and .moderate-income housing. _P.lan----------------------------------- -781_new_homes. - ----------------------- Parks and Ten neighborhood parks located in or Project development may result in the Relocation of Little League field to Recreation around project area. removal of some recreation area and Little acceptable site and development of League baseball field. Bartlett Park would reduce this ----------- ----------------------------- --- impact. --- - f 1 . f i f S 1 1 f • r 1 r r r r . �.... r. . TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) --------- — ----- --------------------------------- im act __-- Environmental Set[ing__________ Potential Environmen_tal_I_mpact_______ Miti ation_Measures ---- ------------------------ -------- ------- ----- ----e------ - ---------------- Onsite detention equivalent to the in- It. Environmental_Imeacts-That_Can Be Avoided_Or_Mitigated_(continued) crease in storm runoff from increased site coverage. Surface and Area has drainage deficiencies. Up to approximately 95% of project area would Adequate site drainage will be require Ground Water be covered by impervious surfaces. Increased by developers. Project may include the Portions of project area and downstream runoff to, deficient channels. installation of storm drains by areas exposed to floobing. Redevelopment Agency if revenues are sufficient. County is presently improving flood control channel to _-----------------_— ___ _higher_lev_el of�rotection. Noise Area generates traffic noise. Residen- Increased traffic noise in adjacent areas. Sound insulation required in new multi- tial areas located in and around project Construction noise short-term. family construction. Construction C -__------- _area_are_noise sensitive land uses. ______— _activv_ity_limited_to_daytime_hours. _ -------------------------- -------------------------------- w Light and Project area now has some building, Parking lot, building, street and security Project review will include review of Glare street, parking and security lighting. lighting would be added by new development. lighting plan to minimize glare and _-__-__-_-_ _-------------------_-_-__- __________ _offsite illumination__ Water Water supplied to project area from New, development would result in increased con- Project plans include replacement of City wells and MWD supplies. sumption and demand on City water system, substandard.lines within the project Drilling additional wells as a result of area to the extent redevelopment funds increased .development throughout the City are. available. Additional measures may be necessary. are identified to encourage water -----—----------------------------- conservation. Sewer Sewage generated in the project area is increased development would put additional Project plans' inctude the installation collected by the Orange County Sanita- " demand on County treatment facilities. of additional sewer lines to the extent tion Districts No. 3 and No. 11. redevelopment funds are available. Measures that reduce the total volume and load strength of effluent will ----------- ------------------------ _— _______ -reduce_imeact_at_facilities___ ___ ___ � r • r r r r r r_ t . r _ TABLE A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY (continued) --------- -- ------------------------- ---- ----------------------_-- __Impact __ Environmental Settin Potential Environmental Im act_-_ Miti anon Measures II. Environmental Imeacts_That Can .Be Avoided_Or Mitigated_(continued) Cultural Potentially significant archaeological Development in or near undisturbed sites may Development should avoid damage to Resources sites identified within project cause a potential impact. archaeological resource wherever boundaries. feasible. If avoidance is not feasible site shall be evaluated and measures included in Appendix K of the CEGA _____________________ ----------- _Guidelines_incorporated_in_proiect:___ III. Impacts_Considered._But_Not_Found_To_Be,__Significant -- - - ------ -- ----- -- -- Plant and Animal Life, Natural Resources, Energy, Police Protection, Fire Protection, Libraries, Solid Waste Disposal, k --------Natural_Gas,._Electrical_Power,_Telephone,_Human_Health,__Aesthetics,_and_Historic_Resources,......................._—__--____—_ C W r• 0 s L L r. L Introduction �. rcba a.. INTRODUCTION Legal This Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was `- Requirements prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental. Quality Act (CEQA) published by the Resources Agency of the State of Ca.lifornia .(California Administrative Code Sections 15000 et. seq. ) . This report was prepared by .professional 60. planning consultants under contract to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach which is the lead agency for this project, �.. and following its hearing and adoption will represent the findings and conclusions of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. Background In order to define the scope of the investigation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) , the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach notified, with a Notice of Preparation, all City agencies, other public agencies and any interested private organi- • zations and individuals to identify city and. public concerns regarding potential impacts of the proposed project. Availability The Environmental Impact Report is available for of Reports public inspection and copying at the City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 . Copies are available to the public on payment of a reasonable charge for reproduction. Circulating copies are `- available at the Huntington Beach Public Library. EIR an This Environmental Impact report is intended to Information provide information to public agencies and the Document general public regarding the environmental impact from potential development on those sites discussed in the EIR, together with the public improvements which may be constructed. Under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, "The purpose of an Environmental Impact Report is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which such significant xviii • effects can be mitigated or avoided. " Thus, the EIR is an information document for use by decisionmakers, public agencies and the general lam - public. It is not a policy document _which sets forth City or Agency policy about the desira- bility of any of the potential developments discussed. The EIR in the The EIR will be used by the City in assessing Development impacts of the proposed project. During the Process development process, alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the EIR may be applied to specific projects by City or Redevelopment Agency restrictions on projects. Comments Comments of all agencies and individuals are Requested invited regarding the information contained in the EIR. Where possible, those responding should endeavor to provide that additional information they feel is lacking in the EIR, or indicate where the information may be found. Following a period for circulation and review of the EIR between 30 and 90 days from the date of publication, all comments and responses to them • will be incorporated in a Final Environmental Impact Report prior to certification of the document by the City of Huntington Beach. Final Responses to comments received on the Draft EIR EIR are included in this Final EIR, Section 7 . The text of the EIR has been modified in some cases to correct information in the Draft EIR or to provide additional information in responses to comments received. Where changes have been made, a heavy line has been used along the left margin, as in this paragraph. Where the change has been made in response to comments, the comment is indicated by a reference number to the left of the bar. • XiX 1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Background The City . of Huntington Beach, Beach Boulevard ;r. Redevelopment Project is proposed by the City of Huntington Beach to aid in improving the use of the project area through the continued elimination of blighting influences currently preventing the full and effective use of the land. Although substantial improvements have been made in the project area to improve blighting conditions, there still remains a number of parcels experiencing blighting conditions or influences. Elimination of blight and blighting influences includes the G-3 amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies including provisions for upgraded public facilities and services, road improve- ments, development of proper parcelization for new development, development of undeveloped vacant areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and the assistance and encouragement of new private commercial, office, and residential development. Project Figure 1 on the following page shows the • Location location of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project area in the Los Angeles/Orange County urbanized region. Huntington Beach is located in northwestern Orange County along the Pacific coast, surrounded by Seal Beach and Westminster to the north and Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach to the east and south, respectively. Figure 2 shows the project vicinity. The project area starts at Edinger Avenue, just south of the San Diego Freeway (I-405) and continues south with parcels included on both sides of Beach Boulevard (S.R. 39) to Atlanta Avenue. The entire project length is approximately five miles and the project includes approximately 509 acres of land. Figure 3 shows the project area boundary. -. Proposed The proposed area evaluated in this EIR Land Uses consists of approximately 509 acres of retail commercial, auto dealerships, office, residential, recreation, and mixed use developments. Development within the project area would generally be consistent with the 1 Ir C) 0 Anaheim I 3 6 ti's Ana �uV�lhi��il L. Huntington Beach A • Project Location 1 IIII[li;' San Juan Capistrano North scale in miles Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 1 • Regional Location 2 N E m c • v o a __ N > �.` :3 U C Brookhurst •�• ,0 v u I m I I LL +- o 10 �? � O 0 • a---I Magnolia 16- L CL • issue ////// 1186111 less / ////// ///// ////// googol //////losses Beach Blvd- .11810181 googol moseellnun losses / u/ /un/ /u// uuu Lu.11 °' c m /y C � D • W 3 F— Goldenwest � U O O CDv • � CL oa }, Springdale • C �.° O Q� o (D '�-ago- Bolsa Chica - > o U 00 1 � ' 5 i °_' O O E Co Z N _ � U 4) W o m 7UP m • v Edinger Avenue Heil Avenue -� E. �=••mac_ r�:-r:.cs:_:;_._,a�.._ .{ C= o CF-E - F Warner Avenue 77�� 77.- 1,1- 11 .. - -� ��__ � Fwg - IMFF_-_..�.= CF-E - Slater Avenue f= C _ -- - - - _ Talbert Avenue Gll� North 0 2000 scale in feet — Ellis Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half • Figure '3 Project Boundaries 4 •—MATCH LI Ellis Avenue • -� J �A I - I WK I�= saga Garfield Avenue 14.�T. _ Yorktown Avenue w I, ]Erb IT, — Adams Avenue •F '- _ Indianapolis Avenue IT LJ CD Atlanta Avenue 'i li . � ��„'� a �•-"'., 1 � ��i fir.::+-.�� .; Y_. ' A North "c� 0 2000 _ ram Hamilton Avenue scale in feet QF ��' j. � •� ��— •- N Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt Figure 3 Project Boundaries 5 m • General Plan and Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. Variations from the General Plan are recommended by the Redevelopment Agency for certain sites within the project area. These variations could not be implemented without General Plan Amendments for those sites. Because the Redevelopment Plan adopts General Plan land uses by reference, the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with the General Plan at the time of its adoption by the �- Redevelopment Agency. Proposed land use within the project area, is shown in Table 1. Approximately 310 acres is designated for commercial use, 20 acres for mixed development which may include commercial, office or residential uses, 16 acres office professional, 42 acres residential, four acres of planned develop- ment, and 30 acres of recreation area at ... Bartlett .Park. Based on preliminary Agency development assumptions, total development that may occur within the project area is less than what may • be possible at full buildout of the current general plan assuming the approval of both General Plan Amendments. Ultimate development within the project area, including existing uses, may include up to 3 . 1 million square feet of commercial space, 0. 6 million square feet of office professional space, approxi- mately 650 residential units, and development of Bartlett Park. Commercial development of the proposed project would be similar. to that of the current general plan. However, the current general plan would allow additional residential development at the Rancho View School site, currently being reviewed for mixed development as a GPA for the proposed project. • 6 • TABLE 1 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED PLAN LAND USE ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- W COMMERCIAL Gross Roads Net Area RESIDENTIAL OTHER Block # Location Acres_ Acres Acres Acres Acres Density__Units Acres Use __ 1 Edinger-Heil 33.5 8.5 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 2 Heil-Warner 82.0 8.5 73.5 53.5 0.0 20.0 mixed 3 Warner-Slater 36.0 8.5 27.5 27.5 0.0 0.0 e.. 4 Slater-Talbert 48.0 8.5 39.5 23.9 0.0 15.6 ofc 5 Talbert-Ellis 61.5 8.5 53.0 38.5 13.8 Low 97 0.0 0.7 high 25 6 Ellis-Garfield 50.4 8.5 41.9 40.7 0.0 - 1.2 mixed 7 Garfield-Yorktown 59.5 8.5 51.0 43.1 7.9 med 119 0.0 8 Yorktown-Adams 85.5 8.5 77.0 47.0 0.0 30.0 rec 9 Adams•.lndianapolis 32.0 8.5 23.5 11.2 8.0 med 150* 4.3 PD 10 Indianapolis-Atlanta 20.4 8.5 11.9 0.0 11.9 med 210* 0.0 ---------------------------------------------------=-------------------------------------------- 1 TOTAL 508.8 85.0 423.8 310.4 42.3 653 71.1 • ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: Cotton/Beland/Associates *Includes 25% Density Bonus. 1 Includes 52 units of the 4.3 acres of Planned Development (assumed 12 du's/ac) rr r era "" 7 ri • Proposed Existing Uses. Existing uses in the project Development area include a mix of older and more recent commercial, office, and residential uses. AIM Some of the older buildings and structures exhibit signs of dilapidation and/or deterioration. Total square footage for existing uses was estimated from aerial photos and a windshield .survey of the project area. Current uses include 1060 businesses in the project area totaling approximately 1. 72 million square feet of commercial space, approximately 508, 800 square feet of office space, 43 acres of auto dealerships, 175 residential units, and approximately 30 acres of open space. Approximately .32 acres within the project-area are vacant. r Proposed Use. The proposed redevelopment plan is based on a 35-year time frame and proposes increased development of commercial, office and residential uses over existing conditions. The proposed project may ultimately consist of 4 . 16 million square feet to 4 . 21 million square feet of total development and between • 653 and 781 residential units depending on the approval of the GPAs. Development is �. expected to include a mix of commercial and office space with continued auto dealerships in the central portion of the project area. Two planned unit. residential developments are proposed in the southern portion of. the project area. Figure 4 shows proposed land uses within the project area. Increased and improved development, through direct Agency assistance, in the project area over the lifetime of the proposed redevelopment plan would result in the acquisition and displacement of some businesses within the- project area. The 175 existing residential units within the project area, almost all of which represent non-conforming uses, are anticipated to be phased out and replaced with conforming uses over the lifetime of the redevelopment plan. Some of these units may be displaced as a result of direct Agency action. Based on the Department of Finance, January 1, 1986, estimate of 2 . 7 persons per household, approximately 483 people would be displaced • by the removal of the existing 175 units. 8 aim • Any properties acquired and businesses or house- holds displaced as a result of Redevelopment Agency acquisition have specific legal rights, which include but are not limited to, payment of fair market value for the property and addi- tional relocation benefits. Project The Redevelopment Plan is intended to be Alternatives consistent with the General Plan at' the time of its adoption. However, two General Plan .. Amendments are currently in the approval process in the project area. In addition, Agency staff has recommended that alternate uses be considered for certain sites that differ both from the current General Plan and these General Plan Amendments. Generally, the Redevelopment Plan proposes development at a lesser intensity than both the current General Plan and the General Plan assuming approval of the GPAs, while at a greater intensity than existing conditions. Table 2 compares these development scenarios. TABLE 2 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVEMPMENT PRO= • DEVELOPMENT POTm rin om�mSONS L Estimated Max.. Buildout Max. Buildout Redevelopment Current General Plan Existing Plan General Plan with GPAs sq.ft. Acres / sq.ft. Acres/sq.ft. Acres / sq.ft. NON-RESIDENTIAL 0001s 0001s 0001S 0001s Commerciall 1716 266 3132 268 3502 267 3494 r- Office 508 16 572 16 272 16 272 Auto Dealership2 333 44 347 43 333 43 333 Mixed 16 21 107 1 16 21 107 Recreation3 0 30 7 30 7 30 7 TOTAL 2573 377 4165 358 4130 377 4213 RESIDENTIAL Units Units Units Units 180 46 653 66 781 46 653 This category includes additional office space not listed in columns 2, 3 and 4. 2 Not a General Plan category 3 Bartlett Park Source: Square footages based on aerial photos, surveys, site coverage • and General Plan designations provided by the Huntington Beach Planning Department. 9 w SOURCE: Huntington Beach Planning Department v Residentialyn (Low Density) — Edinger Avenue Residential � t o• (Medium Density) ` = elm Residential (High Densityy Heil Avenue Commercial _ _ r (General) Commercial '•?'t y (Office Professional) - � Werner Avenue • Mixed Uses (Mixed Development) -- - '•._ =_ i �.� _X Planned Community CF•E +n' - Sleter Avenue Open Space (Recreation) City Boundary H7 .=I_C Project Boundary - _ i Talbert Avenue North .. '� o z000 N scale in feet - Tc _ EIIIs Ave . Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 4 Proposed Land Use 10 SOURCE: Huntington --MATCH Ll - - = Ellis Avenue Beach Planning DepartmentLZ t ata _ ry. •� Garfield Avenue Residential (Low Density) E{Ee Residential, (Medium Density) Yorktown Avenue Residential t =_`' (High Density) PJ't� Commercial (General) I _i✓E - _, �— Adams Avenue Commercial (Office Professional) MA CF-a Mixed Uses • (Mixed Development) Vf r+' ��-; _ IUD , 1 _ Planned Community Li k Indianapolis Avenue �� .� J, {7 ; _ 1. ;; �• _ Open Space ����° � Ir Z r City Boundary �i' - � — •-F _ o-�••: . ..- _�{-'�• _/ ^ _ -r1 — Atlanta Avenue Project Boundary J North qCIA- I: y Hamilton Avenue scale in feet aCt�,9 ti .�..\ ��j,ll•ITT Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt • Figure 4 Proposed Land Use 11 Project The project is intended to meet the following objectives objectives: 1. The elimination and prevention of blight and deterioration and the redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the ;r General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. 2 . The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems :- and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. L 3 . The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape, and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. • 4 . The enhancement of a major, region-serving thoroughfare to provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation. 5. The replanning, redesign and development of undeveloped/vacant areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. 6. The encouragement of investment by the private sector in the development and redevelopment of the Project Areas by eliminating impediments to such development and redevelopment. 7. The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to the city. r 12 S. The expansion of the community's supply of housing, including opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. L 9. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high standards for site design, environmental quality, and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire .r Project. 10. The promotion of the creation. of. new local employment opportunities. 11. The encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns. 12 . The provision of a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system which is coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. 13 .. The encouragement of the cooperation and • participation of residents, business owners, public agencies and community organizations in the development and redevelopment of the area. 14 . The encouragement of the development of a �- commercial environment which positively relates to adjacent land uses and to upgrade and stabilize existing commercial uses. 15. The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines. 16. The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses .� within the Project Area. Project Changes in land use in the Project Area will Actions be brought about through a combination of public and private action. Redevelopment Agency Actions. Direct Redevelopment Agency action, including property acquisition, relocation of existing • 13 1� • businesses and residences, site preparation, and resale for private development, may be used where necessary to convert existing blighted areas to higher and .better use. Problems such as improper parcelization, inadequate site size, and value of existing ;r uses may prevent private revitalization of certain parts of the project area. Private Action. Some of the conversion of land uses in the project area to higher and better use is expected to come about in the private marketplace in response to co Redevelopment Agency action to eliminate blighting influences and to provide adequate infrastructure for development. Public A number of public improvements will be Improvements required .to serve the project area should the proposed project be approved by the Agency. -� These improvements are directly related to the project and include street and sidewalk improvements, driveways and utility improvements, and other improvements as outlined in Table 3 . The costs of these • public improvements may be borne in part by private developers, or by the Redevelopment Agency through tax increment financing or by the City through the City General Fund or from highway formula grants, federal revenue sharing or other sources. Of all the potential street improvement alternatives identified in the "Super Streets" ® program, only those which would involve project funding are discussed in this EIR. This is not meant to suggest that additional �- measures are not feasible. • 14 b.. • These improvements may constructed as necessary to assist in project implementation.. Implementation phasing and financing of any .of �- these projects will depend on the nature and phasing of private development in the project area and the availability of tax increment and other funds for their construction. None of these public improvements is assured as part of implementation of the proposed project. Action and The following responsible agencies are Responsible expected to use the information contained in Agencies this EIR with respect to their approvals of actions related to or involved in the implementation of this project. Agency Project/Action j- Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan Adoption. Redevelopment Agency Approval of Disposition and (Lead Agency) Development Agreements Sale of Tax Increment Revenue Bonds Funding and approval .of public • improvements construction Acquisition and Sale of property i' Relocation of residents and businesses Other actions incidental to •.. implementation of the above actions Approval of private development City Agencies Street, utility and other (City Council, infrastructure improvements. Planning Commission, Approval of private development plans City Departments) including variances and conditional �- use permits. Approval of zone changes and .General Plan amendments which may be necessary to implement development alternatives for specific sites within the project area. South Coast Air Quality Review of emission permits. '- Management District • 15 d. • TABLE 3 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT "Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Edinger - Signal Coordination and Modification - New Signals - Access Controls - Parking Restrictions - Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections L - Intersection Widening, including New Right-Of-Way - Bus turnouts, Including Right-of-way Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements South of Aldrich. Stark to Sher 2 , 200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain. • - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east side °r one-half mile 48" wide storm drain. - Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west side) 48" and 36" wide storm drain. - Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown 2 , 700 feet of 12" line Waterline Improvements - 8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd. , complete loops and replace 6" - 20" casing steel , boring and jacking for 12" water main, crossing every 1/2 mile. Locations: Heil , Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, Atlanta. 200 ' length per crossing. - Utility Undergrounding Entire length Beach Blvd. Landscaping and Streetscape - Median and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger • - Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights Recreation and Park Improvements & Historic Preservation - -- A Bartlett Park Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 16 • 2 . DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project is located in Huntington Beach, a city with a population of approximately 184, 300 and encompassing approximately 29 square miles along the Southern California coast in the County of Orange. The project area runs along Beach Boulevard, including parcels on both sides and public right-of-way, ..r from Edinger Avenue south to Atlanta Avenue. The area is served by an extensive freeway and arterial street network and county bus system. The San Diego Freeway is near the northern terminus of the project boundary. The project area is located on a low lying coastal plain from five feet to fifty-five feet above sea level. The historic floodplain scarp of the Santa Ana River crosses the southern portion of the project. Existing commercial , auto dealership, office and residential development in the area has resulted in a flat, level topography. • Geographically, a major portion of coastal Southern California is in the South Coast Air Basin. The basin consists of the metropolitan areas of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Located along the • coast, Huntington Beach experiences mild temperatures influenced by onshore ocean breezes. These breezes also bring clean air and tend to push pollutants farther inland. As a result, Huntington Beach enjoys somewhat better air quality than other areas of the basin, although the entire basin is considered `- a "non-attainment" area. A non-attainment area is any area that exceeds any national ambient air quality standard for one or more pollutants for which there are national standards. The Orange County area depends largely on imported water for residential, industrial and architectural uses. Importing water has .high energy and environmental costs which will continue as long as water is imported. • 17 • The Orange County urbanized region is expected to depend increasingly on external sources of electrical power from coal and nuclear generating stations. Use of these power sources results in significant risks of various types (such as risks of mining and L. transportation accidents, radiation leaks, terrorist activity) , consumption of large quantities of cooling water and water for coal transport, pollution of the air in areas not now exposed to such pollution, degradation of water quality, excavation of large areas for recovery of coal and coverage of additional areas by mine waste. These elements of the economic and environmental system on which development of the Orange County region depends are important in considering the impacts of, and development in, the region. The effect of a given development at nearly any site in the Orange County region has similar effects on the more remote elements of the system. The environmental setting of those • environmental factors whose potentially significant project impacts are foreseen is discussed in greater detail in the Environmental Impact discussion following. 18 1 t `r t i it it •Yr i Sri " L.� wr Lr • 4r v Environmental Impact Analysis w 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS This section outlines the environmental setting, environmental impacts, and mitigation measures for those environmental factors on which the proposed project may have r.. significant effects. Impacts on the physical environment from the (project include potential increases in runoff �.. as a result of increased construction and paving, increases in local and regional air pollution emissions over existing conditions, and irreversible conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses. No significant. impacts on the biological h-� environment of the project area or surrounding areas are anticipated. Impacts on the man-made environment include increases in traffic and resulting noise levels, increases in demand for sewer and water services and potential increases in population and housing demand in the project' s housing/employment market area. Ap. More detailed discussion of these impacts is found in the following Sections 3 . 1 through 3 . 20. Specific references to literature used in this report are denoted by a letter and a number within parentheses. A listing' of these references can be found in Section 6: Persons and Organizations Consulted. 19 W 3.1 Earth • Environmental The project area is situated on the Huntington setting Beach mesa alongside the western edge of the Santa Ana River Basin. A portion of the project area from Adams Avenue south to _ Atlanta Avenue is within the Santa Ana River Basin. The elevation of the project area ranges from five feet to fifty-five feet. The Santa Ana River Basin forms a steep escarpment up to twenty-five feet in a north-south direction generally to the east of the project area. The escarpment has been graded- where it ,r crosses Beach Boulevard. Nine different soil types have been identified within the project area (A-1) . These soil series are included in three general soil associations, the Hueneme-Bolsa association, the Myford association, and the Alo-Bosanko association. These associations are briefly described below. Hueneme-Bolsa Association. This association is mainly on flood plains. It extends from Seal Beach southeast to the Santa Ana River • and about 10 to 12 miles inland from the — coast. The soils formed in deep alluvium. Soils within this association are more than sixty inches deep and poorly to somewhat poorly drained. Most of these soils have altered drainage and a water table deeper than five feet. Runoff is generally slow, and erosion. hazard is slight. Myford Association. This association is mainly along the coastline up to five miles inland and along lower edges of foothills. The soils formed in sandy sediments mostly on marine terraces. Myford soils are moderately well drained. The surface layer is pale brown and pinkish gray sandy loam. The subsoil is brown and light brown sandy clay and sandy clay loam. . If the soil is bare, runoff is medium and erosion is moderate. Alo-Bosanko. This association covers a small portion of the project area in the vicinity of Talbert Avenue. The soils formed in material weathered from calcareous sandstone and shale. These soils are well drained with a clay surface layer, and weathered shale or sandstone • or both are found at 22 to 40 inches. If the soil is bare, runoff is medium and erosion is moderate. 20 The Soil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside California, 1974., indicates that most of the soils within the project area have moderate to severe limitations for building site develop- ment. Reasons for this include wetness, flooding, low strength and shrink-swell potential. Faults within the City of Huntington Beach determined to be geologically active and expected to be associated with ground rupture at some time in the future are the North Branch, Bolsa-Fairview, and South Branch Faults; all of these are within the Newport- Inglewood Structural Zone as shown in Figure 5. Surface rupture has apparently not occurred within the past 9, 000 years on these faults in the Huntington Beach Area (A-2) . This presumed fact indicates that the probability is relatively low that surface rupture will occur within the next 100 years, even though one or more moderate-sized earthquakes may occur (A-2) . • A portion of the project area is included in an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. This zone was recently identified in the July, .1986 California Division of Mines and Geology Special Study Zone Map. The zone is approxi- mately one-quarte mile wide and crosses the project area at Adams Avenue. Figure 6 shows the location of the Special Study Zone. The tsunami (seismic sea wave) hazard is . considered to be very low for the higher elevations within the Huntington Beach Mesa and for other areas within the City limits located more than one mile from the coast. Environmental The project would result in minor grading of Impact building sites and excavations for utilities ... and intersection improvements. The project area soils have been identified as not being particularly well suited for grading and development, although current approved engineering practices can overcome this deficiency. Liquefaction potential, erosion hazard, and landslides are considered slight and do not represent significant geotechnical constraints on-site. 21 ... Q 0 a a — La Bolsa °D Y � 1 n no-- CD y Edinger. • a . � - :' n a •� V. �, m V. Warner r' - ,,-- pos Project �' ► q 14 ♦ q - Location l ' ► .' . (albA. art 0Y41 ti 44 N. sp `RkT pwN AVE� `�ry ftwi A+V.l T 41 Ada* ors S,T �Cyt4 ,Q CD Al Hamilton • Buried Fault Trace Highest Seismic Risk • (Greatest Surface Rupture Potential) • cif North 0 112 1 scale in miles �C. SOURCE:. Huntington Beach Planning Department. 'Geotechnical Inputs% 1973 Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 5 Fault Zones • 22 0 a m a ��■ • m m A 6w I Bolsa CD f� a C13 C, Edinger. �• • ••� o D - CL V T �c 't ■ --� = = Project • - Location 160 i Coun o Talbert 7 - . I o - - L. . _. _ . Garfield • • A / Adams ` O • - d . • • di , r Hamilton SOURCE: California Division of Mines and Geology North f�2 1 scale in miles Figure 6 Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone 23 The proposed project would result in exposure of additional people to ground shaking from an • earthquake due to increased employment and residential development in the project area. The potential ground shaking is similar throughout the region and no unique or unusua' risk is posed by the proposed project. Mitigation Standard building _code provisions and Measures accepted, approved engineering practices would correct the soil deficiencies to an accept- able level . Building code provisions would also provide a satisfactory degree of protection from ground shaking. These mitigation measures are included in the proposed project and reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. 24 3.2 Air Environmental Huntington Beach is located along the Pacific Setting Coast and within the South Coast Air Basin. Generally, air pollution in the basin is a regional problem. Pollution levels in Huntington Beach are a result not only of local emissions, but also those in other parts of Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Coastal cities generally experience ocean-cooled onshore breezes during the daytime hours and reverse flowing offshore breezes during the nighttime. This cold mass of ocean air often becomes trapped under a blanket of warmer land air creating an inversion layer and allowing pollutants to accumulate within this layer. Air quality is generally better near the coast as the clean ocean breezes push pollutants farther inland, however, the entire South Coast basin is considered a "non-attainment" area. A "non-attainment" area is any area that exceeds national ambient air quality standards for those pollutants for which national standards have been set. Tables 4 through 7 summarize air quality for selected pollutants at the nearest monitoring . station in Costa Mesa and surrounding areas. Concentrations reflect a slow decline over the `. past 15 years as motor vehicle pollution controls become more stringent and apply to larger portions of the vehicle fleet. ` The main source of air pollutant emissions in the project area is generated by motor vehicles. Stationary sources within Huntington Beach that produce significant pollutants include oil refinery and recovery. operations, and electrical power generation facilities. No large scale facilities exist in the project area. Because of low average wind speeds in the summer and a persistent daytime temperature inversion, emissions of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen have an opportunity to combine with sunlight in a complex series of reactions producing photochemical oxidant • 25 (smog) . The National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone is expected to be the • most difficult of the standards to achieve in the region. Pollutants emitted in the Huntington Beach area contribute to the regional oxidant problem. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and the South Coast Air Quality Management District have prepared an. ._ Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which has been forwarded through the State of California as part of the State Implementation Plan for compliance with the Clean Air Act. The AQMP does not project compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards by the year 2000 for all pollutants under the development projections of the SCAG-84 Growth Forecast Policy. Achievement of emission reductions forecast by the AQMP will require institution of a large number of control measures included in the Air Quality Management Plan, including: Additional restrictions on vehicle emissions. Annual inspection and maintenance program • for light and medium duty vehicles. Transportation control measures including encouragement of high occupancy vehicles, physical improvements to roadways and transit system improvements. ° Additional stationary source controls. Environmental Project Emissions. The proposed project would Impact result in increased levels of primary pollutant emissions and concentrations than the no project case. In general, any development in the South Coast Air Basin would result in higher levels of air pollution than would be the case without such development. 26 • TABLE 4 NUMBER OF DAYS STATE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED AND ANNUAL MAXIMUM HOURLY AVERAGE DURING 1984 Monitoring station Ozone S 1 Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide Nitrogen Dioxide41 Location Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Long Beach 32 0.27 4 14 0 0.32 5 0.35 Los Alamitos 32 0.19 NM NM 0 0.06 NM NM Costa Mesa 29 0.25 1 13 0 0.04 0 0.22 Anaheim 65 0.25 4 18 0 0.08 0 0.24 E1 Toro 61 0.30 0 8 NM NM NM NM 1 Maximum concentration in all categories in parts per million, 1-hour average • 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.1 PPM, 8-hour average r, 3 Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.05 PPM, 24-hour period 4 Days nitrogen dioxide exceeded .25 PPM, 1-hour average 5 Days ozone exceeded .10 PPM, 1-hour average NM Pollutant .not monitored Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1984 • 27 y.. law TABLE 5 NMOER OF DAYS FEDERAL AIR QUALITY SZAXIDARDS WERE EXCEEDED • DURIIJG 1984 ~� Monitoring ozonel Carbon Monoxide Sulfur Dioxide Location Long Beach 13 3 0 Los Alamitos 12 NM 0 Costa Mesa 29 1 0 Anaheim 37 4 0 El Toro 26 0 0 1 Days ozone exceeded 0.12 parts per million, 1-hour average 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.3 parts per million, •- 3 8-hour average Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.14 parts per million, 24-hour average • Ili Pollutant not measured Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1984 Yr 28 TABLE 6 NMMER OF DAYS STATE AIR QUALITY STAMARDS WERE EXCEEDED AMID ANNUAL MAXI)= HOURLY AVERAGE DURIM 1985 r . Monitoring Station OzoneS Carbon Monoxide 2 Sulfur Dioxide 3 Nitrogen Dioxide 4 Location Days Max.1 Days Max. Days Max. Days Max. Long Beach 29 0.23 6 19 0 0:08 4 0.35 Los Alamitos 30 0.19 NM NM 0 0.02 NM NM Costa Mesa 33 0.21 5 19 0 0.05 0 0.24 Anaheim 70 0.25 4 19 0 0.03 2 0.28 E1 Toro 61 0.28 0 10 NM NM NM NM 1 Maximum concentration in all categories in parts per million, 1-hour • average 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.1 PPM, 8-hour average i` 3 Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.05 PPM, 24-hour period 4 Days nitrogen dioxide exceeded .25 PPM, 1-hour average 5 Days ozone exceeded .10 PPM, 1-hour average NM Pollutant not measured Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1985 rr • 29 ion TABLE 7 womm of DAYS FmEm AIR QLIAI.m mANDmw mmE ExcEmm • DUkw 1985 Monitoring Ozonel Carbon Monoxide2 Sulfur Dioxide3 .. Location Long Beach 11 6 0 Los Alamitos 11 NM 0 Costa Mesa 17 4 0 Anaheim 35 3 0 W El Tbro 30 0 0 1 Days ozone exceeded 0.12 parts per million, 1-hour average 2 Days carbon monoxide exceeded 9.3 parts per million, 3 8-hour average ... Days sulfur dioxide exceeded 0.14 parts per million, 24 hour average ICI Pollutant not measured • Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Data, 1985 r r u 30 I Table 11 summarizes project air pollution emissions and contributions to local and regional air pollution levels. Project air L. pollution emissions come from three .principal sources: on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, 'water heating and. cooking; local and regional emissions from vehicles a. traveling to and from the project site; and combustion of fuels at power plants to produce electrical power used on the project site. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. Table 12 . shows estimated carbon monoxide concentrations from motor vehicle traffic along the project corridor. Continued development of more efficient internal combustion engines and street improvements to improve traffic flow and decrease idling time would result in incremental decreases in carbon monoxide concentrations, in spite of increased volume, compared to existing conditions. However, these levels are still above State standards and the impact is considered significant. �. Construction Emissions. Construction emissions include emissions from motor vehicles used during construction, and emissions of dust and particulates resulting from project construction. Because the project would be developed over many years, grading at any given time is not expected to be. sufficient to �- result in unusually high emissions of dust, and this effect is not considered significant. On a regional scale, the proposed project in conjunction with other redevelopment projects in the area would result in increased primary . pollutant emissions and concentrations. 31 TABLE 8 ---------------------------------- AIR-POLLUTION—SOURCES AND EFFECTS-------------------------------� Pollutant TYpS..........Descrietion_________ __________ Effects —_____Sources------ ------------ — ----------------- -- Carbon Colorless, odorless, toxic Passes through lungs into Gasoline•po. red Monoxide (CO) gas produced by incomplete bloodstream. Deprives sensi- motor vehicles combustion of carbon- tive tissue of oxygen. Not W containing substances. known to have adverse effects on vegetation, visibility or material objects. Oxides of Two types, Nitric Oxide Irritating to eyes and Motor vehicles Nitrogen (NO), and Nitrogen Dioxide respiratory tract. Colors primary source. (NOx) (NO2). NO is a colorless, atmosphere reddish-brown. Other sources: odorless gas formed when petroleum combustion takes place refining opera- 1 under high pressure and/or Lions, industrial . temperature. NO2 forms by sources, ships, combustion of NO and railroads, air- oxygen. Participants in craft. .� photochemical smog reac- tions. i ------------- ---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Sulfur Dioxide Colorless, pungent gas Irritates upper respiratory Fuel combustion (SO2) formed by combustion of tract; injurious to lung primary source. sulfur-containing fossil tissue. Can yellow the Other sources: fuels. leaves of plants, destructive chemical plants, to marble, iron and steel. sulfur recovery Limits visibility and reduces plants, and sunlight. metal process- --------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------- —-------------- Photochemical Consists primarily of ozone. Common effects are damage to Motor vehicles Oxidant (Ox) Created in atmosphere, not vegetation and cracking of major source of emitted directly, during untreated rubber. High emission of NOx photochemical process. concentrations can directly and reactive L. Ozone is a pungent, color- affect lungs, causing irri- hydrocarbons. less toxic gas. tation. --------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------ --------------------- t Particulates Made up of finely-divided May irritate eyes and Dust and solids or liquids such respiratory tract. Absorbs fume-producing as soot, dust, aerosols, sunlight, reducing amount of industrial and fumes, and mists. solar energy reaching the agricultural i earth. Produces haze and operations, .+ limits visibility. Can construction, damage materials. combustion products ; including exhaust, I atmospheric photo- chemical reacticn-z Natural activities such as wind- raised dust and ocean spray. 'r --------------- ----------------------------- ------------------------------- ---------------------' Hydrocarbons Includes the many compounds Not known to cause adverse Motor vehicles and Other consisting of hydrogen and effects in humans. May major source. Organic carbon, found especially in damage plants. Other sources: Gases fossil fuels. Some highly petroleum refin- photochemically reactive. ing, petroleum marketing opera- Lions, and evap_-- -- ation of organic -------------- solvents. ----------------- ----------------------------------------------- --L-------------7­0 Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental !rr,pac: Reports", Revised Dec., 1983. 32 �- CALIFORNIA COMPOSITE MOVING EXHAUST EMISSION RATES CALENDAR YEAR 1986 Emissions in Grams per Mile of ------------------------------------------------- Speed .. Miles CO THC NMHC NOx Sox Part IDLE 1% 2 .62 0.24 0 .21 0 .07 5 1% 71 . 13 6 .42 5 .55 2.34 0. 24 0.34 10 2% 38.74 3 .53 3 .06 2 .04 0.24 0.34 15 3% 27 .69 2.51 2. 17 1 .93 0. 24 0.34 20 3% 22 .22 2 .00 1 .73 1 .94 0. 24 0.34 25 8% 18 .52 1 .66 1 .44 2.00 0. 24 0.34 30 20% 15 .65 1 .40 1 .21 2 .08 0 .24 0.34 35 25% 13 .51 1 . 20 1 .04 2. 16 0. 24 0.34 40 22% 12 . 15 1 .07 0 .92 2 .25 0 .24 0.34 45 15% 11 .53 1 .00 0. 86 2.37 0. 24 0.34 50 0% 11 .33 0.96 0. 83 2.56 0 .24 0 .34 55 0% 10. 84 0.90 0.78 - 2. 89 0. 24 0.34 60 0% 9 .00 0.76 0 .66 3 .46 0.24 0 .34 --------------------------------------------------------- ' Weighted 1 .00 15 .40 1 .37 1 . 18 2 . 15 0 .24 0.34 ;�verage 'rankcase Blowby: 0.0.03 0.003 "'Diurnal Emissions : (Grams/day) 4.44 4.44 (Grams/mile) 0. 18 0 . 18 Hot `Soak : (Grams/soak) 2. 01 2 . 01 (Grams/mile) 0 .30 0 .30 TOTAL 15 .40 1 .85 1 . 67 2. 15 0. 24 0.34 'Assump.tions : Ambient temperature 75 degrees fahrenheit . Dperation percentage: Vehicle mix percentage of total: Cold Start : 21% Light duty . auto: 77 .4% Hot Start : 27% Light duty truck: . 10 .6% Hot Stabilized: 52% Medium duty truck: 5 .5% Heavy duty gas truck: 2 . 0% Heavy duty diesel truck: 3 . 8% Motorcycle: 0.9% Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District . "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports" . December 1983 Based on California Air Resources Board EMFAC6D .Rates • 33 TABLE 10 CALIFORNIA COMPOSITE MOVING EXHAUST EMISSION RATES CALENDAR YEAR 2000 Emissions in Grams per Mile of ------------------------------------------------ • Speed Miles CO THC NMHC NOx SOx Part IDLE 1% 1 .89 0. 17 0. 15 0.04 - - 5 1% 45.66 4.83 4. 14 1 .63 0. 24 0.32 10 2% 24.78 2 .66 2.29 1 .39 0.24 0 .32 15 3% 17 .91 1 .89 1 .63 1 .31 0. 24 0.32 - 20 3% 14.54 1 .51 1 .30 1 .31 0.24 - 0.32 25 8% 12. 20 1 . 25 1 .07 1 .35 0. 24. 0.32 30 20% 10.31 1 .04 0.90 1 .41 0.24 0 .32 35 25% 8.89 0.89 0.77 1 .48 0. 24 0.32 40 22% 7 .99 0.79 0.68 1 .55 0 .24 0.32 45 15% 7 .58 0.73 0.63 1 .64 0. 24 - 0.32 50 0% 7 .46 0.70 0.60 1 .79 0.24 0 .32 55 0% 7 .04 0.66 0.57 2.05 0. 24 0.32 60 0% 5 .60 0.55 0.47 2.49 0.24 0.32 Weighted 1 .00 10 . 10 1 .02 0.88 1 .47 0.24 0.32 Average Crankcase Blowby: 0.000 0.000 Diurnal Emissions : (Grams/day) 1 . 17 1 . 17 (Grams/mile) 0.05 0.05 Hot Soak: • (Grams/soak) 0.67 0.67 (Grams/mile) 0. 10 0. 10 TOTAL . 10. 10 1 . 17 1 .03 1 .47 0. 24 0.32 Assumptions : Ambient temperature 75 degrees fahrenheit . Operation percentage: Vehicle mix percentage of total: Cold Start : 21% . Light duty auto: 77 .4% Hot Start : 27% Light duty truck: 10.6% Hot Stabilized: 52% Medium duty truck: 5 .5% Heavy duty gas truck: 2 .0% Heavy duty diesel truck: 3 . 8% Motorcycle: 0.9% Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District . "Air Quality +- Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports" . December 1983 Based on California Air Resources Board EMFAC6D Rates i i • 34 • TABLE 10.1. AIR POLLUTION EMISSION FA=ORS L. YEAR 1986 `- Emissions in Pounds Per Day 00 HC NOx SOX Part Natural Gas Consumption lbs/mcf 20 8 120 Negl 0.15 Electric Power lbs/mwh 0.21 0.13 2.10 1.40 0.18 Vehicle Miles lbs/mile 0.0341 0.0025 0.0048 0.0005 0.0008 gn/mile 15.40 1.18 2.15 0.24 0.34 iV. YEAR 2000 Emissions in Pounds Per Day 00 HC NOx sox Part Natural Gas Consumption lbs/mcf 20 8 120 Negl 0.15 • Electric Power lbs/mwh 0.21 0.13 2.10 1.40 0.18 Vehicle Miles lbs/mile 0.0223 0.0019 0.0033 0.0005 0.0007 gm/mile 10.10 0.88 1.47 0.24 0.32 r. Source: Emission factors based on South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports", revised December, 1983. L 0 34.1 i.r TABLE 11 • BEACH BOUIEVARD AIR POLU)TION EMISSIONS EXISTING Emissions in pounds per day Source Usage 00 HC NOx sox Part. Gas Consumption 0.29 mcf 5.8 2.3 34.7 0.0 0.0 Electric Power 90.4 mwh 19 12 190 127 16 Mobile Source 292 thous mi 9961 886 1391 155 220 TOTAL 9986 900 1615 282 236 PROPOSED PROJEC r Emissions in pounds per day Source Usage 00 HC NOx sox Part. Gas Consumption 0.49 mcf 9.8 3.9 59.0 0.0 0.1 Electric Power 137.2 mwh 29 18 288 192 25 Mobile Source 432 thous mi 9647 974 1404 229 306 TOTAL 9658 996 1751 421 330 GENERAL PLAN WITH GPAs Emissions in pounds per day Source Usage CO HC NOx sox Fart. Gas Consumption 0.56 mcf 11.1 4.5 66.9 0.0 0.1 Electric Power 165.8 mwh 35 22 348 232 30 Mobile Source 473 thous mi 10576 1068 1539 251 335 TOTAL 10622 1094 1954 483 365 Emissions factors based on "South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports", revised December, 1983, adjusted by Cotton/Beland/Associates for land uses in Huntington Beach General Plan. Existing traffic figures obtained from Orange County Transportation Commission, "Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Program EIR", March, 1986. Natural gas and electrical power consumption figures obtained from, Table 29 and* 30 of this report. 35 r s TABLE 12 C'ARBM M NDXI E QOT932aRAZ'IOM L Averaging Distance Fran Roadway Ambient Total Concentration Time 15 Meters 75 Meters Level_ 15 Meters 75 Meters Existing 1-hour 10.0 2.4 19.0 29.0 21.4 8-hour 6.2 1.5 13.3 19.5 14.8 Proposed Project 1-hour 6.9 1.7 19.0 25.9 20.7 Y- 8-hour 4.3 1.0 13.3 17.6 14.3 General Plan (with pending GPA's) ., 1-hour 8.0 1.9 19.0 27.0 20.9 8-hour 5.0 1.2 13.3 18.3 14.5 Ambient level CO concentrations obtained from South Coast Air Quality Management District and represent highest recorded level during 1985 for given time period. Traffic Volumes obtained. from City of Huntington Beach; Orange County Transportation Commission. State standard for one hour = 20 ppm; for.. 8 hrs = 9.0 ppm. Federal standard for one hour = 35 ppm; for 8 hr5 = 9.0 ppm. �- Composite emission factors used for 1986 = 15.4 gm/mi; 2000 10.1 gwmi Assumptions: Composite emission factor: 10.1 gm/mi Stability Clase F (Very Stable) 1-hour Max Ambient CO, 1984 19.0 ppm Mixing Height 1000 Feet Reference concentrations, Distance (meters) 4000 vehicles/hour, Wind 10 gm/mi emission factor Angle 15.0 24.0 30.0 45.0 60.0 75.0 0.0 2.14 0.48 0.20 Iola 3.20 2.04 1,60 0.77 0.28 0007 2010 2,14 1,65 1.45 1.15 0.94 0s72 30.0 1.60 1.36 1.20 0.98 0.85 0.77 45.0 1.25 Isle 1.00 . 0.82 0,73 0.63 solo 1.19 0.92 0.82 0.70 0.60 0.54 Maximum 3.20 2.04 1.80 1.15 0.94 0.77 i.. Reference concentrations from "Caline 3- A Graphical Solution Procedure for Estimating Carbon Monoxide (CO) Concentrations Near Roadways", Federal Highway Administration, 1980. i Traffic Volumes: highest average hourly volume for averaging period. 10% of 24-hour volume for peek hour, 31% of 24-hour volume for peak 8 hours. • ` 36 I �- Cumulative Impact. Table 13 below compares project impacts to anticipated total • emissions in the source/receptor area in which the project is located. Huntington Beach is located in Source/Receptor Area 18 in the South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions inventory. . This area includes surrounding areas of Westminster, Seal Beach, Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, and Newport Beach. The total emissions from the proposed project represent approximately 1. 6% of the total emissions from the source/receptor area in which "the project is located. Project area emissions represent approximately 0. 05% of the regional total -emissions. Although the project contributes only a small amount to local and regional total emissions, when considered with other projects in the region, the project contributes to non- ;_ attainment of the national ambient air quality standards in the region. TABLE 13 COMPARISON OF PROJECT EMISSIONS TO SOURCE/RECEPTOR AREA 18 TOTAL EMISSIONS • (Tons Per Day) YY.. CO NOx Hydrocarbons Proposed Project 3 . 46 0. 73 0. 36 Source/Receptor Area 18 215. 51 38 . 17 38 . 60 % of Area 18 1. 6% 1.9% 0. 9% Basin Total 6, 227 . 74 958 . 96 1002 . 41 % of Basin Total 0. 05% 0. 08% 0. 04% Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact .Reports, Revised December 1983 . 37 6W Mitigation Although the project itself is not expected to • Measures contribute significantly to regional pollution levels, the. total of projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin in the next 10 to 20 years has the potential to adversely affect air quality. Measures to reduce air pollution emissions in the region may be adopted as part of the Air Quality Management Plan. Some of these measures cannot be assured at this time because they depend on regional policies and other actions which are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. Measures that will reduce the number and length of single occupancy vehicle trips will reduce air pollution emissions: The following mitigation measures are included �., in the proposed project: Improvement of existing streets and parkways where only partial improvements exist to the extent redevelopment funds are available and private .development takes place in the project area. This mitigation measure will reduce dust emissions from unpaved and unimproved streets and sidewalks in the project area. . Improvement of traffic flow through improvement of existing streets in the project area to higher standards to the extent redevelopment funds are made available from the proposed project for such improvements. .. Street improvements included in the Super Streets Demonstration Project approved by Huntington Beach will be implemented in the project. Some of these improvements include restriping, intersection widening, but turnouts and signal modification at selected intersections Transportation' System Management (TSM) measures to reduce tripmaking including: Features to encourage walking and the use of bicycles which may include marked bicycle lanes, shorter walking distances from loading and unloading • 38 zones to shops, outdoor eating facilities, covered shelters for • loading and unloading. These measures y, will be implemented by the developer with design review by the City; i Transit use incentives; Continued service by the Orange County Transit District although this. is beyond the control of the City. The Transit District currently has 46 stops along Beach Boulevard within the L project area. Initiating employee need surveys . for child care facilities; Investigate the alteration of the normal daily truck delivery routes to ;W avoid congestion at peak hours; Other measures which may be possible to incorporate on a project-by-project basis. The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways depicts • �,. two regional Class II (on road, striped lane) bikeways crossing Beach Boulevard in the project area. These bikeways are established along Garfield Avenue and Slater Avenue. In addition, local Class II bikeways are established along Yorktown, Talbert, and Heil Avenues at Beach Boulevard. Signing and striping plans with adequate provisions for bicycle travel through these intersections should be provided. These measures are aimed at reducing traffic congestion and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles . as an alternative mode of transportation. Not all of these mitigation measures may be applicable because the nature of private development that will take place in the project area is not known at this time, and specific mitigation measures cannot be identified. However, these mitigation measures should be considered by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and private developers. 39 • Yr 3.3 Water Environmental Environmental issues considered in this Setting section include water quality, surface and ground waters and flooding. ;Y The City of Huntington Beach is part of the Santa Ana River Basin hydrologic system. The Santa Ana River Basin area encompasses approximately 31200 square miles and includes western portions of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in addition to all of Orange County. The river flows to the east of the project area through a leveed sand- bottomed channel to the ocean between Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. ' The City of Huntington Beach has participated in the National Flood Insurance -Program (NFIP) since 1971. This program, among other things, =r aids cities in identifying areas prone to flooding. Drainage and flooding have always posed a problem for the community. . The flood plain in Huntington Beach covers 50 percent of the City and is already 90 percent developed. A significant portion of the City has. been identified on the 1983 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) as being within the 100 year flood zone. A 100-year flood is that amount of :., flooding projected to occur in the event of the magnitude of a storm, which, based. on historical records for a given .area, may be expected to occur once every 100 years. In the case of Huntington Beach, the 100-year flood would result in the overflow of the Santa Ana River downstream of Prado Dam. The flooding predicted by the federal study would result from the extremely high (essen- tially uncontrolled) water release rates from Prado Dam which would be necessary to prevent dam overflow in the event of the 100-year flood. The study predicts that such rates (50, 000 cubic feet per second) would cause breakout from the Santa Ana River channel in Anaheim with water flowing down beside the .� channel and eventually ending up in Huntington Beach (A-3) . Two areas within the project boundaries have been identified on the FIRM map as being within the 100 year flood zones. These areas are generally from Edinger Avenue south to 40 �- Heil Avenue and Adams Avenue south to Atlanta • Avenue. Figure 7 shows the areas within the 100 year flood zone. Generally, these areas could expect flood water depth from one to three feet. In addition to potential flooding from the Santa Ana River, the area is subject to flooding from local flood control channels. F-11 Construction and maintenance of major local r. channels is the responsibility of the Orange County Flood Control District. The City constructs local storm drains draining into these channels. W Public water supply and storm drainage issues are discussed in Section 3 . 16 Utilities. Environmental Substantial coverage of the project area with Impact impervious surfaces already exists and W additional development in the project area would result in some increases in coverage. This coverage of the land with, impervious surfaces results in increased amount and speed of runoff during storms compared to land in its natural state. . Because of the exposure of downstream areas to flooding, increases in • ion runoff due to development have potentially significant impacts. A goal of the City is to reintroduce vegetation and open areas through landscaping and tree plantings to reduce runoff. The discussion of flood control issues that follows is based on discussions with various staff members of the Orange County Flood Control District (B-13) . The current inadequacy of upstream impoundments and channelization will continue to have a significant impact on flooding potential on portions of the project area. The Prado Dam, originally designed for the standard project flood, is barely capable of containing 35-year floods (A-3) . The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is currently studying the improve- F-11 ments necessary to provide adequate protection on the Santa Ana River. The program to construct such improvements would be expected to take many years to implement land requires congressional funding action. 41 C) .w o a m m m e ' :> `BoIse Co � � a CD MW .a . ♦ 1 Ol �' . Ww"tner - - / mum r Project e ct ♦::::::;:::: :::>:::::::>::: :::::::::: :: »::::::»:: ::::_ - Location Orange X : ::::.: :•:; :;::•::•::•:;:•: - County 'Talbert • �� :>s+a_>:::::i: : : :> : ::::`:>`> Adams At . ......... is ' yl e-- Hamilton. SOURCE: Federal Emergency Management Agency. 1983 Areas of 100 Year Flood �'1J( North 0 112 1 scale in miles (� Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 7 • Flood Zones 42 However, the Orange County Flood Control • District (OCFCD) is currently improving the ,r Huntington Beach Channel (DO1) with the construction of the Bartlett retarding basin. This improvement will contribute adequately containing projected 100 year flood levels. Completion is scheduled for early 1987. However, the lower reaches of this channel are constrained by the -inadequacy of the Talbert Channel below the point where the Huntington F-� Beach Channel joins it. The necessary improvements to the Talbert Channel outlet have been budgeted by the Orange County Flood Control District and a 3-year construction project is expected to begin in the 1988-89 fiscal year. Approximately 70 percent of the project area ,r is within an area of minimal flooding from the Santa Ana River and this impact is not considered significant in these areas. That portion of the project area approximately 600 feet north of the Atlanta Avenue intersection has been identified as being within the designated Coastal Zone. Because no widening or grade separation is proposed for that portion of Beach Boulevard . located within the Coastal Zone no significant impact is expected. Mitigation In order to mitigate the impact of new Measures development on downstream flooding, the following mitigation measure .is included in the proposed project: 1. All projects in the project area will be required to provide onsite detention of flood waters at least equivalent . to the F-11 increment in 100-year storm flows from the project site resulting from the increased coverage of the site by impervious .. surfaces. If onsite detention is infeasible, then offsite detention or contribution to the cost of onsite detention may be approved by the City. This mitigation measure will fully mitigate the impact of the project on downstream runoff. • 43 Additional mitigation measures are required to reduce existing flooding problems downstream. The City supports the efforts of the orange County F1ood .Cont.rol District to improve local channels serving. the project area. These F-11 mitigation measures are outside the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. In order to prevent .adverse downstream impact . from increasing the flow of local storm drains r and pump stations, the following mitigation measure is included ..in the proposed project: 2 . The City will work with the Orange County -r Flood Control District to ensure that local drainage improvements do not have significant downstream impacts and are phased with downstream improvements. In terms of protection of sites from impact of large scale flooding, the City' s Subdivision Ordinance and adoption of the Uniform Building Code provide adequate mitigation. The Federal Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) may require additional mitigation measures to qualify for Federal insurance programs including requirements that all structures built within the flood hazard area must have the first habitable floor elevated above the surface level of flooding and demonstrating that the cumulative impact of . proposed development will not raise the depth of flooding by more than one foot at any point in the community. The combination of these mitigation measures is expected to result in long-term. improvements in the flooding_ situation in Huntington Beach. • 44 3.4 Plant Life Environmental The project area is located in an urban area • Setting that is substantially developed. The native vegetation in these areas has largely been replaced by imported species. Approximately 30 acres within the project area are designated as recreation in the General Plan. This parcel, Bartlett Park, is located on the east side of Beach Boulevard between Yorktown Avenue and Adams Avenue, behind the Newland Center. This area is part of the Santa Ana River basin floodplain scarp and. steep slopes are present. Native trees, shrubs and grasses are abundant on this property. Some homes within the project area ,r contain large mature trees in their yards. An ecologically sensitive wetlands area exists south of the project area on the northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway. This wetlands area supports a variety of marsh plant species. No known rare or endangered species are known to exist within the project area. No land is • presently used for agricultural purposes within the project area. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact introduction of additional landscaping to the project area which could increase the amount of existing vegetation. The implementation of the proposed project would result in the removal of residential units within the project . area. It is assumed that the removal of some mature trees would also be necessary. This is considered an adverse impact on plant life. W Mitigation Requiring replacement planting with City Measures approved trees and shrubs for those trees requiring removal, and requiring landscaping plan approval prior to individual project approval would reduce this impact to a less than significant level . Thematic landscaping of the median strips .along Beach Boulevard after street improvements would provide additional vegetation and enhance the visual quality of the roadway. • 45 r 3.5 Animal Life Environmental The 7 ro 'ect is located in a developed urban project Setting area. Animal species currently found within the area are those capable of living within close proximity to man. The 30-acre open space area, Bartlett Park, located behind the Newland Center provides a variety of habitat types which in turn provide food, cover, and water for wildlife. Due to the surrounding urbanization that 'has occurred, this area is important for maintaining wildlife in an urban setting. The sensitive wetlands area south of the project area hosts a variety of animal life including gulls, terns, shorebirds, raptors, mice, rabbit, and reptiles. One State endangered bird, Beldings Savannah Sparrow, inhabits this wetlands area. No known threatened or endangered species are known to exist within the project area. Environmental The project is likely to further reduce the Impact potential habitat for animals in the project area. In addition, preliminary plans include the development of Bartlett Park behind the Newland Barn. . These plans include basketball and volleyball courts, open turf for recreation and additional parking. Areas unsuitable for development would be retained as open areas. Because no threatened or �- endangered species are involved in the project area, this impact is not considered significant. Mitigation Any development of Bartlett Park that may Measures , occur should maintain as much natural open area as is feasible in .order to provide suitable habitat for wildlife. No additional mitigation measures are required. • 46 y- 3.6 Noise Environmental Noise levels in the 7 ro'ect area are • P Setting determined primarily by the level of vehicular traffic on Beach Boulevard, a designated State highway, and to a lesser extent by vehicular traffic along the major east-west arterials through the project area. Community noise levels are commonly expressed in decibels on a scale which averages noise levels over a 24-hour period and accounts by a weighting or penalty factor for the greater importance of noise intrusions at night. . The two such noise measures in common use in California are the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) and day-night level (Ldn) . These �- two measures are numerically equivalent within 0. 5 decibel (dB) for most urban traffic noise situations. i Figure 8 summarizes the significance of various community noise levels based on standards and guidelines of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection. Agency and many other Federal and State agencies. Figure 9 ,,. shows examples of typical sound levels. In general, all streets with traffic exceeding 10, 000 vehicles per day have sufficient traffic to result in noise levels at the property line greater than 65 decibels CNEL or Ldn. Such levels are normally unacceptable for construction of residential units under U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development standards and are not eligible for FHA loans. Under California law, a special sound insulation study and additional sound insulation are required when multiple family residences are constructed that will be - exposed to noise levels exceeding 65 dB CNEL. Residential units currently exist at some locations along Beach Boulevard and residential areas abut portions of the project area. Environmental For a typical roadway configuration, Impact automobile/truck mix and day-night vehicle mix, any street serving more than 10, 000 47 COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE LAND USE CATEGORY Ldn OR tNEL,d8 55 60 6S 70 73 80 RESIDENTIAL— LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX, tit r f �• MOBILE HOMES RESIDENTIAL — MULTI. FAMILY :;t . -77 TRANSIENT LODGING— MOTELS, HOTELS SCHOOLS,LIBRARIES, �•. ,. CHURCHES,HOSPITALS, MIT HOMES AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT HALLS,AMPHITHEATRES SPORTS ARENA,OUTDOOR �.. SPECTATOR SPORTS PLAYGROUNDS, :..• NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS GOLF COURSES, RIDING STABLES,WATER RECREATION, Z-.7- :» •. CEMETERIES OFFICE BUILDINGS,BUSINESS • COMMERCIALAND PROFESSIONAL AL ••�•• INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE +/INTERPRETATION NORMALLY'ACCEPTABLE NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE Specified land use is satisfactory,based New construction or development should upon the assumption that any buildings generally be discouraged. If new construction involved are of normal conventional of development does proceed,a detailed analysis ... construction,without any special noise of the noise reduction requirements must be insulation requirements. made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. .� CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis New construction or development should of the noise reduction requirements is made generally not be undertaken. and needed noise insulation features included' in the design. Conventional construction,but with closed windows and fresh air supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. (�6d Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 8 Land Use Compatibility for }• Community Noise Environments 48 • OVER-ALL LEVEL L0 VDNaS Sound Prewure ��A, Level COMMUNITY $OME OR II�DUS'rAY ww)e'�` Approz.0.0002 (atMer) MlcroAar Levi MENNE Militmvy la Aizmfl TaYa0Rwi0m A}ler-berm Oxygen Tomb(121) 120 dB(A)32 Tnm at Laud 130 UNCOMFCKTABLY Pram Aizadt Carrier @ 30 PL(I3M 6` 120 1'WD TurboFaa AimetnR Ta1oe ORPovQ Riveliag Machine(110) 110 a 200 FL (90) Rock-N-Rail Bend(106-114) 110 dB(A)16 Time s Laud Jet Flyover @ 1000 R(103) ..,, Boeing 707. DC-9 @ 6080 FL 100 dB(A){Tutus s Laud 100 Set=landing(106) VERY Belt J-2A Helicopter @ 100 R(100) LOUD Po.e Mover(%) +.+ Boeing 737,DC-9 @ 6040 PL Ne-pFer pym(97) 90 dB(A)4 Tied as Laud 90 Before Ledian 1971 Motorcycle @23 PL(90) Car Wash @ 20 PL(89) Food Blender(11) Prop. Airplane Plyover @ 1 OW R(g{) Millieg Machine(83) 80 dB(A)2 Ties asLoud .r so Diesel Truck.d0 MPH @ 30 PL(84) . Diesel Train,43 MPH @ 100 PL ({3) Garbage Disposal(10) High Urban Ambiem Sound(SO) L(vie{Room Hattie(7� MODERATELY Paseeger Car.65 MPH @ 23 PL(Tl) 70 dB(A) r. 70 LOUD Preevay @ 30 R Fran Pavol em TV-Audia.Vacuum Ckwor Edge.10P.00 AM(76.or- 6) Caah Register @ 10 FL(63-70) • Electric Typcvvrita Q 10 FL(64) Air Conditioning Unit Q 100 FL(60) 60 dB(A)1Q s Laud �.r 60 Dishwasher n�on( PL(60) Coonver S0 Quirr Large Trasra i n Q 100 R(So) 30 dB(A)1/4 as Loud a_ 40 Bird Coos(W) 40 dB(A)IR Lad Lava Licit lJA=Ambient Sated(40) LUST AUD®LE (dB(A)Sole lawr4zed) THRESHOLD 10 OF HEA"G L SOURCE: Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 9 Examples of Typical Sound Levels 49 V vehicles per day (higher than a local street, but typical for an urban collector street) • will result in some area of private property exposed to greater than 65 dB CNEL, the "Normally Unacceptable" noise level for residential development. With a typical single-family home setback of 25 feet from the property line, the structure itself will be included in the 65 dB CNEL zone for traffic volumes greater than 15, 000 vehicles per day, as is the case for Beach Boulevard which has an existing average daily traffic volume ranging from 13, 200 near Atlanta to 80, 000 at Edinger. Figures 10 and 11 show the existing and year 2005 noise contours for the project area based on traffic volumes obtained from the Orange County Transportation Commission. Future arterial traffic volumes are based on the assumption of a 1. 5% annual increase in traffic. These contours do not include the barrier effect . of buildings fronting the streets. have on structures located behind them. Since sound is directional, noise levels at these locations may be significantly reduced. Noise levels from arterial traffic may result in a requirement for sound insulation in new residential units constructed in the vicinity of the project area. California law requires a sound insulation study for such sites to identify appropriate insulation levels. Noise level increases from increased volume in the project area are expected to rise by 0. 2 dBA to 1. 6 dBA over existing conditions. Construction-related noise impacts may exceed acceptable levels and would have potentially significant impacts on the adjacent residential units. " Construction equipment would generate significant levels of noise, . ranging from 70 dB to 105 dB immediately adjacent to construction sites. Figure 12 shows noise ranges for typical construction equipment measured at 50 feet. Although -• construction activities would represent a temporary significant impact on ,ambient noise levels, they would end upon completion of the project. • 50 SOURCE: Based on i Traffic Volumes I ::::::: lip"'g�-�"�,�__x_ Obtained From the = Edinger Avenue Orange County ,...:.., Transportation �... Commission � '• .m , — .ri•.: .. ..•.•......•.... . - ....._.: - .,.. . Heil Avenue 0— £ G . E Y _ Warner Avenue r --yl`,I its-E _•�. ----'�:^ Slater Avenue 70 Ldn `; r 0 65 Ldn - _A_, 60 Ldn c::' _J I t Talbert Avenue T F`P �( North ;'• scale in fee- ='�_� .y �.: •-Y'= f Ai?r - s .:.,. r Ellis Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 10 • Existing. Noise Contours 51 t L —'—'—MATCH L - Ellis Avenue y . SOURCE: Based on ii Garfield Avenue rlrr-Traffic volumes 1 , Obtained From the Orange County , .3 c`"E Transportation : - ;�, Commission ` Yorktown Avenue ter. i .i..�31t�$• iW "'t.«.-..-•,. �rar _a - � V �� � - — - -'yam--- - .•.iry__y ' Adams Avenue ij' v. MOU,n sn m Lim®' ,, ,. ^�— • J .. •::• -- Y Indianapolis Avenue CiE i - yyY ,�•� _ 70 Ldn 65 Ldn _ _ - _ � • .. J — , — Atlanta Avenue 60 Ldn , /: T.•....: "� _ LJ Gll� North -ILI N4 ---�: , 0 2000 Oc \ w - _ ,ram r� - Hamilton Avenue scale In feet Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt Figure 10 Existing Noise Contours 52 v SOURCE: Based on Traffic Volumes -- -- - Obtained From the I r Edinger Avenue Orange County Transportation y... Commission L I _ s- _ E� � ,,•,r Heil Avenue i� III , - •.v� '� _ _ ...0�C � Warner Avenue jL- it _ i; I :a.• - —;�� E a Slater Avenue A i .... 70 L d n .......- };: r a; t a r 60 Ldn - �._ Talbert Avenue 1�1 North _ � • -----���• 0 2000 _ scale In feet L7" Ellis Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 11 Year 2005 Noise Contours 53 r - MATCH LI ,.e Ellis Avenue n. - ., �-- SOURCE: Based on , Traffic Volumes . Y i' Garfield Avenue ii. ...-+r +-• Obtained From the �''•''•' _ �•—J cF Orange County -E — Tran.sportation Commission -�{Ty��7�— / •:; i Yorktown Avenue �,r a ti r r 4 Adams Avenue M. :�r+.v.v:•ti.:Jl:• '�, - :fit-;"`"-- Cr R { :i • 'CD Oj nt T� 'm•R i L �L IF f ~ �.,YXq- - Indianapolis Avenue EF-E av ,� i . �• Z; J ._ 70 LdnOD 65 Ldn . Atlanta Avenue 12 0 Ldn 7 - - ----�- 1! Irk �i--••-{_-` l�f North qCIA- 0 •2000 �Q \ Hamilton Avenue scale in feet . i - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt Figure 11 Year 2005 Noise Contours 54 NOISE LEVEL IOBA►AT 50 rT 60 TO 80 90 100 IIO COMPACTERS (ROLLERS) ■ N FRONT LOADERS W Z V BACxkOES z '> W O 0 2 TRACTORS N � a SCRAPERS, GRADERS W ° PAVERS ■ J a TRUCKS W 2 z CONCRETE MIXERS J Q z Z o a CONCRETE PUMPS ■ Iwi W G N W J 3 a CRANES (MOvABLE) oa I. W _ CRANESIDERRICK) f�1 W ° a PUMPS j a W O • � GENERATORS • COMPRESSORS ►- PNEUMATIC WRENCHES ,z u W an JACK HAMMERS AND ROCK DRILLS I� 0i PILE DRIVEnS(PEAKS) Tl- VIBRATOR SAWS ,.. No to: Based on Limited Available Data Samples SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 12 Construction Equipment Noise Ranges • 55 Mitigation Three mitigation measures are commonly used to Measures reduce traffic noise impact. L. Reduction in traffic volume can have some impact on noise levels, but large reductions in traffic are required to bring about it significant noise reduction. To reduce perceived noise by 10 decibels, or by about one-half the perceived annoyance, requires a tenfold reduction in traffic.. For example, a traffic volume of 10, 000 vehicles would need to be reduced to 1, 000 vehicles to halve the perceived annoyance. Cutting traffic in half produces a noticeable but small 3-decibel decrease in noise level . Cutting traffic on arterials to levels sufficient to result in measurable reductions in noise level is not . -' considered a feasible mitigation measure and is not included in the proposed project. Rio Barriers between the noise source and the noise-sensitive area can be effective in situations where barriers can be constructed, such as along freeway frontages or around clusters of dwellings. This strategy is in general infeasible in developed areas along arterial streets becase of the need to maintain access to the- street. Sound insulation of new or existing residences is an alternative method of dealing with noise impacts along arterial streets in built-up 1 areas where it is no longer possible to use berms and setbacks to reduce noise impact. Sound insulation of existing residences is in general prohibitively expensive, on the order of 25% to 50% of the value of the unit for typical single-family homes ("Final Report: Home Soundproofing Pilot Project for the Los Angeles Department of Airports", Wyle Laboratories, E1 Segundo, California, 1970) . Although sound insulation from urban traffic may involve less expenditure because the sound is directional, significant sound insulation in existing residences is difficult and expensive. Some sound insulation, which may compensate for the 0. 2 to 1 . 6 dB increase in sound level resulting from the proposed project, may result from weather sealing around windows and doors, and installation of • 56 -- storm windows or double glazing at relatively low cost. However, because of the minor • effect and difficult administration of such a program for the number of units affected, .such a program is not recommended. Sound insulation of new multiple family 67 residences can be particularly effective in solving traffic noise problems at relatively low cost. Multi-family residences can be designed to provide a built-in barrier between the street and interior open spaces, with heavy insulation and. double windows protecting from traffic noise. Sound insulation has both beneficial and adverse energy impacts. Sound insulation requires closing the unit, requiring forced-air ventilation or air conditioning. If windows are opened for natural ventilation, the sound insulation benefit is lost. Y. However, sound insulating construction is in general more weather-tight and better insulated against heat gain and loss. r.: Sound insulation for all new multi-family -residences in noise impact areas is required • by the Huntington Beach building code and State law. Mitigation measures should reduce . noise impacts in new residential construction to an insignificant level . A potentially significant short-term increase in noise as a result of construction-related activities is anticipated. In order to reduce. the construction-related noise levels to an acceptable level, the following mitigation measures are recommended: 1. All noise-intensive construction activity will be restricted to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday; 2 . To the extent feasible, construction activities will be screened from adjacent noise-sensitive land uses using fencing. W 57 •. 3.7 Light and .alare Environmental The project is located in a developed urban Setting area. Lighting in the project area includes street lights, commercial and office interior and exterior lighting, parking, and security lighting. Undeveloped sites in general have low levels of lights. Portions of the project area adjoin residential areas. These areas are sensitive to direct light at high levels during nighttime hours. Environmental The private developments constructed in the Impact project area would include lighting for parking, security, exteriors, and interiors for commercial and office uses. Increased lighting, both in terms of amount and ►- intensity, would result from the proposed project. New and replacement street lighting may be constructed as part of the public improvements constructed by the City as part of the proposed project. Street lighting levels are generally low, and street lighting impact on adjacent residential areas is considered insignificant. Mitigation Because the details of lighting plans for Measures anticipated private developments are not known at this time, special mitigation measures cannot be identified. The City' s design review of all private projects include review of lighting plans to minimize illumination of adjacent areas and direct viewing of light sources. This mitigation measure will reduce potential adverse lighting impacts to a less than significant level . • _ 58 -- 3.8 Land Use • Environmental The project is linear in nature extending for Setting" approximately five miles in a north-south direction between Edinger. and Atlanta Avenues. The project area encompasses approximately 5G9 acres. Beach Boulevard is a major arterial within the city, and commercial uses predominate within the project area, although office, residential and open space exist to a lesser extent. Approximately 1. 71 million square feet of commercial building space currently exists along with approximately 508, 000 square feet of office space, 43 acres of automobile dealerships, 30 acres of recreation/open i- space, and ' 180 residential units. Approxi- mately 32 acres of the project area is vacant. The Huntington Beach General Plan has identified three multi-story nodes along Beach Boulevard within the project area. These nodes are at Warner, Talbert and Ellis and multi-story buildings could be constructed at these locations. Residential areas of differing densities • ranging from low to high flank both sides of the project area. Figure 13 on the following pages illustrates existing generalized land ` uses in the project area. Figure 14 on pages 63 and 64 shows existing �- zoning in and around the project area. The majority of land within the project area immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard is zoned for highway commercial and community business districts. Most parcels behind frontage property are zoned for residential . uses. The proposed project may require zone changes for specific sites. Figure 4 on page 10 and 11 illustrates the proposed land use for the project. Most of the proposed development is consistent with the current General Plan. However, a general plan amendment is currently being requested by 59 • the Redevelopment Agency to bring. some proposed land uses: for certain sites into conformance with the General Plan. The. proposed general plan amendment areas are: Rancho View School and Bus Maintenance- Facility: Low density residential to mixed .. development. ° Warner to Blaylock between A and B Streets: Medium density residential to general commercial These amendments to the General Plan would allow proposed development plans to be consistent with the General Plan. Figure 15 shows the General Plan Amendment locations. -- The Redevelopment Agency has proposed a planned unit development for the Memphis to Knoxville property. This property is " currently zoned residential and these development plans would be consistent with this designation. The proposed project may or may not include any of the requested General Plan Amendments • pending action by the City Planning Commission and City Council. Impacts that assume approval of both GPAs are included in this EIR for comparative analysis. Because the Redevelopment Plan adopts the General Plan by reference rather than with special land use designations, the Redevelopment Plan will be consistent with the General Plan in effect at the time it is adopted. The project area includes a number of , commercial and office uses that are abandoned or vacant, or show a low level of property maintenance. Some of the developed properties and residential units are in need of minor repairs. Environmental The proposed project is expected to. encourage Impact the development of new commercial retail and office uses along with residential uses on vacant sites and sites now occupied by low intensity and dilapidated commercial, office and residential uses. The land use changes as a result of the proposed project area are, in general, considered to be beneficial impacts. The L 60 — SOURCE: Cotton/ Bela nd/Assoc late s 1 _. Ir - Edinger Avenue F- �`'E. e _ i� Heil Avenue Industrial General Commercial + Warner Avenue Office Professional. � n �`- --- WIT � - � =fir-_ Lrr. Medical — IF - -- --� ' Residential C, ;_ 1 a Slater Avenue Institutional Recreation Vacant I _ r I Talbert Avenue ll North �' ----�.�2 2000 scale in feet ~ '? (ChC� i�- '" - - - Ellis Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment. Project North Half Figure 13 Existing Generalized Land Use 61 MATCH LI F --4 ..._'__ Ellis Avenue SOURCE: Cotton/ Garfield Avenue Beland/Associates • -X— _ - Yorktown Avenue Jr— ? Industrial - '77 Gsneral Commercials Office Professional � �� Adams Avenue Medical m ,r m. Residential _ ) 3 = Indianapolis Avenue InstitutioMa Recreation _ r ET �s Oil Extraction y+ Atlanta Avenue Vacant cll� North 0 2000 �C O Hamilton Avenue scale in feet - -- tba Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt Figure 13 Existing Generalized Land Use 62 SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach W.. ,11 _ - Edinger Avenue I � Heil Avenue R 1 Single Family = _ wt- �:--.• Y C Residence District A C2 Community Business a-ocsw� C4 Highway - - oo�0000 � { o� 0—� Commercial District— _ Warner Avenue DeveISQ) -_ - R2 Two Family i:. Residence District Slater Avenue 83 Limited 'i Multiple Family . _ z Residence District = - - - ...... R5 Office Professional District - f Talbert Avenue ll;: cro o _— North �- 499�, `. scale in feet "" " r?� _ Ellis Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 14 • Existing Zoning 63 --.—.—MATCH I — - = Ellis Avenue ..� ,U �-- �__ �..' � 'ram-�.-...'��, '��• SOURCE: City of. .�.; _ �.+.�; Garfield Avenue Huntington Beach; •�, i -' '' Yorktown Avenue R 1 Single Family - _� Residence District C2 Community I" --- - = Business �'� Adams Avenue C4 Highway �` 'i _•—_ ' Commercial District iLi PD Planned Development mli. IN - — R 2 Two Family ;� f-- Indianapolis Avenue -- Residence District � m � .� 3 i 3 -sue •.. •� ���„�v: ��_� _ , _ ..�: _?mil: � � R3 Limited ®_�_. �� ... Multiple Family Residence District "" Atlanta Avenue R5 Office Professional District I j to GlI° North t ) o ( Hamilton Avenue SCAIe In feet _ -- (Eba) Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt Figure. 14 • Existing Zoning 64 v I \ s — Edinger Avenue . Heil Avenue z __ yi Existing: Low a _ Density ` F15 ` Residential =� E Proposed: • - --*_�_ _ Mixed I'. : s` `_^=_ _ - Development Existing: Medium Density _ � 'ram•F�� •� Residential Proposed: ` Commercial -'` _ -- *� Warner Avenue General — _ - ILL 77 mm Slater Avenue cz Talbert Avenue North ` 0 2000 - _-- r'_ _ scale in feet Ellis Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 15 Proposed General Plan Amendments 65 MATCH L Ellis Avenue 1J,Qr . ;J _ L4 Garfield Avenue CF- Yorktown Avenue E7 #� �: Adams Avenue FF:!.5 .:: . �I I - •, 5 Indianapolis Avenue -.Ci.E �c_N'_1 e I�- Z At1ar118 Avenue '� --J--- ��.�, ski`•-•--- �...,` 1;F-;-' �-�"� yam_T•, North Aq 0 2000 — �� �.r= Hamilton Avenue scale In feet Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt Figure 15 Proposed General Plan Amendments 66 project is expected to result in more efficient use of available land for more • intensive development, and to result in the �., elimination of unattractive, poorly maintained structures and land uses which prevent . the further improvement of the area. The land use change to a higher and better use is a key element to the proposed redevelopment . project. Impacts discussed throughout the EIR �- are the direct and indirect. environmental impacts of these changes in land use. Over the project lifetime, the project is expected to result in the removal or upgrading of a number of visually unattractive land uses. In addition, new structures will be constructed to higher standards of construction, energy conservation, and fire protection. The level of maintenance in the project area is expected to be improved as investment in the area increases. Development of vacant parcels in the project area would result in the irreversible commitment of these sites to urban uses. �.• High quality development of land uses and • increases in intensity in the project area are expected to result in some secondary impacts on land uses in other areas of the City. These indirect impacts are discussed under population effects in Section 3 . 11 and housing impacts in Section 3 . 12. Mitigation Changes in land use to a higher and better use Measures are a key element of the proposed project. The entire EIR deals with the impacts of this change in land use, and mitigation measures throughout the EIR are intended to deal with the direct and indirect effects of this change. The City's zoning ordinance contains -- development standards for the development of individual parcels for office and commercial uses. These development standards are intended to reduce impacts of development on adjacent parcels to insignificant levels. Compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the City's design review of �- major projects are expected to reduce impacts • 67 . of development on adjacent land uses. In addition, the Agency may choose to exercise additional control over development through ._ adoption of a design for development for the proposed project area, parts of the proposed project area or specific development parcels. • • 68 3.9 Natural Resources Environmental Potential natural resources impacts include • Setting increasing the rate of use of any natural resource or substantial depletion of non- renewable natural resources. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact commitment of materials and energy to project construction. Vehicles used by workers to. and from project -construction would also result in non-renewable fuel consumption. The use of these resources is an insignificant portion of the available resources and such impacts are considered to be less than significant. Portions of the project area contain known deposits of petroleum, an important national resource, and development of existing vacant land may restrict the ability to recover this resource. Mitigation Provisions should be made to designate and set Measures aside land for future oil drilling sites in the area. No additional mitigation measures -- are required. 69 3. 10 Risk Of Upset Environmental Risk of upset includes risk of explosions, Setting release and transport of hazardous substances in the event of accident or upset conditions. An eight acre parcel within the project area �- is presently oil encumbered. Environmental The project itself does not represent an w, Impact unusual or unique risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances beyond that risk typical of other similar commercial, office, and residential developments. The preliminary redevelopment plan is considering a planned unit development based �,. on existing General Plan designations of 150 residential units on the presently oil encumbered site. It has not been determined at this time whether the equipment on-site `M will be removed prior to this development. The majority of the site is presently vacant, and if the equipment is not removed, situating -- residential homes at this location may increase the potential hazard in the unlikely event of an accident. Because of the long history of oil recovery operations in Huntington Beach, some construction may be in areas with abandoned F-12 oil wells, oil pipelines, or potential gas risk. Any new structure that is to be located over or in the proximity of any previously abandoned well may need to be reabandoned. Mitigation Regulations by other agencies regulating the Measures storage and use of hazardous substances are `p expected to reduce the potential risk of upset to an insignificant level. The. City' s development regulations require safe capping of abandoned wells. A diligent effort. F-12 shall be made to avoid building over any abandoned oil well. 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 reabandonment shall be 70 the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure shall be • located. Other risks must be evaluated on a site-by-site basis and appropriate mitigation included for each project. ;r r 7.0. 1 3.11 Population Environmental The Southern California Association . of Setting Governments (SCAG) has projected population increases for 55 Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) in the six-county Southern California region from the year 1984 to the year 2010. The City of Huntington Beach is in the West Coast Regional Statistical Area, Number 38 (Figure 16) . The 1580 population of Huntington Beach was estimated by the Department of Finance to be 17.0, 486 compared to 115,960 in 1970, a 47% increase for the decade. The 1985 population of Huntington Beach was 181,900, a 6.7% increase from 1980. Huntington Beach's contribution to the West Coast RSA in 1984 was 54%, 8 . 7% of the county total, and 1.4% of the SCAG region total population. Huntington Beach comprises over fifty percent of the West Coast RSA and additional substantial growth within the City may have an impact on regional growth and development. • Environmental The proposed project has the potential to �.. Impact encourage population growth in the project's housing and employment market area by providing additional jobs in the project area that would otherwise locate elsewhere in Southern California. Approximately 2 .57 million square feet of non-residential building space currently exists within the project area. Based on the estimate of 2 employees per 1, 000 square feet of building space, the project area could currently employ approximately 5160 people. However, some vacant buildings do exist within the project area, and although their square footage is not excessive, current employment figures cannot be accurately determined. The proposed project could result in a range of development from 4 . 16 million square feet to 4 . 21 million square feet of building space. Using the factor of 2 employees per 1, 000 square feet of building space, the proposed project could employ between 8320 to 8920 people, an increase of 61% to 63% over estimated existing conditions. • 71 4 V • �" •{"�ldY1P�l1<r 10 8 LOS ANGELES 14 11 30 ' 2 • SAN BERNARDINO 13 2 4 25 17 16 7 2 8 2 9 • wwt�c• 26 � - �rrr �.��. 45 : -- nnc+�ii�a� 21 • �vstr r cv • . xw, B 18 � 22 4f_ - • "... 36 • coryt , r =�jUx-cTN RIVE I D rr�vuw, 20 *aA4M 41 �" 1 C �s 19 '�tKe 3 37 042 47 �`. terra 44 8 ORANGE • , Tow ��ING1C>r N�wt�oKr• 39 43 49 Huntington Beach __ rmwA,L�, 40 _._.�. SAN DIEGO North no scale Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 16 • Regional Statistical Area -- 72 This increase in employment is expected to occur gradually throughout the 35-year plan as development increases. To the extent that the proposed project represents employment that would otherwise not locate in the SCAG region if the project were not undertaken, the project represents additional population i- impacts for the region. In general, the proposed project is expected to be a substitute for employment that would otherwise be provided elsewhere in the region, and this effect is minimal. Table 14 shows population, . housing and employment projections for the West Coast RSA and surrounding RSAs. The projectes employment growth represents 13 .5% of the projected employment growth for RSA 38 and 1. 2% of the employment growth in the primary and secondary housing/employment market areas, and is considered within SLAG projections. Currently there are 175 residential units within the project area. The proposed project, including direct Redevelopment i- Agency assistance, could result in the construction of up to 781 residential units. The existing residential units,most of which are non-conforming uses, are expected to be eventually phased out over the lifetime of the project. With a City average of 2 . 7 persons per household (Department of Finance, January 1985) , the project area could provide housing for an estimated 2110 .people. This represents less than one percent of the City's population. Mitigation The incremental population increase to be Measures generated by this project will result in r. higher levels of traffic and increase demands on municipal agencies. Measures to .reduce such impacts include various programs to increase services to the area. Others are discussed elsewhere in the UR. �r • 73 TABLE 14 POPULATION HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR • HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT MARKET AREA 19'84 TO 2010 Regional (In Thousands) Statistical Population Housing Employment Areas 1984 2010 .1984 2010 1984 2010 38. West Coast 332 379 123 154 103 133 Total Primary 332 379 123 154 103 133 Jobs/100 people 31 35 �.. 37 . Anaheim 356 378 128 147 165 211 39. Central Coast 181 235 78 116 166 236 42 . Santa Ana 401 465 134 160 240 335 35. Buena Park 159 165 53 60 62 86 ;L . 20. Long Beach 437 510 187 . 226 212 278 Total Secondary 11534 11753 580 709 845 11146 Jobs/100 people 55 65 SCAG Region Total 12,383 15,944 4,648 6,520 5,781 81377 Jobs 100/people 46 52 Source: SCAG-82 Modified Forecast, adopted February, 1985 74 3. 12 Housing Environmental The- West Coast Regional Statistical Area which V, Setting includes the City of Huntington Beach is projected to increase the total number of housing units from approximately 123 , 000 in 1984 to 154 , 000 in 2010, a 25. 2 percent increase (SCAG-82 Modified Growth Forecast Policy) . The projected increase in housing units over the same time period for Orange County is .48 .8% and is 40. 2% for the entire SCAG region. The most current Department of Finance estimate (January 1, 1986) of housing units in Huntington Beach is 68, 686. This is an increase of 11. 9% from the 1980 census estimate of 61, 332 housing units. Huntington Beach accounts for approximately 50% of the housing units in the West Coast Regional Statistical Area. One hundred seventy-five residential units are currently within the project boundaries. Most �- of these units represent a non-conforming use and it is anticipated that these homes would be removed over the lifetime of the project. Environmental The proposed project may result in the Impact eventual removal of 175 dwelling units within the project- boundaries and would have a direct impact on those residents. The Department of Finance estimates the City of Huntington Beach to have 2 . 76 persons per household which correlates to the direct displacement of approximately 483 people from the project area. The implementation of the proposed project would result in increased employment in the project area and would create a need for additional housing to. accommodate the anticipated increase in population. According to the 1980 U.S. Census, the total civilian labor force in Huntington . Beach was 94 , 139. The U.S. Census further indicates that 19, 855 people or 21% of the civilian labor force both lived and worked in Huntington Beach. Section 3 . 11 of this EIR estimated that current employment figures in the project area • -, 75 -- at 5160 people with the potential for 3100 to 3300 additional employees. Using the • figures above, approximately 650 to 690 additional employees would require housing in the City of Huntington Beach. With a regional average of 1. 35 members of the civilian labor force per dwelling unit, the proposed project would require approximately 480 to 510 additional homes to accommodate these employees. Including the removal of the +•• existing 175 units, the proposed project would create a demand for approximately 655 to 685 additional homes. The vacancy rate for Huntington Beach as of January 1, 1986 (Department of Finance) was 3 . 21 percent, or 2146 dwelling units. These vacant units could supply the additional housing demand generated by the proposed project. In addition, the proposed project includes the construction of approximately 653 to 781 additional units which could also be occupied by project generated population increases. Because the demand is expected to be distri- buted throughout the project-Is 35 year life, • the incremental demand is not expected to have a significant impact on the local housing market. Secondary impacts as a result of residential development include those on schools, population, traffic, libraries, parks, public �- services, and utilities. These impacts are discussed further in other sections of this EIR. The income level of the residential developments is not known at this time, but mitigation measures to benefit low and moderate income housing are required. These mitigation measures would make the impact on the local housing market insignificant. The increase in housing on a regional level is not considered significant. Mitigation Under California redevelopment law, Measures redevelopment agencies are required to set aside 20% of all tax increment revenue for use to benefit low- and moderate-income housing. For those housing units displaced by direct • 76 agency action, law requires the agency to pay fair market value for the units, and to pay relocation costs and differential costs of finding an equivalent unit and financing. State law requires that 20% of the housing construction in the project area shall be for low and moderate income residents. State law further requires that one half of this 20% low and moderate income housing be specifically for low income residents. Those people between 80% and 120% of the county median income are considered moderate income and those below 80% of the county median income are considered to be low income. State law requires that all units removed by direct agency action be replaced on a one-for-one basis. These mitigation measures are considered to F713 reduce potential impact of relocation of existing residents to a less than significant level. 77 3.13 Transportation/circulation Environmental Beach Boulevard (State Route 39) is classified • Setting as a major arterial on the Master Plan of �- Arterial Highways, and is currently on the State Freeway and Expressway Plan. The roadway generally consists of six through �.. travel lanes plus a median between Pacific Coast Highway and Manchester Avenue. Twelve- major east-west arterials intersect Beach Boulevard and distribute traffic along the project area. These major arterials, from north to south, are: Edinger Avenue, Heil Avenue, Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Yorktown Avenue, Adams Avenue, Indianapolis Avenue, and Atlanta Avenue. Pacific Coast Highway is the southern terminus of Beach Boulevard and the San Diego Freeway (I-405) is just north of the project area. The City of Huntington Beach has recently approved the Beach Boulevard Corridor Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Report submitted by the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) in March, 1986. This • report and the associated technical its" memorandums evaluate the existing and . projected conditions of Beach Boulevard, including that section within the project area boundaries, and provide. approved measures to help alleviate future traffic-related congestion. The "Super Streets" report and related technical memorandums are hereby incorporated by reference in this EIR. Pertinent sections of the "Super Streets" report will be summarized in this section. Copies of the "Super Streets" report are available for public review in the Huntington Beach Planning Department located at 2000 Main Street. Existing and future (Year 2005) projected traffic volumes along Beach Boulevard were provided by OCTC staff and are summarized in Table 15. Traffic volume projection methodology is included in Appendix B of this report. 78 • Traffic volumes in Year 2005 are expected to increase by approximately 2 . 5% at Edinger to 44% at Atlanta. TABLE 15 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMEIC PROJECT ` EXISTIM AND PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOILOW (Existing 1985) Projected (2005) North- South- North- South- Beach Blvd. Between bound bound Total bound bound Total I-405/Edinger 33,700 47,200 80,900 34,600 48,400 83,000 Heil/Warner 30,900 31,900 62,800 35,400 36,600 72,000 Talbert/Ellis 27,800 28,800 56,600 32,400 35,600 66,000 Yorkt=VAdams 17,300 18,500 35,800 21,700 23,300 45,000 Atlanta/Pacific Coast Hwy. 6,300 6,900 13,200 5,100 9,900 19,000 Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor, March, 1986. Figure 16 illustrates existing traffic volumes within the project area along Beach Boulevard and the major arterials. Traffic volumes along arterial streets were obtained from the City of Huntington Beach traffic flow maps. . Level of Service. Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of the effect of a number of factors including speed and travel time, traffic interruptions, freedom to maneuver and safety that may occur on a given roadway when it is accommodating various traffic volumes. Six Levels of Service have been designated by letters to represent the best condition ("A" free flowing) to the worst ("F" forced flow at very low speeds) . Level of Service is commonly expressed as the ratio of the demand volume or service volume to the capacity (V/C) . Service volume is further defined as the maximum number of vehicles that can pass over a given section of a lane or roadway during a specified time period while operating conditions are • 79 -r v • SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach; - -- 00 310 =�— O C T C ' 38500 Edinger Avenue Heil Avenue 10, +r r 34000 ;�= 12000 Warner Avenue - - - - : __ , • �� - tF•E O �_J,�_ -� • m _ CF-E :_S_ •� a 15500- t a 0 = Slater Avenue .67 3 Z _:.:f:: 9700 _ 12100 - - _ Talbert Avenue North ME' -�: 0 2000 scale in feet �F 6300 14500 -: ; L - Ellls Ave Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project North Half Figure 17 • Existing Traffic Volumes 80 •—MATC LI -- -- Ellis Avenue SOURCE: City of 100 - =2460,Q'` Huntington Beach; . 1 Barfield Avenue C. mum 24000. 26200�: Yorktown Avenue L co aid1242�00 I 350 0y Adams Avenue — J-JJ Jr-[ODD�_ _ Indianapolis Avenue Z. m i 10000- 12000 :2 i J '- -- Atlanta Avenue hf North � 0 2000 scale in feet OCF \ 1 ---_ Hamilton Avenue 9 \ `, — (Z150) �\ Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt • Figure 17 Existing Traffic Volumes 81 �. maintained corresponding to the selected level of service. Table 16 defines the operating conditions for the six Levels of Service. Existing and projected (Year 2005) LOS for Beach Boulevard within the project area were calculated by OCTC in the "Super Streets" report and are shown in Table 17. The Level of Service calculations were based on the Critical Movement Analysis procedure documented in Circular 212 of the Transportation Research Board using peak hour turning movement counts, the existing intersection lane geometry, signal phasing, '• truck percentages, OCTD bus frequencies, and peak hour factors. It should be noted that with the exception of adopted State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and FAU projects, no signalization or capacity improvements were added to existing conditions: as a result, the projected volume/capacity ratios at several intersections are significantly above 1. 0. r 82 • TABLE 16 OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service A: (V/C=0. 01-0. 60) This is a condition of r. free flow, accompanied by low volumes and high speeds. Traffi density will be low, with uninterrupted flow speeds controlled by driver desires, speed limits, and physical roadway conditions. There is little or no restriction in maneuverability due to the presence of other vehicles, and drivers can maintain their desired speeds with little or no delay. Level of Service B: (V/C=0. 61-0.70) This occurs in the zone of stable flow, with operating speeds beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. Drivers still have reasonable freedom to select their speed and lane of operation. Reductions in speed are not unreasonable, with a low probability of traffic flow being restricted. Level of Service C: (V/C=0.71-0.80) This is still in the zone of stable flow, but speeds and maneuverability are more closely controlled by the higher volumes. Most of the drivers are restricted in their freedom to select their own speed, change lanes, or pass. A relatively satisfactory operating speed is =- still obtained, with service volumes suitable for urban design practice. Level of Service D: (V/C=0. 81=0. 90) This level of service approaches unstable flow, with tolerable operating speeds bein maintained, though considerably affected by changes in operating conditions. Fluctuations in volume and temporary. restrictions to flow may cause substantial drops in operating speeds. Drivers have little freedom to maneuver, and, comfort and convenience are low. These conditions can be tolerated, however, for short term periods of time. Level of Service E: (V/C=0.91-1. 00) This cannot be described by speed alone, but represents operations at lower operating speeds, typically, but not always, in the neighborhood of 30 miles per hour, with volumes at or near capacity of the highway. Flow is unstable, and there may be stoppages of momentary duration. This level of service is associated with operation of a facility at capacity flows. Level of Service F: (V/C=1. 01 and greater) This describes a forced-flow operation at low speeds, where volumes are below capacity. In the extreme, both speed and volume can drop to zero. These conditions usually result from queues of vehicles backing up from a restriction downstream. The section under study will be serving as a storage area during parts or all of the peak hour. Speeds are reduced substantially and stoppages may occur for short or long periods of time because of the • downstream congestion. Source: Cotton/Beland/Associates 83 -- TABLE 17 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT • IRIMRSEC:TION LEVEL OF SERVICE (WITHOUT IMF'ROVFT'hTfls) Existing (1985) Projected (2005) Intersection of AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM Beach Blvd. With: V C LDS V C LOS V C LOS V C LOS Edinger Avenue 0.85 D 1.02 F 0.97 E 1.13 F Heil Avenue 0.62 B 0.84 D 0.74 C 0.97 E Warner Avenue 1.01 F 1.24 F 1.25 F 1.49 F Slater Avenue 0.67 B 0.81 D 0.81 D 0.95 E Talbert Avenue 0.61 B 0.72 C 0.73 C 1.12 F Ellis/Main Street 0.69 B 0.91 E 0.91 E 1.18 F l.. Garfield Avenue 0.42 A 0.59 A 0.56 A 0.78 C Yorktown Avenue 0.47 A 0.57 A 0.61 B 0.72 C Adams Avenue 0.54 A 0.72 C 0.70 B 0.94 E •o Atlanta Avenue 0.26 A 0.50 A 0.32 A 0.61 B V/C: Volume/Capacity Ratio LOS: Level of Service ` Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, Super Streets Demonstration Project, Beach Boulevard Corridor, March, 1986 Environmental Determining the traffic impact of this project Impact on Beach Boulevard and the contributing arterials included compiling existing OCTC data, identifying the number of trips generated by this project, distributing these trips on the local street network, and comparing the resulting traffic volumes with OCTC projections in the Super Streets EIR. In addition to project-related trips, continued population growth in the region, increasing employment opportunities, and other development all would result in additional sources of trip production- attraction and would increase the volume of traffic along Beach Boulevard. 84 •.I Trip Generation. Trip generation was obtained by calculating the acreage of the various land uses within the zones from the current General Plan Land Use map and multiplying these acreages by trip generation rates published by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Table 18 shows the estimated daily j- trip generation by zone and land use. The total trips generated by each zone were 6w then incorporated into the trip distribution model to estimate the daily volumes along the major arterials. Figure 18 depicts traffic distribution and estimated volumes within the project vicinity. Estimated trip generation within the project area was calculated based on the proposed project and full development under the General Plan Amendment scenario for comparison. Trip generations are included in Tables 19 and 20. ` Figures 19 and 20 show estimated traffic volumes along Beach Boulevard and the major arterials based on these two scenarios. Table �- 21 compares estimated traffic volumes along the project area. The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 73% more trips within the project area compared to existing conditions. This would result in increased volumes along Beach Boulevard and major arterials over existing conditions and would contribute a significant portion of OCTC future projections. Impacts of the proposed project on the circulation network are expected to be fewer than the GPA alternative. The proposed project is estimated to generate 14, 654 fewer trips per day compared to the GPA alternative. Trip Distribution. The direction drivers come from and go to is a function of the overall pattern of development in the surrounding urban areas. The project area consists predominantly of commercial areas that create trip attractions. Trips to and from the retail areas are projected to be primarily shopping trips by the residents of the surrounding area within approximately three • 85 r miles. Office trips include a substantially larger proportion of employee trips from • greater distances. For purposes of developing a trip distribution model, the project area was divided into three: distinct, separate zones. Zone 1 includes Edinger south to the mid-block of Talbert and Ellis between Gothard Street and Newland; Zone 2 includes mid-block Talbert and Ellis south to the mid-block. of Yorktown and Adams between. Gothard and Newland; and Zone 3 includes Yorktown and Adams south to mid-block of Atlanta and Hamilton between Main and Newland. The distribution model assumes. that trips occurring within each zone along the arterial network have three options. First, trips would occur internally without using Beach Boulevard and would remain within that zone. ._ Second, trips would occur internally, remain within the zone and use Beach Boulevard (assumed to be 15% of trips generated in that zone. And third, trips would extend beyond the zone in all directions utilizing Beach Boulevard or the major arterials, or both. -- Using existing traffic volumes and directional •. flow data provided by the City' of Huntington Beach and OCTC, in conjunction with surrounding land uses, traffic distribution was assigned to each compass quadrant. Each major arterial was further assigned a percentage of the total volume within that quadrant based on existing -volumes and flow characteristics. Not all of the trips generated within each zone are expected to use Beach Boulevard as the. primary north-south corridor.. Some vehicles are expected to use Gothard Street on the west and Newland on the east, along with other minor collector streets to avoid the congestion along Beach Boulevard during the. -- peak hours. Relation to OCTC Projections. Zone generated traffic, based on current General Plan buildout, falls within the high range of current OCTC projections for Zone 1 and • 86 TABLE 18 TRIP GENERATION BY ZONE AND LAND USE (Based on Current General Plan Buildout) Generation Total ZONE 1 Land Use Rate Acres Trips `r Commercial 4001 213 85, 200 Office 240. 16 3,840 Public 50 40 2 , 000 -- Residential Low 12/du 267. 22 , 428 Medium 10/du 270 40, 500 High 7/du 369 64, 575 Zone 1 Total 1, 175 218 , 543 V ZONE 2 Commercial 400 154 61, 600 Office 240 22 5, 280 Recreation 6 17 102 Residential Low 12/du 320 26, 890 Medium 10/du 398 59, 700 High 7/du 98 17, 150 Zone 2 Total .1, 009 i70, 712 ZONE 3 Commercial 400 30 12 , 000 Recreation 6 13 78 Residential ... Low 12/du 391 32 ,.844 Medium 1.0/du 484 72, 600 High 7/du 4 700 PD 7/du 65 6, 825 Zone 3 Total 987 125, 047 Total Acres 3 , 171 1This has been adjusted to accommodate office uses which have a reduced trip generation rate. Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, "Daily Trip Generation Rates, " August, 1982 87 11.5% 52289 11' _ fie fr+�ti� 2.1% .," 2.4% 10981 --.` 9549 W. 0.8% - ` 0.6% 3765 .:•;� 2980 2.1% _ ' ==� 2.2% 6.8% 9726 - one.�.1 e_ 10039 31373 - 16% i 31373 lk 71785 .2 4863 t 4863 -- _ , ^.•• 2980 - - 3765 -r•' � M _f: _ _-�1�` 2 296 0.7% == = .- 1.8% 101247 3064 ' - 8428 112470 - ohe 2 �, 9% 8.4% 2.7% _42997_ I ,.� 3.2% 38309 38309 12258 = - - -= =� _� 14557 9194 = ° z 3.0% _ 3.3% • 13791 == 15324 5.6% 3.8% l._ .:. P 17189 = 3 1' _: 25494 6.5% ; 7.0% ;_30452_i: s ,..�. .:... 1.9% 9.096 1.6% ► 42788 31565 7188 €a�" _ `� 8642 7188 = 8642 .40 ec i%o Volumes Based on North 9.5% 43210 Current General Plan Buildout -- 0 t/2 t scale in miles Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project _- Figure 18 •- Traffic Distribution and Volumes 88 Zone 2 . However, estimated volumes in Zone 3 exceed current OCTC projections for that segment of Beach Boulevard by approximately 60%. Volume/Capacity Ratios and Level of Service. In Zones 1 and 2, project traffic volumes are within OCTC projections, and the assumptions of the Super Streets Project EIR may be appropriately used for these intersections. In Zone 3, with the exception of Adams Avenue, which is projected to have a V/C ratio of 0.94 in year 2005 with project improvements, the :.. remaining intersections have relatively low V/C ratio (0. 61-0.72) projections. The estimated increase in- traffic volumes would result in the further lowering of the levels of service at those intersections, . even with the proposed improvements. The project area accounts for approximately 12% of the total area of all three blocks and approximately 26% of the total area of all three zones and approximately 26% of total trip generation. This higher trip generation • is due to the predominance of non-residential uses with higher trip generation rates compared to residential uses. Table 23 compares projected volume/capacity ... ratios with and without project improvements for existing and Year 2005 conditions. This table includes both short and. long term staging of improvements. It can be seen in this table that continued degradation in the level of service is expected along all intersections, even with the implementation of �- project related improvements. However, project improvements would significantly lower volume/capacity ratios at some . intersections and would help alleviate some congestion. The Super Streets report recommended a grade separation "at the Warner/Beach intersection which would help improve traffic flow at this F-3 location. The Warner Avenue grade separation, according to the Super Streets report, is needed within the next five years. However, the Huntington Beach City Council adopted 89 wI w TABLE 19 • PROJECT AREA PROPOSED PR XTECT SCENARIO ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION :r Generation Building Total ZONE 1 Land Use Rate Space Acres Trips Ccwe=ial 40/ksf 1,818 ksf 155 72,720 Office 15/ksf 272 ksf 16 4,080 Residential Law 12/du 9 756 Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 0 0 a.. Zone 1 Total 2,090 ksf 180 77,556 ZONE 2 Commercial . 40/ksf 1,494 ksf 123 . 59,760 -� Office 15/ksf .0 ksf 0 0 Recreation 6 17 acre 17 102 Residential • Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 1 175 Zone 2 Total 1,494 ksf 141 60,037 ZONE 3 Commercial 40/ksf 345 ksf 29 13,800 Recreation 6/ksf 13 acre 13 78 Residential Medium 10/du 20 3,000 PD 7/du 4 336 Zone 3 Total 345 ksf 66 17,214 Total Square Footage 31929 Total Acres 387 Source: Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, "Daily Trip Generation Rates," August, 1982 90 r TABLE 20 • PROJECT AREA GIPPA ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO. ESTIMATED TRIP GENERATION Generation Building Total ZONE 1 Land Use Rate Space Acres Trips Commercial 40/ksf 2,079 ksf 155 83,160 Office 15/ksf 272 ksf 16 4,080 Residential Law 12/du 9 756 Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 0 0 .- Zone 1 Total 2,351 ksf 180 87,996 ZONE 2 Ccmmercial 40/ksf 1,515 ksf 123 60,600 Office 15/ksf 0 ksf 0 0 Recreation 6 17 acre 17 102 Residential Medium 10/du 0 0 High 7/du 1 175 Zone 2 Total 1,515 ksf 141 . 60,877 ZONE 3 Ccmmercial 40/ksf 486 ksf 37 19,440 Recreation 6/ksf 13 acre 13 78 Residential Medium 10/du, 0 0 PD 7/du 16 1,344 Zone 3 Total 486 ksf 66 20,862 Total Square Footage 4,352 Total Acres 387 '= Source: Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency, I'Daily Trip Generation Rates," August, 1982 91 15488 3232 2693 FEE J2828 _ -,•. �l •�- 2963 1 6- Zone 1 =� 1 21549 - r 1347 -_ •y - ` ,�..... 1347 `— '� Cam; C t 808 1077 -- - :1 -t 942 : {- a .-.- 2424 - i Zone2 j .W 3636 121211-� - 4309 2694 4040 i > = _ . . ..... 4444 • is 5118 P 7542 Zone 3 1, 8754 t :. 2154 .0 -;T: __ .�.�.. .... 2559 Percentages for 2154 --. "r 25.59 Arterial Traffic Same as in Figure 18 .� 1.hj..- :'' y H I 19,14P h( North 12795 0 1/2 1 scale in miles Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 19 • Proposed Project Trip Distribution 92 16982 .� 3544 1�- -- - _ _ - 2953 • ;_ \Q` T • ` _- sue'- •., -,- - _ 1181 Y �..�. 886 31-01 ki - 3248 �y Zone � 23627 _,_ - `' , 1476 i.. Z - a..... 1476 lnc - --_ — f.e. .... 886 ! pt 1 181 1033 = ` `' " 2658 . Zone 2'_ - r./ —. .. 3987 '13290 ry� 4725 2953 • r.0 4430 - � 7, L ...,.-..... 4873 5611 1• _1 - -- ,...:.�. 8269 ur �Z�?x ' • �; Zone 3 � 9598 _ t. 2362 Pb r. - [t_Y 'Ilia,.' .-' _ ';- s-. . i A— 2805 Percentages for 2 3 6 2 --=. r 2805 Arterial Traffic •.f. ' . Same as in Figure 18 Oc cif. � ' � �_- -. •... ..... h( North 14028 ' `�. 0 112 1 scale in miles Beach -Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 20 GP Alternative Trip Distribution 93 TABLE 21 PR WELT AREA • TRAFFIC VOLUME COMPARISON (vehicles/day) Proposed Project GPA Alternative Net Change Major East West East West East West Zone Arterial Side Side Side Side Side Side Zone 1 North of Edinger 15,488 16,982 1,494 Edinger 2,693 3,232 2,953 3,544 260 312. Heil 808 1,077 886 1,181 78 104 Warner 2,963 2,828 3,248 3,101 285 273 Slater 1,347 1,347 1,476 2,476 129 129 Talbert 1,077 808 1,181 886 104 78 Internal 21,549 23,627 2,078 Zone 1 Sub-Total 8,888 37,037 9,292 9,744 40,609 10,188 856 3,572 896 Total All Trips 55,217 60,541 5,324 Zone 2 °- Ellis 2,424 942 2,658 1,033 234 91 Garfield 4,309 3,636 4,725 3,987 416 351 Main - 2,694 - 2,953 0 259 Yorktown 4,444 4,040 4,873 4,430 429 390 • Internal 12,121 13,290 1,169 Zone 2 Sub-total 11,177 12,121 11,312 12,256 13,290 12,403 1,079 1,169 1,091 Total All Trips 34,610 37,949 3,339 Zone 3 �.. Adams 7,542 5,118 8,269 5,611 727 493 Indianapolis 2,559 2,154 2,805 2,805 246 651 Atlanta 2,559 2,154 2,805 2,805 246 651 Internal 8,754 9,598 844 South of Atlanta .12,795 14,028 1,233 Zone 3 Sub- Total 12,660 21,549 9,426 13,879 23,626 11,221 1,219 2,077 1,795 Total All Trips 43,635 48,726 5,091 SUB-TOTAL PROTECT -- AREA 32,725 70,707 30,030 35,879 77,525 33,812 3,154 6,818 3,782 TOTAL PROTECT AREA 133,462 147,216 .13,754 • 94 +++ TABLE 22 • PROJECTED VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING AND YEAR`2005 Project •••-••VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS...... Mitigation Existing ... ----Year 2005---- intersection Measure __ Staging____W/O_1me___ W/ime__-___W/O_Ime_ W/Imp ;.. Edinger Signal Coordination Short 1.02 0.87 1.13 0.96 Bus Turnouts Intersection Widening Intersection Widening (new ROW) Long 1.02 0.79 1.13 0.86 Heil Signal Coordination Short 0.84 0.75 0.97 0.87 +r Bus Turnouts Intersection Widening Warner Signal Coordination Short 1.20 0.82 1.49 1.02 Bus Turnouts Access Control Intersection Widening (new ROW) Grade Separation• Short 1.20 0.63 1.49 0.83 Slater Signal Coordination Short 0.81 0.75 0.95 0.87 • Bus Turnouts Intersection Widening Talbert Signal Coordination Short 0.72 0.64 1.12 1.03 Bus Turnouts Intersection Striping Bus Turnouts Signal Modification Long 0.72 0.73 1.12 0.88 Ellis Signal Coordination Short 0.91 0.82 1.18 1.06 Signal Modification Bus .Turnouts Access Control Inte.rsection Striping Intersection Widening Intersection ... Widening (new ROW) Long 0.91 0.69 1.18 0.91 Garfield Signal Coordination Short 0.59 0.59 0.78 0.78 r� --------------------------- This mitigation measure was not included in the Sueer_Streets Final Reeort but it is a potential alternative for providing additional mitigation. • 95 TABLE 23 PROJECTED VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS WITH AND WITHOUT PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS FOR EXISTING AND YEAR 2005 • (Continued) o.. Project ••--••VOLUME/CAPACITY RATIOS------ MitigationExisting ....Year 2005.... intersection Measure __________Staging.....W/0_Imp_ _W/ImpW/0_Imp_---W/Imp_ Yorktown Signal Coordination Short 0.57 0.57 0.72 0.72 'v Adams Signal Coordination Short 0.72 0.72 0.94 0.94 Intersection Widening (new ROW) Long 0.72 0.65 0.94 0.83 Atlanta Signal Coordination Short 0.50 0.50 0.61 0.61 rr Note: See Table 17 for V/C definitions Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, "Super Streets Demonstration Project Final Report" March, 1986 �r :.r 96 w intersection widening alternatives in lieu of the grade separation. Parking and Access. ""Super Streets" improvements include on-street parking restrictions on Beach Boulevard north of the Main/Ellis intersection. These parking - restrictions will reduce available on-street parking for businesses fronting on Beach Boulevard and may result in loss of business G-8 for older areas which were not designed to current standards of off-street parking. Driveway elimination or consolidation may also create problems in such areas. Redevelopment action can mitigate such impacts by aiding businesses in responding to these ., needed transportation improvements with programs for shared off-street parking and alternate site access. Seasonal Traffic Variation. Beach Boulevard_ provides access to . Huntington Beach State Park. Traffic volumes along some portions of Beach Boulevard are expected to increase during the summer months compared to the rest of the year. The most recent traffic counts available during the month of July. were taken by CalTrans in 1980 and 1983 . F-5 The July, 1980 count taken .north of Warner indicated a 4% decrease in total volume compared to 1980 monthly averages. The July, 1983 count was taken north .of Pacific Coast Highway and indicated a 28% increase compared to 1983. monthly. averages. Higher seasonal variation in traffic volumes is more evident along the southern portion. of Beach Boulevard and would have a greater impact in the area compared to the northern portion where daily traffic volumes are already at high levels. The degree of impact as a result of seasonal fluctuations is expected to diminish as a function of distance from the beach. • 97 Accidents. Accident data included in the "Super Streets" were provided by CalTrans. • The Statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane arterial in an urban area is 4 . 1 accidents per million vehicle miles. The Statewide average for fatal plus injury accidents for the same roadway configuration in an urban area is 1. 6 accidents per million vehicle miles. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly higher than the Statewide averages. Maintenance. Increased traffic volumes, especially truck-related traffic from increased commercial development, would be expected to contribute additional wear on the road surface. However, mitigation measures aimed at improving traffic flow, including intersection widening, would result in a general improvement of the existing road surface and this impact is not considered significant. • 97 . 1 �. Mitigation The "Super Streets" report identifies a Measures wide range of improvement options for intersections and mid-block sections along Beach Boulevard. The options range from low cost improvements such as signal coordination, restriping to provide additional lanes and signal modifications to selected capital intensive .improvements such as intersection grade separations. Mitigation measures discussed in this EIR will be limited to those identified as being a part of the proposed project and identified by the Redevelopment Agency for project funding. The primary objective of these mitigation measures is to identify specific improvements needed to provide reasonable capacity for the existing and projected (Year 2006) traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. Following is a brief summary of each proposed intersection and mid-block modifications for the project area. ° Signal Coordination: Improved traffic signal coordination for traffic along Beach Boulevard at each intersection in the project area. Signal Modification: Where -the existing or projected intersection level of service analysis indicated that additional signal phasing might be required to accommodate turning volumes, the necessary signal modifications would be installed. Bus Turnouts: Where OCTD bus routes presently stop at an arterial street intersection with existing or projected heavy traffic volumes, bus turnouts on -- Beach Boulevard are included if no such turnouts already exist. ° Access Control : Several locations indicate that turning movement restrictions or median closures might improve intersection operation. . 98 tr... Intersection Widening With New Right-of-Way: Where the intersection level of service analyses indicate that intersection widening would improve the level of service, but the existing right-of-way does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate such widening, additional right-of-way would be required. Restriping With Parking Restrictions: This measure is included in areas of existing or projected heavy peak period traffic volumes, where additional travel lanes could be provided by imposing peak period parking restrictions. Tables 23 and 24 identify the specific mitigation measures included in the proposed project and their locations. These measures would help reduce impacts on traffic caused by . the proposed project. However, these mitigation measures alone are not expected to relieve the existing congestion problems and .. the impact on traffic would still be considered significant. Funding for these improvements would be paid, in part, by .the • �. Redevelopment Agency. The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has identified an additional mitigation measure -- outside of the project area aimed at relieving traffic. volumes. on Beach Boulevard. This would include the extension of Gothard Street . Qkm to connect with Hoover to the north of the I-405 Freeway. This would provide additional north-south travel opportunities. This information is included in the City of Huntington Beach, Gothard Street Extension Draft Report, August, 1986. -_ onsite parking requirements for individual projects will be determined by the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance and Development Code to reduce the potential impact along side streets y and Beach Boulevard. All new construction will be required to provide sufficient parking on-site. For those established businesses with insufficient on-site parking, a program_ of shared parking with neighboring businesses could be established that utilized available parking spaces during off business hours. 99 • r Potential mitigation for summer traffic volume increases include the installation of signs along the freeway at major arterials other than Beach Boulevard indicating beach access. This measure may reduce beach generated traffic on Beach Boulevard. However, . F-5 transferring additional traffic to other ftw nearby arterials may result in additional impacts on these areas. Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Grade Separation. .r The Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Grade Separation project was studied in the Super Streets .Report as a potential mitigation '-- measure. This measure was not included by the City of Huntington Beach in the adopted Super Streets Program. rr Without this measure, the level of service at the Beach/Warner intersection is expected to F-3 be F (volume/capacity ratio 1. 02) in the year 2005. With the grade separation, the volume/capacity ratio is improved to 0. 83 , or Level of Service D. (Orange County Transportation Commission, Super Streets Demonstration Project Draft Program EIR, 1985, p. II-6. ) This mitigation measure is not included in the proposed project because of its high cost (estimated at $3 . 8 million in the Super Streets Draft EIR) and the description of the local area with increased right-of-way required. However, this mitigation measure remains available for the future if development projections are realized and traffic impacts cannot be distributed to other arterials in the network. 100 { TABLE 23 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVEIDPMENT PRWWr PROPOSED IMERSDC.TION MITIGATION MEASURES Intersection Intersec.-tion Of Beach Signal Signal Bus Access Widening With Coordination Modification Turnouts Control New R-0-W Edinger XX XX XX Heil XX XX Warner XX XX XX XX Slater KX xx Talbert XX XX Ellis xx KX xx XX XX Garfield xx +- Yorktown XX Adams XX XX Indianapolis KX XX Atlanta XX Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, OCr'C TABLE 24 BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT • PROPOSED MIDBLOCK MITIGATION MEASURES Intersection Restriping of Beach Signal Parking With Milepost Coordination Restrictions Edinger 5. 6 at McDonald XX Heil 5. 1 XX Warner 4 . 6 XX Slater 4 . 1 at Newman XX �- Talbert 3 . 6 XX Ellis 3. 1 XX Garfield 2 . 6 Yorktown 2 . 1 Adams 1. 6 at Indianapolis �- Atlanta 0. 6 Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, OCTC • 101 �- 3. 14 Public Services • Law Enforcement Environmental The City of Huntington Beach Police Department Setting provides law enforcement services to the project area. The Police Department operates from a central station located at 2000 Main Street. Police Department personnel indicate that the City presently has 206 sworn officers, or 1. 1 officers per 1, 000 persons. The City's objective is to meet the Department of Justice national standard of 2 . 0 officers per 1000 population. �- Motorized equipment maintained by the police force include marked and unmarked patrol cars, vans, all-terrain vehicles (ATV's) for beach patrol, and a helicopter unit. Typical response times are based on a priority level rating system. Priority-one calls average five-minute response times, priority two calls average seven minutes, and priority- three calls average 8.8 minutes. The City is divided into reporting districts assuring uniform response by patrolling units. The. project area involves approximately 24 reporting districts. Environmental . The Huntington Beach Police Department has Impact developed formulas for determining manpower *�- needs for development. These formulas include commercial and residential land uses and are based on. several factors including square footage, dwelling units, and the desired. number of calls per patrol officer on an annual basis. Using these formulas, existing development in the project area requires approximately 1.9 police officers to provide adequate protection. This does not include officers for traffic related incidents. The proposed project would result in increased commercial, office and residential development compared to existing uses. This increased, development would also result in increased police manpower requirements in order to provide adequate service and protection. Using the same formulas as above, the project 102 �- area could expect approximately 3 . 3 officers upon complete development of the project area. This does not include additional manpower that • may be needed for traffic related incidents. Beach Boulevard is a designated State Highway and would normally come under the jurisdiction of the California Highway Patrol. However, all of Beach Boulevard within the City limits of Huntington Beach is patrolled by the City. .- The proposed project would not have a signifi- cant impact on CHP activities. too Mitigation Additional manpower needs and requirements are Measures based on an on-going workload analysis program and service level determined by the City Council. Additional positions and equipment Y- will be added as necessary to maintain an adequate level of service. r s • 4.r r.. Gam. L.r i� • .. 103 I �- Fire • Environmental Fire Protection to the project area is Setting provided by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Additional services are provided by the cities of Westminster and Fountain Valley in an automatic aid agreement between these cities. Four stations within Huntington Beach provide �.. fire protection to the project area with response times under five minutes. These four stations are the Murdy Station, Gothard Station, Lake Station, and the Bushard Station. The equipment maintained at each station is as follows; �- Murdy - One truck company, one engine company, one medic unit; Gothard - Two engine companies, one chief officer; Lake - One truck company, one engine company, one medic unit; Bushard - one engine company. The manpower at each station includes three men per engine company, four men per truck company, two men per medic unit, and two men at battalion headquarters. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) has set up _ a nationwide rating based on existing fire protection capabilities to set insurance standards for businesses. These capability ratings are based on manpower, equipment, response times, and fireflows, and range from . one to ten with one being the highest rating. The Huntington Beach Fire Department has an ISO, Class 2 rating. Orange County maintains an Emergency Hazardous_ Material Response Team (HAZMAT) to deal with accidents involving hazardous or potentially. hazardous materials. The Gothard Station is the home base for one of three Type 1 HAZMAT units maintained by the County. .Environmental Fireflows within the project area have been ` Impact continually upgraded over the years. The City has adopted the Uniform Building Code and a 104 i.. �.. sprinkler ordinance which set requirements for fire flow and internal fire protection for all • major structures as approved by the Huntington IWO Beach Fire Department. The proposed project, together with other development in the City, may result in added manpower and equipment needs to serve City-wide demands. Such needs are evaluated annually based on experience of the Fire Department. Mitigation The following mitigation measures are expected Measures to reduce potential fire protection system impacts to an acceptable level. 1. All designs and plans for construction on L. the project will be reviewed by the Fire Department prior to approval by the City. 2 . Structures to be constructed will be provided with fire detection and supression systems as required by the Uniform Building Code and the City sprinkler. ordinance. 3 . The proposed development will be required • to have installed water mains and hydrants providing fire flow and access distances as required by the Fire Department. 4 . Any proposed developments will be required to provide adequate access for fire equipment to all structures on the project site as required by the Fire Department. 105 • rr Schools • Environmental Three School Districts, the Ocean View School ;.. Setting District, Huntington Beach City School District, and the Huntington Beach Union High School District provide elementary, junior and high school education to the project area. Two school sites are located within the project area. Both of these schools, Rancho View and Crest View, are part of the Ocean View School District. Rancho View is currently inactive and used as administrative offices. The District has set the site aside for a long-term commercial lease. The Crest View School is currently open with an enrollment of 537 students, grades kindergarten through eight. District plans for this school include continued educational use for five to ten years, with a potential commercial lease option afterwards. Environmental Elementary student (K-8) enrollment throughout Impact Huntington Beach has experienced a general decline from 14 , 000 in 1976 to 8, 500 presently and, as a result, several school sites in the City have been .closed or converted to other uses. However, current projections indicate that this trend is leveling off and enrollment may experience a slow increase. The Huntington -Beach Union High School District has seven school sites in Westminster, Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley, four of which are located in Huntington Beach. These schools are Ocean View High, Huntington Beach High, Edison High, and Marina .High. High .School enrollment for the District reached a maximum of 21, 200 in 1978 and has declined to about 17, 000 presently. The high schools .now average between 2600 and 2800 students. Even with noticeable decline, the District indicates that classroom space is near capacity. However, California State Lottery monies have allowed the District to hire more teachers to help alleviate the overcrowding. Because the Rancho View school is currently closed, and District plans include a long-term commercial, lease, recycling this site to a commercial use would not have a significant 106 ,. impact. The recycling of the Crest View School at some later date would have an • adverse impact on students using the school, and would require the District to transport these students to other schools. The District has an established transportation program, anc although some additional costs would be .. incurred, transporting these students would reduce this impact. The Huntington Beach City School District has . identified five schools that may be potentially impacted by the proposed project. These schools are Dwyer, Perry, Kettle, Smith and Sowers. The Peterson School , located less than one-tenth of one mile from from the project area between Indianapolis and Atlanta, i,. is presently closed. The Huntington Beach City School District has indicated that enrollment is currently at or near capacity for operating schools. Residential development within the project area and additional employment generated by a.r the project would be expected to add additional school-aged children to the area. According to 1980 U.S. Census Bureau data, there were 40, 193 children enrolled in school • in the City and 61, 322 dwelling units. Based on this, the housing required for the proposed project could generate approximately 315 to �- 335 additional children of school age. Redevelopment law requires the Redevelopment ,r Agency to use up to 20% of the tax increment money to benefit low- and moderate-income housing. This may result in additional housing which may have an impact on schools in the area. However, the. law further states that this may be in the form of providing additional housing or improving on existing �.. housing, which would not result in additional impacts on schools. Furthermore, the Redevelopment Agency is not required to spend this allocation within the project area boundaries. This money may also be used towards senior housing projects and the Redevelopment Agency has historically been an active participant in this area. The Redevelopment Agency was involved in the development of a 164-unit senior housing 107 project which it now owns. Any additional • senior housing projects benefitting from the 20% tax increment funding from the proposed project would not have an impact on the school system. The increase in employment generated by the proposed project is not significant on a regional level and it is expected that a percentage of the labor force to be employed by the project: already reside within the school district boundaries. Mitigation The Ocean View School District will provide Measures transportation to other schools in the City of Huntington Beach for those students that may be displaced as a result of the closure of Crest View school. This would reduce this impact to a level considered less than significant. No additional mitigation ,r measures are required. If the Redevelopment Agency decides to use 20% of the tax increment money required by law to benefit low- and moderate-income housing, it may do so in an area of the. City where the school district is experiencing less overcrowding, if such an area exists. The Redevelopment Agency may also use all or a portion of this money to improve existing housing or provide senior housing, both of which would not have a significant impact on the school system. The Huntington Beach City School District could also open the presently closed Petersen School site which is located within one-quarter mile of the proposed residential developments in the project area. The school districts should continue to acquire, to the extent available, California State Lottery monies for additional teaching staff to reduce student-teacher ratios. _. The California legislature has changed the rules governing school facilities financing by authorizing school districts to directly levy school impact fees, dedications, or other requirements for temporary or permanent facilities construction. This legislation (Assembly Bill 2926, 1986 Stats. Ch. 887) also allows school districts to impose "any other • form of requirement" on developers, including the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District. 108 This legislation (which became effective January 1, 1987) does, however, place • a ,ceiling on the cumulative amount of developers fees which can be levied for school facilities. Residential development fees are capped at $1.50 per square foot, and commercial and industrial fees at $0.25 per square foot. These caps will be annually adjusted to reflect inflation. However, the full impacts of this newly passed legislation cannot be accuratey assessed at this time. These measures would further reduce any potential impacts on the school system �. resulting from the proposed project. . Ir 1r • i� 109 • I Libraries Environmental The City of Huntington Beach maintains a Setting central library with three additional annexes, Mainstreet, Banning and Grand. This library system consists of 82 ,100 square feet of building space and a book volume of 364 , 500 • titles. The closest library to the project area is the Main Street Annex library located at 525 Main Street. Environmental The Huntington Beach Library system is Impact currently nearing 95% capacity of available book space and is experiencing overcrowding and parking deficiencies. Additional population increases are expected to increase the demand for library services. The proposed project, in conjunction with additional growth in the City would have an adverse impact on library services. Mitigation Future plans for the library system already Measures include expansion of building space and parking at the Central Library and building expansion of . the Banning and Grand annexes to accommodate increased patrons and volumes. These measures would reduce the impact on this service to a level considered less than significant. No additional mitigation measures are required. r. AWN W ►r • 110 r �- 3.15 Energy Environmental The importance of energy conservation has been • Setting made clear to the public in recent years a's a result of increases in the price of energy, recognition of the national interest in reducir-, dependence on foreign energy sources and increasing concern with the environmental impact of coal and nuclear sources on which the U.S. will depend for expansion of generating capacity. Environmental Because the growth anticipated as a result of Impact the project is a small proportion of regional growth and does not represent a significantly different energy use compared to growth in other locations in the region, the impact of this growth increment on .regional energy resources is not expected to be significant. However, all unnecessary energy use is of concern and mitigation measures should be considered to reduce energy consumption. (Estimates of energy usage by the proposed project are discussed under Section 3 . 16, Utilities. ) Mitigation The following mitigation measures are included Measures in the proposed project to reduce energy consumption: • 1. Compliance with California Energy Commission Standards for energy-conserving construction techniques in all new construction. 2 . Attention to measures to reduce vehicle �- miles traveled and encourage use of high-occupancy vehicles in all large single-tenant projects as outlined under circulation mitigation measures. 111 • V.o 3.16 Utilities • Water Environmental Water is provided to the project area by the Setting Huntington Beach Water Department. The Huntington Beach Water Department purchases .. water from the Municipal Water District and supplies its own water from eight operating City-owned wells. Several water mains transect the project area.. Along the major east-west arterials, a 20-inch main runs along Warner and 12-inch mains are -- located along Edinger, Yorktown, Adams and Atlanta Avenues. The remaining arterials contain eight-inch mains. The main lines along Beach Boulevard are mostly eight inches, however there are uncompleted sections in the southern portion of the project area. Environmental The proposed project would result in increased Impact water consumption and demand on the City water system. Table 25 identifies the estimated water consumption of the proposed project. Currently, the project area is estimated to use approximately 327, 000 gallons per day. The proposed project is expected to result in the consumption of approximately 670, 000 gallons per day, an increase of 104 percent. Both the current General Plan and GPA alternatives would result in increased water consumption compared to the proposed project. This represents a significant increase in consumption and the Huntington Beach Water Department indicates that this project, along with other_ development, would have an adverse impact on existing water sources. r. The transmission system in portions of the project area is inadequate to supply future increased development and would require upgrading. However, development plans include upgrading of the water system to increase capacity to accommodate the proposed project and provide suitable fire hydrant locations and adequate fire flow requirements. Water supplied to the project area is monitored ,. and tested in accordance with applicable State and local requirements and meets all • Federal and State Drinking Water Standards. "` 112 low �+. TABLE 25 DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION • (million gallons per day) ------------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- ----- ----------� Gallons/day Existing Proposed GPA Alternative Land Use per unit Units Usage Units Usage Units Usage ------------------ ------ (mad) ----------- Commercial 100.0 2053 ksf 0.205 37.79 ksf 0.378 3827 ksf 0.382 office 100.0 508 ksf 0.051 272 ksf 0.027 . 272 ksf 0.027 Mixed 100.0 16 ksf 0.002 107 ksf 0.010 107 ksf 0.010 Recreation 100.0 0 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.001 7 ksf 0.001 Residential 390.0 180 units 0.070 653 units 0.254 653 units 0.254 •+ TOTAL 0.327 0.670 0.674 ---- -------------- -----—------------- -------------------- ------------- ksf: Thousand square feet MGD: Million gallons per day i.. Source of Generation Factors: City of Los Angeles EIR Manual for Private Projects, 1976. Mitigation Mitigation measures included in the development Measures plan regarding the transmission system include the construction and replacement of all substandard lines along Beach Boulevard with eight-inch mains and complete loops to the extent Redevelopment funds are available. Additional construction would involve the upgrading to twelve-inch mains at Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, and Atlanta. Additional improvements will be reviewed on a project-by-project basis. In order to supply additional future water requirements, the Huntington Beach Water Department may be required to drill additional �- wells or construct an additional connection to MWD sources. At this time, drilling an additional well or wells appears to be the most feasible. In the event well contamination is identified, the Water Department would be required to obtain water from other sources. The following mitigation measures are offered to encourage water conservation: 113 i.. 1. The use of shrubbery and vegetation with • minimal water requirements wherever possible; 2 . Using automatic sprinkler systems to ensure landscape watering during early morning hours or during the evening, reducing the amount of water normally lost through evaporation; �- 3 . Install low volume toilet tanks to reduce water consumption; ,,. 4. Install plumbing fixtures designed to reduce water loss from leakage due to faulty or damaged washers; 5. Install flow control devices to reduce water flow from faucets. These mitigation measures would reduce potential water service impacts. r.. • 114 w ,., Sanitation Environmental Sewage collection from the project area is • Setting provided by the Orange County. Sanitation Districts No. 3 and No. 11. Generally, everything south of Garfield Avenue goes to District No. 11 and everything north goes to W. District No. 3 . The Districts indicate that I their facilities have been sized to F-10 accommodate master planned flows. These Districts have lines in the area including a large trunk line along Pacific Coast Highway. However, no County facilities currently exist from Atlanta to Talbert in the project area. v The Slater Pump station in District 3 is nearing capacity and has created some capacity deficiencies for this district. . The proposed coast trunk sewer would accept some flows from this area and would help alleviate some of the current deficiencies, if implemented. The effluent collected from the project area goes to either Treatment Plant No. 1 in .. Fountain Valley or Treatment Plant No. 2 located in Huntington Beach. The Regional Water Quality Control Board indicates that • the District has a current treatment plant F-10 capacity of approximately 240 million gallons per day and is operating well within that capacity, and is continuously expanding tl- facilities in response to development requirements. Treatment Plant No. 1 provides full secondary treatment and Treatment Plant No. 2 provides partial . secondary treatment. The project area is currently sewered. The City system consists mostly of eight inch lines with some reaches up to ten and twelve inches. Environmental The Sanitation District currently operates Impact under a NPDES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board. This permit has a set discharge limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids for treated water. For every million gallons of water the facilities treat, one milligram of BOD is . added to the system. 115 • L The District has indicated• that it- is nearing this permit limit and all additional .effluent treated impacts this system, but can utilize chemical treatment to increase the efficiency of the plant in meeting the BOD requirement. The Slater Pump station near Ellis and Golden West is at capacity and any additional effluent generated in that network creates an impact. Because no County facilities currently exist between Atlanta and Talbert, most of. the effluent in this area would be collected at Pacific Coast Highway. Since the majority of vacant land is located south of Garfield Avenue, proposed development would be expected to have a greater impact on District No. 11 than District No. 3 . Projected sewer flows from the project area are presented in Table 26. The project area is estimated to generate approximately 256, OOO gallons per day currently and would be expected to generate approximately 539, 000 r.. gallons per day upon completion, a 97% increase. These figures were generated from factors supplied by the Sanitation District. The approximately 0. 50 million gallons per day of sewage flow anticipated for the project is approximately two-tenths of one percent (0. 2%) of the current plant capacity, - and does not represent a significant treatment plant impact over the anticipated 35-year development period. The peak sewer flow is estimated to be 1.78 cubic feet per second,' which represents a 48%. increase over existing conditions. The current General Plan and General Plan amendment alternatives would generate higher flows than the proposed project. ._ Because the incremental impact of the project is a small percentage of treatment plant capacity, and because the Sanitation Districts indicate that they are engaged in a regular program of expansion to meet demands, this impact is considered to be less than significant. • 116 :.. TABLE 26 PROJECTED AVERAGE SEWER FLOW • (millions gallons per day) rr Existing Proposed GPA Alternative gat/day Flow Flow Flow Land Use unit Units (mgd) Units (mgd) Units (mgd) Commercial 75 2053 ksf 0.154 3779 ksf 0.283 3827 ksf 0.287 Office 75 508 ksf 0.038 272 ksf 0.020 272 ksf 0.020 Mixed 75 16 ksf 0.001 107 ksf 0.008 107 ksf 0.008 Recreation 4.6 0 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.000 Residential 350 180 units 0.063 653 units 0.228 653 units 0.228 - --- TOTAL 0.256 0.539 0.543 -------------------------- ---------------- ------------ ------------- y KSF: Thousand Square Feet MGD• Million Gallons Per Day Generation factors modified by Cotton/Betand/Associates from Orange County Sanitation District figures. L.. TABLE 27 • PROJECT PEAK SEWER FLOW (cubic feet per second) -------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- cubic ft./ second Existing Proposed GPA Alternative ... Land Use per unit Units Flow Units Flow Units Flow (cfs) (cfs) (cfs) .. Commercial 0.00038 2053 ksf 0.780 3779 ksf 1.436 3827 ksf 1.454 Office 0.00075 508 ksf 0.381 272 ksf 0.204 272 ksf 0.204 Mixed 0.00038 16 ksf 0.006 107 ksf 0.040 107 ksf 0.040 Recreation 0.00016 0 ksf 0.000 7 ksf 0.001 7 ksf 0.001 Residential 0.00015 180 du's 0.029 653 du's 0.097 653 du's 0.097 -------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- TOTAL 1.196 1.778 1.796 -------------------------- ------------------ ------------------ ----------------- KSF: Thousand Square Feet CFS: Cubic Feet Per Second Source of generation factors: modified by CBA from City of Los Angeles EIR Manual for Private Projects, 1976. 117 I I Mitigation Measures that reduce the total volume and load • Measures strength of effluent entering the County system will reduce the impact on the `BOD level at the treatment facilities. Typical Wei mitigation measures to reduce this impact include low-flow showers, water saving toilets and other conservation efforts. Source control measures at food processing businesses such as grease traps, land disposal of foodstuffs, or recycling foodstuffs for animal feed would reduce the BOD potential to some extent. Treating on-site prior to collection by the County system would also provide mitigation. Most of these measures would . need to be implemented on an individual project basis. w.. Improvements to the City system included in the proposed project, to the extent Redevelopment funds are available, include the installation of approximately 2700 feet of twelve-inch line from Yorktown Avenue to Adams Avenue. +- All hook-ups will require permits through the City of Huntington Beach and any use generating industrial flows will require permits from the County Industrial Waste Division. Construction of additional treatment capacity is programmed by the County Sanitation Districts on a regular basis to meet treatment needs in the county. The expansion of treatment facilities is paid for by fees paid by new development as well as fees imposed on all users of the. sewer system. L. • 118 Electrical Power Environmental Electrical power service is provided by • Setting Southern California Edison Company. Power is presently supplied to the project area by overhead lines along Beach Boulevard and major cross streets. Environmental Increased development in the project area Impact would result in increased electrical consumption and would create an impact upon the energy supply in the region. Table 28 presents the estimated annual electrical energy consumption of the project area. ti.. Presently, the project area is estimated to use approximately 32. 7 million kilowatt hours per year. The proposed project, upon completion, is expected to use approximately 54 .9 million kilowatt hours, a 68% increase over existing conditions. Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds Southern California Edison' s current estimates, and provided there are no unexpected outages to major sources of electrical supply, SCE expects to meet its electrical requirements for the next several years. • The Southern California Edison Company already has plans to underground the existing overhead lines along Beach Boulevard from Warner Avenue to Garfield Avenue. Construction is expected to start in late 1987 and be completed by 1990. Impacts i` associated with undergrounding include potential pole relocation during construction, and minor traffic delays. These impacts would be short term and are not considered significant. ,", On a long-term basis undergrounding these lines would provide a beneficial impact on the visual quality of the project area by removing unsightly overhead lines. However, on the short-term, secondary impacts associated with construction-related activities would result. 119 • TABLE 28 • PROJECTED ANNUAL ELECTRICAL ENERGY USAGE y (million kilowatt hours per year$ ------------------------------------------------ --------------------- ------------ Existing Proposed GPA Alternative kwh/year Usage Usage Usage Land Use ------sgft./du___ ___Units Millions Units Millions Units millions— Commercial 12.3 2053 ksf 25.3 3779 ksf 46.5 3827 ksf 47.1 Office 12.2 508 ksf 6.2 272 ksf 3.3 272 ksf 3.3 r.r Mixed 12.3 16 ksf 0.2 107 ksf 0.2 107 ksf 1.3 Recreation 4.4 0 ksf 0.0 7 ksf 0.0 7 ksf 0.0 Residential 5838.0 180 du 1.1 653 du 3.8 653 du 3.8 TOTAL 32.7 54.9 55.5 Source of Generation Factors: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental Impact Reports revised December, 1983". energy Mitigation Widespread conservation measures g P 9Y measures provide the greatest mitigation potential . Those measures include, but are not limited to, retrofitting to solar systems, construction requirements included in the California State building standards under Title 24 of the California Administrative �- Code, using major appliances during off-peak hours, and utilizing energy efficient appliances and equipment. Public improvements associated with the proposed project include the undergrounding of utility lines within the project area to the extent redevelopment funds are available. W. • 120 •• Natural Gas Environmental Natural gas service is provided to the project Setting area by Southern California Gas Company. Gas • lines presently transect the project, area along Beach Boulevard and along major cross streets. r. No known significant problem areas presently exist in the project area and the supply of gas to the area is sufficient to meet the expected growth of the project.. However, the availiability of natural gas supplies can be affected by external influences of the global political arena and may not always be accessible. Shortages of natural gas on the West Coast have occurred in the past. Environmental Increased development would result in Impact - increased demand for natural gas. Current and projected consumption figures are shown in Table 29. Natural gas consumption for commercial buildings .will vary depending on the type of energy system incorporated into the building design and the degree of its usage as a primary energy .source. Assuming reliance on natural gas as a primary energy source, additional commercial and residential development in the project area may be • expected to consume approximately 14 . 5 million cubic feet per month, or 174 million cubic feet per year, an 85% increase over existing conditions. �- Southern California Gas company representatives have indicated that the proposed project can be serviced from facilities in the area. The service would be in accordance with the Company' s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time i- contractual agreements are made. Since natural gas is a non-renewable, depletable resource, proposed development increases would result in more rapid consumption of natural gas reserves. With growth occurring throughout the County as a whole this would have an impact on a regional level. Continued conservation practices and technological advances may result in incremental decreases in natural gas consumption. 121 • • TABLE 29 �. PROJECTED MONTHLY NATURAL GAS USAGE (million cubic feet per month) ir. ------- ------- --------------- -- ---- Existing Proposed GPA Alternative cf/month Usage Usage Usage Land Use _sg_ft_Ldu_— _—Units mcfZ____ UnitsSmcfZ Units (mcf)— Commercial 2.9 2053 ksf 6.00 3779 ksf 10.96 3827 ksf 11.09 Office 2.0 508 ksf 1.02 272 ksf 0.54 272 ksf 0.54 Mixed 2.9 16 ksf 0.05 107 ksf 0.31 107 ksf 0.31 Recreation 0.5 0 ksf 0.0 7 ksf 0.00 7 ksf 0.00 Residential 4100.0 180 du 0.74 653 du 2.67 653 du 2.67 1� TOTAL 7.8 14.48 14.61 w ---------- ------------------ ------------- ------ ksf: Thousand Square Feet mcf• Million Cubic Feet Source of generation factors: South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Air Quality Handbook for Environmental impact Reports revised December, 1983". Mitigation Continued conservation ractices q practices, Measures construction requirements involved in the California State building standards under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code, retrofitting existing structures, considering solar installations to supplement water heating requirements, and . utilizing energy efficient equipment provide adequate mitigation. Individual building design review will be done on a project-by- project basis. Any expansions to the existing service system will be done by the Southern California Gas Company. • 122 '~ Telephone Service Environmental General Telephone provides telephone services • setting to the project area via overhead and underground lines throughout. the project area and to those individuals whom request this service. Environmental Increased development in the project area Impact would require additional connections to the W General Telephone network. No unique problems are foreseen in providing quality telephone service to the area and this impact is not considered significant. Undergrounding the telephone lines in the project area is included in the redevelopment plan. On the long-term, these improvements would enhance the visual quality of the area by removing unsightly overhead lines. On a short-term basis, undergrounding the telephone lines would result in additional construction, traffic and air quality impacts. However, these impacts would be " short-term and not considered significant. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Measures , 123 • a.. Solid Waste Disposal Environmental . •Solid waste disposal for the project area is . Setting provided by the Rainbow Disposal Company. Solid wastes are taken to the Coyote Canyon Landfill located in -Coyote Canyon in the City of Irvine. The Coyote Canyon Landfill is the responsibility of the Orange County Sanitation District. This landfill site is a Class III site which allows only municipal wastes and does not allow liquids, chemicals or hazardous wastes.. This site is expected to reach capacity in 1988 at which time it will close. Permits are currently being processed to open a new site, Bee Canyon Landfill located in Irvine, to be used upon closure of Coyote Canyon. The Bee Canyon site is anticipated to . have a life-expectancy of 20 to 25 years. There are no Class I hazardous waste disposal sites within Orange County. The two nearest sites currently accepting hazardous wastes are located in Casmalia in Santa Barbara and Kettleman Hills in Kern County. Environmental Solid waste generated by the project area is Impact shown in Table 30. Currently, the project area generates approximately 259, 000 pounds of solid waste per day. The proposed project is expected to increase the amount. of solid waste generated daily to approximately 420, 200 ` pounds, a 62 percent increase. This level of solid waste represents a small percentage of the total solid waste capacity available in the county, and would have an insignificant impact on solid waste on a regional level. However, as the capacity of the County's landfill sites become exhausted, all generators of solid and liquid waste would create a negative impact. Hazardous waste disposal poses a regional problem. With no. facilities in the entire County, and only two available regionally, a large demand is being placed on these facilities. Any generators of hazardous waste/materials in the project area would result in incremental filling of licensed disposal sites. Based on current zoning, most uses in the project area are not major • 124 TABLE 30 SOLID WASTE GENERATION • ;�. (Pounds Per Day) Existing Use Proposed Use GPA Alternative r Lbs/day Total Total Total Land Use Unit UnitS.....Slbs)___ Units (lbs) Units (lbs) _ Commercial 0.1 2053 ksf 205300 3779 ksf 377900 3827 ksf 382700 Office 0.1 508 ksf 50800 272 ksf 27200 272 ksf .27200 Mixed 0.1 16 ksf 1600 107 ksf 10700 107 ksf 10700 Recreation 0.01 0 ksf 0 7 ksf 70 7 ksf 70 Residential 6.6 180 du's 1188 653 dues 4310 653 dues 4310 TOTAL 258888 420180 424980 ,.. Source: Brian J. Smith, Solid Waste Generation Factors in California Solid Waste Management Board, Technical Information Series•Bulletin No. 2 (Sacramento, California: Office of the State Printer, July 8, 1974). �- generators of hazardous waste and are not • expected to have a significant impact on hazardous waste disposal. Mitigation Minimizing the quantity of waste going to Measures landfill sites will require reduction in the volume generated at the source. This may be accomplished through treatment of more efficient processing or manufacturing processes. To offset solid waste generated by �.. the proposed project, businesses and retail centers should provide source separatiLn for recyclable materials such as compaction and binding of cardboard boxes or can and bottle only bins. Any generators of hazardous waste may consider treatment on-site as a mitigation measure that complies with all State safety �- codes and regulations pertaining to hazardous waste. Any existing or proposed underground tanks storing hazardous material/waste will require a permit from the County. • 125 Storm Drainage • Environmental As reviousl discussed in Section 3. 3, P Y . Setting portions of the project area are located within the designated 100 year flood zone. As recently as 1983, portions of Huntington Beach experienced extensive flooding, including portions of the project area. The Orange County Flood" Control District 4 (OCFCD) maintains three flood control channels in or near the project area which would ultimately collect and transport runoff from the project area. These three channels are: The East Garden Grove-Wintersburg (C05) Channel which travels southwesterly across the . project area at Heil Avenue; the Ocean View Channel (C06) which parallels Warner Avenue to the north and connects with C05 west of Beach Boulevard; and the Huntington Beach Channel �. (D01) which parallels Beach Boulevard south of Adams Avenue. The City maintains a system of storm drains throughout the project area with pipe sizes ranging from 18 inches to 36 inches. These drains are located along both sides of Beach Boulevard for the most part, and at most of the major cross-streets. .. The County D01 channel in the Adams Avenue area currently is inadequate to contain the projected 100 year storm event. However, the OCFCD is currently improving this channel with ~ the Bartlett retarding basin which is scheduled to be completed early next year. While this improvement will improve the ability of this ,.. channel to handle local runoff, the channel is constrained downstream by the "capacity of the H-6 Talbert. Channel outlet into the ocean. Improvements are programmed to increase the capacity of the outlet by enlarging the bridge on Pacific Coast Highway. Following bridge construction, additional improvements to the �- outlet will be required. Once these additional outlet improvements are H-6 made, some additional improvements are anticipated to be required in the D01 channel to provide full 100-year flood protection. The County C05 channel, according to the OCFCD, has not posed significant problems in handling high runoffs. The same is reported for the C06 channel. r.. 126 The area will still be exposed to flooding from the Santa Ana River. Major upstream • improvements will be required to eliminate r. this impact. No program yet exists to solve this flooding problem. Environmental The proposed project would result in the Impact ultimate coverage of a large percentage of the project area with impervious surfaces. Approximately 32 acres of the site are =- undeveloped and development of these areas plus the intensification of other areas would result in increased speed and amount of runoff r unless additional measures are taken to contain this runoff. Current and future improvements by the County, including the Bartlett retarding basin, and improvements to the City storm drain system included in the proposed project are expected to adequately contain additional runoff generated by the proposed project. Improvements to the City system include the installation of 2 , 200 feet of 18-inch and 24-inch pipes from _Stark to Sher, a 48-inch pipe on the east side between Atlanta and Indianapolis, and 48-inch and 36-inch drains • on the west side from Atlanta to Indianapolis. The proposed project is not expected to add significant additional amounts of runoff to the C05 channel northeast of the Beach Boulevard undercrossing since this area is already developed. 1 Mitigation Mitigation measures included in the Measures development plan would reduce the impact on ._ the storm drain system. Additional mitigation measures include proper hook-up to City drains in accordance with the City of Huntington Beach regulations governing this activity, and any direct hook-ups with the OCFCD channels will be in accordance with County regulations. Further review will be required on an -- individual project basis and may require City or County on-site retention requirements. ' Permits will be required for the connection, extension, enlargement, or modification to any storm drain facilities maintained by the . County. Redevelopment Agency participation • �.. 127 w could be required for any improvements to • County storm drain facilities within the project area. These measures should reduce this impact. The impact of the project on increasing runoff would be fully mitigated_ by requiring onsite or offsite retention of the increment in runoff from the 100-year storm resulting from development. Although this measure would r. not solve existing downstream flooding problems, it would ensure that new development does not adversely affect runoff. The mitigation measure is included in the proposed project. v w ir. - yr • 127 . 1 Y �- 3.17 Human Health Environmental Potential human health impacts include the • Setting creation of any hazard, and the exposure of people to potential health hazards. No significant health hazards are known to exist n the project area. Environmental The project is not expected to result in the Impact exposure of people to additional health hazards. The exposure of people to environmental noise is discussed in Section 3 . 6. Mitigation The Orange County Vector Control District Measures guidelines controlling the populations and dispersal of vectors shall be incorporated as part of the proposed project. These measures i�. include notification of the District at least two weeks prior to demolition or grading on any B-1 structures or dwellings that may have the potential to harbor rodents. This will allow sufficient time to inspect or place rodenticide bait prior to demolition to reduce the potential for rodent dispersal . Sites should be graded for proper runoff to avoid standing water that could breed • mosquitoes. Trash should be held in fly proof container and emptied on a regular schedule. During the landscape phase of the project, �". plants that are attractive to rodents should be avoided. The District has a prepared list of ground cover less attractive to rodents. For public safety reasons, any active oil wells and associated facilities should be surrounded by a minimum eight-foot wall. Climbable T-2 landscaping should be prohibited around the outside of these enclosures. Yr. • 128 bo ,Jo 3.18 Aesthetics Environmental The project area consists mainly of strip setting commercial developments and auto dealerships and to a lesser extent, office space and residential homes. �.. The project area is a linear configuration five miles long with a mixture of older and newer developments. There is little cohesion or similarity of design or landscaping between developments. There are developments, both commercial and a.. residential, within the project area that appear vacant. Others show signs of dilapidation and are in need of repair. These i. blighted and blight-influenced areas result in lower property values and a reduced tax base for the City. Environmental The implementation of the proposed project Impact would result in an overall beneficial impact to the area. Redevelopment Agency improve- ments and land acquisitions would alleviate irregular and undersized lots and allow • consistent, appropriate development while eliminating blighting and blight-influencing conditions. Beach Boulevard is a heavily traveled arterial -- and a concentrated commercial area. Throughout the entire project area, a distinct lack of visual unity in design, landscaping and architecture is evident among the commercial retail and office centers. The proposed project would further improve the visual quality of the area by incorporating median landscaping, street furniture and theme signage. Mitigation Design review by the City on a project-by- Measures project basis prior to private development approval would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. i 129 3. 19 Parks and Recreation Environmental The Huntington Beach General Plan Recreation • Setting Element identifies ten neighborhood parks within approximately one mile of the project area. Of these ten parks, two are within the project area boundaries. The National Recreation and Park Association considers a neighborhood park to have a service area of one-quarter to one-half mile radius to serve up to 5, 000 residents (A-5) . Figure 21 shows the approximate service areas for the nearby neighborhood parks. ■•. The Rancho View School site is a shared park facility that contains the local Little League home field. The field is within the project , area and is anticipated to be removed for commercial development. The remaining park within the project area is Bartlett Park located on the east side of Beach between Yorktown and Adams. This 30-acre park, which includes the Newland Barn and House, and the historic Santa Ana River floodplain and ;., escarpment, is presently undeveloped and in a natural state. The large 300-acre Huntington Beach Central Park is located approximately two-thirds of a mile to the east on Gothard Street between Slater and Ellis Avenues and , provides �• recreational opportunities for the entire City. Huntington State Park is within one-half mile from the southern portion of the project area. Environmental Existing residential development is sporadi- Impact cally located along the length of the project and does not rely on a single park site for recreation. Anticipated residential development would occur in the southern portion of the project, south of Adams Avenue. Only one of these areas is within a neighborhood park service area; however, the . 190-acre Central Park is within two miles, and Huntington State Park is within one-half mile. Because of the close proximity of the regional park, the incremental increase. in population anticipated from the proposed project is not considered significant. 130 i • �1 Z4 . . . • ' 1 Y \ '`aNM X aINN 14 .3.� gN � ��� .41 a�`� ���i \ NM�MM �N N . • • 1 • 1 w Implementation of the proposed project would • result. in the removal of the existing home field for the local Little League and would have a temporary impact on baseball activities until a replacement field location could be found. Mitigation Mitigation measures for the baseball field Measures include the relocation of the existing facility to another acceptable area of the City. The Redevelopment Agency would not be required to pay cash in-lieu fees for this site, but the developer may be required to provide an adequate site as a condition for development. Preliminary development plans have been made for Bartlett Park to provide additional recreational opportunities for anticipated increases in population in the area. The preliminary plans include a basketball court, volleyball court, children's sand area with play equipment, natural areas, open turf for general recreation and additional parking. Additional improvements at the Newland Barn . for historical artifacts are also included in the preliminary plans. Redevelopment funds, to the extent available, will be used for development at this site along with funds from the City of Huntington Beach Parks and Recreation Department. These measures would reduce this impact to an insignificant level. a. • 133 3.20 Historic and Cultural Resources Historical Resources • y Environmental The historical and cultural resource section Setting of the Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) Super Streets Demonstration Project Draft Program Environmental Impact Report, December, 1985, is hereby incorporated by reference (A-4) . Copies of this document are available for review at the Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main. This report includes an historical survey of Beach Boulevard from the Pacific Coast Highway north to the San Diego Freeway. The report indicated that the area immediately adjacent to Beach Boulevard has undergone continual change and development. No major contiguous historic districts or neighborhoods �. exist within the project area. There are no listed National Register and/or California State Historic Landmarks within the project area. However, the Newland House, located between Yorktown and Adams on the east side of Beach Boulevard, is listed as an • �- historic site in the City. This 1-1/2 story Queen Anne style structure is potentially eligible for listing as either a State Historic Landmark or on the National Register. The home is situated approximately 150 feet from the right-of-way near the Santa Ana River floodplain scarp. Environmental The Newland House is located to the south and Impact rear of the Newland Shopping Center. Antici- pated development is not expected to .increase significantly at this location and would not have a significant impact on this structure. Street improvements for this area include bus turnouts and intersection widening. The historic building is set back substantially •- from the existing right-of-way and these improvements would not have a significant impact. Mitigation No mitigation measures are required. Measures 134 Archaeological Resources • Environmental. The OCTC' Super Streets EIR had an Setting archaeological resources search performed by the University of California at Los Angeles Institute of Archaeology for Beach Boulevard. �. This search found three sites along Beach Boulevard within the project area. The first site (ORA 358) was found near Beach Boulevard and Indianapolis Avenue: Some prehistoric artifacts have been recorded. No excavation has been performed and the site has been disturbed. The second site (CA ORA 183) is associated with the Newland House which is located on Beach Boulevard near Adams Avenue. A 1983 report for the Huntington Beach Historical Society has recommended that two areas be set aside for future investigations as the site has yielded important aboriginal . information. The third site (ORA 296) is adjacent to Beach Boulevard between Newman and Slater Avenues. No excavation has been done. Environmental For those sites that have already been Impact disturbed, the impact of increased development would not be significant. For undisturbed sites, development into these areas has the potential to create an adverse impact. Mitigation Development should seek to avoid damaging Measures effects on an archaeological resource whenever feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, the importance of the site shall be evaluated and mitigation measures included in Appendix K of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines shall be incorporated in -- the project. In general, these guidelines require the .r following: ° Preservation of sites in places as the preferred manner of avoiding damage to archaeological resources. Development and implementation of an _ excavation plan for sites which cannot be preserved in place. 135 i Payment by the developer of one-half the cost of mitigating significant effects on • important archaeological resources, not to t•• exceed one-half of one percent of the projected project cost. ism Stopping of excavation in the event of discovery of human remains, until the coroner has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; or, if the remains are of native American origin, descendants have made a recommendation to the owner regarding proper disposal of .the remains, or descendants failed to make a recommendation with 24 hours of notification. If no recommendation is received, remains are to be reinterred with appropriate dignity on the property in a location not subject to future development. r w • +r i.� :.r �- 136 L. L r , ■r Alternatives w ' 4. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT • The following discussion considers alternative •- development scenarios for the site of the proposed project, including the various impacts associated with each scenario. Through comparison of these alternatives to the proposed project, the advantages and disadvantages of each can be weighed and analyzed. State CEQA Guidelines require a range of alternatives "governed by 'rule of reason' that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice" (Section 15126(d) ) . Alternative A: No Project This alternative considers projected development in the proposed project area based on current land use regulations and •• development trends, but without the adoption of the redevelopment plan. Any development that may occur would be expected to take place at a slower rate in the project area than would be the case with the adoption of the redevelopment plan. The "No Project" alternative would result in fewer impacts on urban systems, compared to the proposed project, including traffic, water, sewer, solid waste disposal, and utilities. However, because redevelopment tax '. increment financing would not be available to pay for necessary public improvements in the project area, this alternative would place a heavier burden on the City for support of the land use in the project area. Additionally., b• benefits to the residents and City of Huntington Beach in terms .of increased tax revenue, . increased. employment, and secondary. benefits would not be realized. Under this alternative, abandoned, obsolete and unattractive commercial and residential facilities would be expected to continue to exist in the project area, maintaining an undesirable environment for the development of new businesses and delaying the improvement of the area. • 137 Alternative B: Development Based on the Current General Plan • This alternative considers development within the project area consistent with the current General Plan assuming no General Plan , Amendments are approved. Potential impacts �.. associated with this alternative have been discussed in previous sections of this EIR. This alternative would result in increased commercial and office development and approximately 130 more residential units compared to the proposed project. Benefits resulting from this alternative include increased tax revenue, increased employment, additional housing for city residents, and secondary impacts above existing conditions. Because the alternative proposes additional commercial, office and residential development, compared to the proposed project, potential impact areas including public service, public utilities, population, housing, schools, and land use are expected to �- be relatively more significant than the proposed project. Increased traffic and resultant air pollution emissions are also • expected with this alternative, although this situation would also occur with the proposed project. Alternative C: Development Based on the General Plan with Approved General Plan Amendments This alternative considers maximum development within the project area consistent with the General Plan assuming approval of both Redevelopment Agency location requests for General Plan Amendments. Approval of these sites would allow proposed development -- included in the proposed project to be consistent with the General Plan. However, the total development proposed by the . project at these locations is .generally less than what could be allowed at maximum buildout of the General Plan. This alternative considers maximum buildout in the entire project area. 138 • Ultimate buildout potential based on the current General Plan. with the pending General Plan Amendments is shown in Table 31. (It should be noted that the auto dealership category is not indicated in the General Plan; however, fifteen individual dealerships exist in the project area, all of which have significantly less site coverage than a typical commercial development. This use comprises ten percent of all non-residential uses and was separated in order to prevent overestimation of building space. ) The entire project area could accommodate an ultimate build-out development of 4 . 21 million square ` feet and 653 residential units under the General Plan with approved GPA' s. TABLE 31 MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL (Based on current General Plan with General Plan Amendments) Development Site Area Potential Non-Residential Coverage Acres 000s s . ft. Commerciall 30% 258 .9 3 , 494 Auto Dealership 18% 42 . 5 333 Office 40% 15. 6 272 ` Mixed 30% 21.2 107 Recreation 1% 30. 0 7 NON-RESIDENTIAL .TOTAL 368 . 2 4 , 213 Density Area Development Residential DU Acre Acres Potential r Low 7 13 . 8 97 units Medium 15 27 . 8 479 units2 High 35 0. 7 25 units Planned Development 12 4 . 3 52 units RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 42 . 3 653 units Source: Cotton/Beland/Associates 1 Assumes additional office space would be allowed in this category 2 Includes a 25% density bonus for site at Atlanta and Beach • 138 . 1 w L- This alternative could allow greater commercial and office development that the • proposed project, . and would allow the same number of residential units as the proposed project. Benefits to the City and its residents resulting from this alternative include additional tax revenue,. increased employment opportunities to the area, and additional available housing compared to existing conditions. Under this alternative, abandoned, obsolete, and unattractive commercial and residential facilities are expected to be removed and replaced with additional improvements creating a desirable environment for new business. Because this alternative proposes more intense development of commercial and office space than the proposed project, anticipated impacts are expected to be greater with this alternative. Potential impacts on public services, public utilities, traffic, air quality, land use, population, and employment are all expected to be greater than the proposed project. Alternative D: Reduction of the Project Area • This alternative considers a reduction in the size of the project area by reducing the number of parcels included in the redevelopment plan. Parcels that might potentially be considered to be removed from the project area include some parcels not •- directly adjacent to Beach Boulevard, the Crest View School and the Huntington Intercommunity Hospital offices or new development centers. It is anticipated that parcels outside of the project area would develop at a slower rate due to lack of improvements, financing, or restricted lot size than those within the project area. This alternative would result in increased impacts on traffic, water, sewer, utilities and population compared to the No Project alternative. However, the impacts from this alternative are expected to be fewer than the proposed project. By eliminating parcels from the project area, the entire area would not be expected to benefit from redevelopment and pockets or • 139 sections along Beach Boulevard would continue • to be undesirable for new development creating visual .and land use conflicts. " . By reducing the size of the project area while still maintaining the linear configuration, the proposed project would still provide a �.. link to all the existing redevelopment areas in the City. This would allow the Redevelopment Agency to unify its planning for .„, projects and improvements within these areas. Alternative E: Reduced Intensity of Project Area This alternative considers the elimination or reduction of development intensity within portions of the project area. This alternative would result in fewer impacts on traffic at the major intersections along with fewer impacts associated with public. services . and utilities, land use and air quality compared to the proposed project while still benefitting the City with increased tax �- revenues, increased employment and secondary benefits associated with the redevelopment plan. This is considered the environmentally superior alternative. Development within the project area that might be considered for reduced development intensity include those areas near major intersections experiencing deteriorating vehicle level of service until such time that improvements can be made to alleviate existing congestion. Proposed development is already below that which may occur under the General Plan designations in some instances. Further reduction of these areas would prevent the land from reaching its full value and development potential. Additionally, reducing :.. development intensity would lower employment and revenue generating potential . 140 LW t • i L rdb Long-Term Effects S. ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM EFFECTS • 5. 1 Cumulative and Long-Term Impacts of the Proposed Project Which Affect the Environment 1. Cumulative impacts r The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines define cumulative effects as "two or more inividual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. " The Guidelines further note that the individual effects can be the various changes related to a single project or the change involved in a number -- of other closely related past, present, .and reasonaable foreseeable future projects (Section 15355, 21-83) . The cumulative effects associated with the implementation of this proposed redevelopment project have been evaluated based on the information summarized in Table 32 which includes a broad description of related projects in the vicinity of Beach Boulevard. The related projects identified in this EIR are additional redevelopment areas for the Cities of Huntington Beach and Westminster. Figure 22 shows the location of the redevelopment areas considered. The proposed project . accounts for approximately 40% of all recently completed, approved, or proposed development within these redevelopment areas. Land Use. The proposed project, in conjunction with other redevelopment projects, would result in an overall recycling and intensification of land uses. Vacant parcels -within these areas would ultimately be committed to urban uses. �. Circulation. The implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with the "related projects" would result in • 141 �+ TABLE 32 RELATED PROJECTS Redevelopment __Project______________City-----------____Location Description-----------Status Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach Beach Blvd. between 1.5 million sq. ft. Proposed Edinger and Atlanta additional commercial and office space; 653 to 781 residential units Proposed Huntington Center Huntington Beach West of Beach Blvd. 176,000 sq. ft. Complete between Edinger and expansion on Center McFadden Avenue 90,000 sq. ft. Complete �.- mini-storage 5,600 sq. ft. bank Complete 224 room Holiday Inn Under Construction 192,000 sq. ft. Under office building Construction Oak View Huntington Beach West side of Beach 210,850 sq. ft. Complete Blvd. between Slater office building and Warner 21,500 sq. ft. Complete commercial 24,800 sq. ft. Complete restaurants 42,000 sq. ft. Complete health spa 31,300 sq. ft. Complete cinema complex a.. Talbert Huntington Beach West of Beach Blvd. 314 senior housing/ Complete between Talbert and condominium complex �. Taylor ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 142 • v TABLE 32 RELATED PROJECTS L (continued) Redevelopment City-----------____Location _____Description-------------Status ____ L Main Pier Huntington Beach Main St., Walnut Av., 87,500 sq. ft. Approved Second St., and beach retail commercial side of Pacific Coast Hwy. from Lake to 398,000 sq. ft. Proposed Golden West retail commercial 357,000 sq. ft. Proposed F-4 office space 1715 hotel rooms Proposed various hotels 1556 residential Proposed units 120,000 sq. ft. Proposed museum 200,000 sq. ft. Proposed convention center i.� Sub-area 2 of Westminster 25 acres, east side 305,250 sq. ft. Complete Project Area 1 of Beach Blvd. retail commercial between Edinger and s' Heil Avenue --------=--------------------------------------------------- Source: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency; City of Westminster Planning Department. • 143 0 0 a m 100^_ m � Bolsa CD . � a • Ed i Q441i - •� o o m - �o • n a Pow" • ci Warner - r' . Project • Location Orange - County Talbe I ........ . . Garfield • Huntington Center •. Oakview c+�i' - • Adam Talbert-Beach o Sub-area 2 of Area 1 X. `" •fr4y !Hamilton Main-Pier Beach Boulevard • Redevelopment Project Area (generalized) • a.. North .� n , Yscale in miles Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Figure 22 Related Projects L 144 significant increases of vehicular traffic on the local arterial network. The projected traffic the related projects are anticipated to generate is summarized in Table 33 . The Downtown Redevelopment project proposes significant increases in commercial and office square footage, and additional hotel rooms, all of which are trip generators. .... F-4 It can be expected that some vehicles traveling to and from the Downtown Redevelopment project area. will use Beach Boulevard and further impact this arterial . However, additional north-south arterials. provide access to this project area and would offer alternative routes than Beach Boulevard. The information summarized in Table 33 indicates the proposed project would Jaccount for approximately 41% of the total traffic anticipated to result if all of the related projects are implemented. The cumulative traffic impacts would be significant on the existing circulation system with major reductions in operating levels. Major street improvements are proposed along Beach Boulevard in conjunction with the proposed project which would provide some mitigation. However, complete mitigation of project related and non-related traffic is not expected. In addition to the local street system, a proportion of the traffic would .be directed towards the nearby freeway system. Portions of the freeway would experience a decline in operating levels during the peak-hour periods as a result of these cumulative impacts. Population. The implementation of the proposed project, in conjunction with other "related projects" would result in an incremental increase in the area's population. This increase is within SCAG population growth forecast for Huntington Beach. 145 TABLE 33 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS • Related Potential Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour _Project _ D eve loement T�i�Ends _Total Total L.. Huntington Center commercial 176,000 sq. ft. 8,800 880 792 mini-storage 90,000 sq. ft. 450 45 41 savings 5,600 sq. ft. 364 36 33 office 192,000 sq. ft. 2,880 288 259 hotel 224 rooms 2,240 224 202 Oak View office 210,850 sq. ft. 3,163 316 285 6. health spa 42,000 sq. ft. 840 84 76 commercial 21,500 sq. ft. 1,075 108 97 Talbert housing 314 units 1,570 157 141 • s.. Main/Pier commercial 485,500 sq. ft. 24,275 2,428 2,185 office 357,000 sq. ft. 5,355 536 482 hotel 1,715 rooms 17,150 1,715 11544 housing 1,556 units 12,448 1,245 1,120 museum 120,000 sq. ft. 480 48 43 convention center 200,000 sq. ft. 6,000 600 540 Sub-area 2 of .- Project Area 1 commercial 305,250 sq. ft. 15,263 1,526 1,374 RELATED PROJECTS SUBTOTAL 102,352 10,235 9,212 146 • d. TABLE 33 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS (Continued) Related Potential Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hou Proiect_____________Development_____—______—__Trip_Ends__---__________Ttal Total___ ---- —o--- ------ ----- Beach Boulevard commercial/office 4,074,000 sq. ft. 67,600 6,760 6,084 residential 653 units 4,571 457 411 BEACH BOULEVARD SUBTOTAL 72,171 7,217 6,495 TOTAL 174,523 17,452 15,707 Generation factors from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency "Daily Trip Generation Rates", August, 1982. AM peak hour assumed to be 10% of 24 hour total; PM peak hour 90% of AM peak hour. i.. • 147 ar. Public Services. The implementation of • the "related projects" with the proposed project could expect to generate approximately 1,435 students, some of whom are already within the potentially impacted school system. r Utilities. The construction of additional commercial and office building space, along with residential units, would result in increased usage, demand, and treatment capacity of electrical power, natural gas, 6W water, sewer, - and solid waste requirements. Table 34 estimates the consumption/generation rates if all the "related projects" are implemented. Noise. The noise impacts resulting from the implementation of all the "related projects" identified in this section of the report would result in increases in ambient noise levels over a long period of time. Much of the increased noise would ` be generated by the increased volumes of traffic that would result from the implementation of the projects identified • in this section. TABLE 34 C M4 ATIVE 00NS'[TMPTI0N/GENMWION RATES (Total Potential Development of All Projects) Water Sewer Natural Gas Solid Waste Electricity -" Land Use d d mcf mo tons da million kwh Commercial 0.502 0.376 14.56 251 61.7 Office 0.103 0.077 2.06 52 12.5 Hotel 0.194 0.194 0.31 48 11.0 r Other 0.002 0.002 0.02 10 0 Residential 0.952 0.854 10.00 8 14.2 Total 1.753 1.503 26.95 369 99.4 r r.. 148 • ti.. Air 'Quality. The proposed project, in conjunction with the "related projects" would result in continued �.. incremental degradation of local, and to a lesser extent regional, air quality. The cumulative air quality impacts anticipated to result from the implementation of all identified "related projects" would be significant considering the area is �- currently considered a "non-attainment" area that exceeds State and Federal Air Quality Standards. TABLE 35 . C(41LATM AIR QUALM IP'MWIS YEAR 2000 ;r Emissions in Pounds Per Day Emission Source CO HC NOx Sox Part. Gas Constimption 18.1 7.2 108.4 0.0 0.14 Electric Power 71 44 709 472 61 Mobile Source 10,899 950 1,586 259 345 10,988 1,001.2 2,403 731 406 2. Long-Term Effects The proposed project does not compromise long-term- productivity for short-term gain. The proposed project has the potential to improve the long-term potential of the proposed project area through the elimination of blighting influences and providing improvements to encourage development. The area is expected to have long-term potential for commercial and office uses, as well as residential in selected areas, because of its geographic location along a major commercial corridor and its good regional access. • 149 The project is considered justified now because it is considered unlikely that substantially different alternatives would be selected in the future. The proposed project is intended to support the long-term viability of uses in the ;W proposed project area and its immediate vicinity. 5.2 -significant Irreversible Environmental Changes Which Would Be Involved in the Proposed Project, If It Were Implemented State CEQA Guidelines define "significant effect" as a "substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project. " Impacts are not considered "significant adverse impacts" if potential effects can be mitigated to acceptable levels. . W Three significant environmental impacts as a result of the approval of this proposed project have been identified in this EIR. These three impacts include land use, air quality, and transportation/circulation. �-. Land Use. The proposed project would • result in a more intensive use of the site than would be the case in the no project alternative. Development of the existing vacant land represents an irreversible commitment of the site to urban uses. The development of these sites as proposed �- would preclude other development options for the life of the structures constructed on the site. The more intensive development areas may not be compatible with adjacent residential development and could generate conflicts in these areas. Air Quality. The proposed project would have direct and significant impacts on the air quality in the area and, to a lesser - extent, the entire South Coast Air Basin As air pollution emissions in the . basin continue to exceed State and Federal standards. The proposed project 's contribution to air pollution levels may be incremental on a regional level, however, the cumulative impact of - additional development in the region along with this project is considered significant. 150 ~• Transportation/Circulation. Intensifica- tion of development would bring additional employees to the project area, and increasing traffic on local arterials and the regional circulation system in the vicinity of the proposed project. This increased traffic would increase levels of congestion and reduce the level of service on arterial streets to the extent that traffic system improvements are not adequate to compensate for this increase. Some such measures are included in the proposed project and in the City's regular program of transportation system management and street system improvements, but some adverse impacts would result from the proposed project. Approval of the project would require that the Redevelopment Agency, as Lead Agency, adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations. " This document is a public statement that balances the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental costs. If the benefits are found to outweigh the costs, the adverse environmental impacts may be deemed acceptable. 5.3 Growth Inducing impacts of the Proposed ` Project This section considers the ways -- development in accordance with the proposed project could encourage economic or population growth, either directly or indirectly. The project is specifically intended to provide for the orderly growth of Huntington Beach. Capital improvements are intended to insure that adequate facilities are available to serve this development. Mitigation measures are included in the City's development ordinances to insure that development occurs in the method and at the proper time that it can be accommodated. Huntington Beach is part of a large urbanized region. The proposed projects 151 role in promoting growth in this region is relatively small in a regional context. • A total of 3100 to 3200 additional jobs are anticipated to be provided in Huntington Beach in a variety of job categories as a result of the proposed �. project. By providing jobs at the project area, the project would increase housing demand in the project's housing market area. w w.. ti.. • 152 i.. 1 i6w W aw iFr . �Yr 1 MI • r V , Vr rd Persons and Organizations Consulted s .� 6. PERSONS/ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED • The following literature, persons and organizations were consulted in the prepara- tion of this Environmental Impact Report: A. References: A-1 USDA, Soi.l. Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Orange County and Western Part of Riverside County, California, September, 1978. A-2 Leighton-Yen and Associates, Geotechnical Inputs, February, 1974 for the Huntington Beaach Seismic- Safety Element of the General Plan. A-3 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Flood Hazard Study, April, 1974 . A-4 Orange County Transportation Commission, Final Program EIR: Super Streets Demonstration Project, December, 1985. -A-5 National Recreation and Park Association, Recreation, Park, and Open Space Standards and Guidelines, 1983 : B. Persons and Organizations 1. California Department of Finance Population Research Unit (91.6) 322-4651 2 : California Department of Transportation "Traffic" Litton (714) 620-3513 13 . California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region '8 -� John Mijares (714) 782-4130 4 . Huntington Beach Central Library Ron -Hayden (714) 960-8836 r. 5. Huntington Beach City School District Ga�ry Burg.ner, Assistant Superintendent (714) 964-8888 6. Huntington Beach Engineering Department Les Evans, City Engineer (714) 536-5435 Bill Patapoff, Principal Engineer • (714) 536-5431 153 Bruce Gilmer, Traffic Engineer (714) 536-5525 • Bill Waddell, Traffic Engineer (714) 536-5525 7. Huntington Beach Fire Department Chief Fred Heller (714) 536-5563 8 . Huntington Beach High School District Lee Eastwood, Asst. Superintendent 9. Huntington Beach Planning Department Hal Simmons, Associate Planner `. (714) 536-5550 Florence Webb, Environmental Review (714) 536-5552 10. Huntington Beach Police Department Sgt. Jim Moore (714) 536-5943 ` Sgt. Bruce Kelly (714) 536-5667 Sgt. Stuart, Watch Commander (714) 960-8809 Sgt. Davidson, Traffic Division (714) 536-5667 11. Huntington Beach Redevelopment • Agency Thomas Adrusky, Project Manager (714) 536-5583 Steven Kohler, Senior Community Development Specialist (714) 536-5582 -- 12 . Huntington Beach Water Department Stan Farber (714) 536-5528 Ed Barkley (714) 536-5424 Sylvia Hill (714) 536-5528 13 . Ocean View School District Monte McMurray, Asst. Superintendent (714) 847-2551 14. Orange County Flood Control District Marty Price (714) 834-6397 Bob Talafus (714) 834-4369 Dick Runge (714) 834-5097 15. Orange County Sanitation District Hillary Baker (714) 540-2910 Rich Von Langen (714) 540-2910 Po Wang, Solid Waste Division (714) 834-8100 • 154 Fred Gaggilo, Environmental Health • Section (714) 834-7601 16. Orange County Transportation Commission Lisa Mills, Manager of Highway & Transit Programs (714) 834-7581 Christine .Huard-Spencer Environmental Coordinator (714) 971-4343 Nick Jones, Traffic Operations (714) 620-5468 17 . Rainbow Disposal Company Wendy Ericson (714) 847-3581 18. Southern California Edison Company Ralph Coolidge (714) 973-5491 19. Southern California Gas Company Lou Hurlbutt (714) 634-3119 ... 155 1 L w " v� w L Responses to Notice of Preparation r.. �- 7 . RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION • • A Notice of Preparation, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 21080. 4 (a) , was sent -to, " . . .those public agencies having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project which are held in trust for the people of the State_ of California. " Agencies are .allowed 30 days from the day of receipt of the Notice of Preparation to respond to the Lead Agency specifying the scope and content ofothe environmental information which is germane to. that responsible agency's statuatory responsibilities and shall be included in the environmental impact report (Section 21080.4 (a) ) . Following is �. list of those agencies that were sent a Notice of Preparation and a copy of the Initial Study. Copies of responses to the NOP are also included in Appendix C. State of California 1. Air Resources Board 2 . Coastal Commission 3 . Department of Conservation 4 . Department of Fish and Game 5. Department of Health 6. Department of Health Services-Toxic Substances Control Division • 7 . Highway Patrol-Long Range Planning Section 8 . Native American Heritage Commission 9 . Department of Parks and Recreation 10 Regional Water Quality Control Board-Region 8 11. Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 7 12 . Department of Water Resources County of Orange 13 . Board of Education, Orange County Dept. of Education 14 . Environmental Management Agency 15. Board of Supervisors, County of Orange 16. Executive Director, Orange County Transportation Commission Board of Directors 17 . Huntington Beach High School District 18 . Orange County Flood Control District 19. Orange County Harbors, Beaches and Park District 20. Orange County Flood Control District 21. Orange County Sanitation District No. 3 22 . Orange County Sanitation District No. 11 23 . Orange County Transit District 24 . Orange County Vector Control District 25. Orange County Water District • 156 Board of Education • 26. Huntington Beach Elementary School District 27 .. Ocean View Elementary School District 28 . Board of Trustees, Coast Community College District 29 . City Council, City of Huntington Beach 30. Environmental Review Board, City of Huntington Beach Planning Directors 31. City of Costa Mesa 32 . City of Fountain Valley 33 . City of Seal Beach 34 . City of Westminster 35. Rainbow Disposal 36. Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG. 37 . Southern California Edison 38 . Southern California Gas Company 39. South Coast Air Quality Management District • r r 157 • d. �r �r Lf Wr 11r `11 r it Response to Comments on the Draft EIR i S. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR_ • The Draft EIR was made available for public review and comment, pursuant_ _to State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15087 (c) ) , for a period of 45 days starting on February 18, 1987, and closing on April 4 , 1987 . During this review period comments have been received in response to the Draft EIR. In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and, "the Lead Agency shall i- evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the Draft EIR and shall prepare a written response" (Section 15088 (a) ) . Comments on the Draft EIR were received from interested agencies or groups. Each interested parties comments are summarized and followed by a written response. Copies of each comment received are included at the end of this section. Comments are listed in chronological order by date of ism correspondence. The comments have been given a reference number in the left margin. Any additional information incorporated into the text of the Draft EIR in response to a comment is identified with this reference number adjacent to it in the margin of the text. Environmental Board, City of Huntington Beach February 27, 1987 r Reference Number A-1 Comment: (cover letter) The committee was unable to find its responses to the Notice of Preparation in the Draft EIR. Response: This comment appears to result from a misunder- standing of what the City staff and consultant meant when indicating that the board' s responses were included in the EIR. The Environmental Review Board's response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was considered by the staff and consultant in preparing the Draft EIR. No responses to the NOP were reproduced in the Draft �- EIR, nor were specific responses to each comment made. In responding to ERB comments, no changes were. made to the Initial Study checklist. The Initial Study is an official document published with the Notice of Preparation. The document is not 158 subsequently changed. If responses to the NOP indicate that the conclusions expressed in the • Initial. Study are incorrect, then the EIR should deal with the issues appropriate. In order to avoid further misunderstanding, all responses, including ERB's response, to the Notice of Preparation have been included in the Final EIR, Appendix C. However, specific responses to each individual comment on the NOP ... are not made. Responses are made to each comment on the Draft EIR only, in accordance with _ California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Orange County Vector Control District March 4 , 1987 B-1 Comment: Acknowledged receipt and review of Draft EIR and does not anticipate any significant impacts regarding vector problems. Vector control proceedings outlined in comments. Response: Reducing the populations and potential dispersal of vectors is important in the demolition of existing structures as well as the construction of new buildings. Vector Control. proceedings outlined by the Orange County Vector Control • District including inspection prior to demolition, providing proper runoff to avoid standing water to prevent mosquito breeding, fly proof containers for trash, and landscaping with plants less attractive to rodents will be incorporated into the project. Additional mitigation measures addressing these concerns has been included in Section 3 . 17 Human Health. California Coastal Commission March 12, 1987 C-1 Comment: Identifies a small portion of the project area, to approximately 600 feet north of Atlanta Avenue, to be within the Coastal Zone. Road improvements to Beach Boulevard north of Atlanta Avenue and redevelopment of the adjoining commercial/residential development would not have any significant adverse impact on coastal resources. 15.9 • - Response: This comment is consistent with. previous • correspondence with the Coastal Commission and the existing text of the Draft EIR reflects this information. Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Board of Realtors, Inc. March 16, 1987 Ir D-1 Comment: Express support in concept for the Draft EIR for this project with an understanding that _. input from property owners in the area and the Project Area Committee is still required. Urges the Council to adopt the Draft EIR and move the project forward through the public process. Response: No environmental issues were identified in .this comment and no response is required. However, �- it should be noted that the public participation process for the redevelopment plan will continue until the City Council makes a decision on the redevelopment plan. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California March 11, 1987 E-1 Comment: Acknowledge receipt of Draft EIR. No existing Metropolitan Water District facilities within the boundaries of the project area. Response: Informational response only, no environmental issues raised and no response is required. Environmental Board, City of Huntington Beach March 11, 1987 Comment: Responses to Table A, Environmental Impact Summary Table F-1 Comment: Stalled traffic on Beach Boulevard would contribute to a concentration of lead and pollution. Response: Increased air pollution emissions due to increased traffic are estimated in Table 12 , page 35. Lead emissions are being effectively reduced by EPA's regulation of the lead content of . gasoline. Improvements in traffic flow resulting from street improvements are expected to mitigate service problems from increased traffic. • 160 F-2 Comment: Concern over the total decrease in CO emissions shown for the proposed project compared to • existing conditions. Response: The South Coast Air Quality Management District has projected that continued improvements in combustion engines to meet emission standards would result in future decreases in CO . production. This is shown in Tables 10 and 11 on pages 33 and 34. . Existing CO emission rates for 1986 are 15.40 grams per mile, compared to 10. 10 grams per mile for year 2000. Even though traffic volume will increase, reduced emission rates would result in a net reduction in total CO emissions. F-3 Comment: The proposed grade separation at Warner and Beach Boulevard was not addressed. Response: The Huntington Beach City Council did not include this measure when it approved the Beach Boulevard Super Streets Final Report. However, this is a potential mitigation measure and is .further discussed in Section 3. 13 of this .report. F-4 Comment: The Draft EIR did not discuss the impacts of the Downtown (Main-Pier) Redevelopment project and . its impact on Beach Boulevard. Response: Additional anticipated projects included in the Main/Pier Redevelopment Project are included in the cumulative projects list, Table 33, page 143 . Trips generated by these projects are included in the trip generation table. Future traffic on Beach Boulevard was estimated in the Beach Boulevard Super Streets -- Demonstration Project EIR based on past trends in traffic growth. The growth rate assumed was intended to accommodate a variety of projects in _ the City and other areas. Traffic generated by the projects in the Main/Pier project area will use a number of arterial streets including Beach Boulevard to reach their destinations. The discussion of potential cumulative traffic impact has been expanded in response to this comment. . F-5 Comment: Summer beach traveler traffic on Beach Boulevard is not addressed in the Draft EIR. 161 • Response: The most recent counts available were taken in • 1980 and 1983 . These counts indicated July volumes north of Warner to be very similar (actually, slightly less) to remaining monthly averages, while July volumes north of Pacific Coast Highway to be 28% higher than monthly .averages for that year. .It. is evident that seasonal traffic variations have a greater impact closer to the beach where -. daily traffic volumes are low compared to the northern portion of the project area where •traffic volumes are already at high levels. The degree of impact of seasonal traffic variations is a function of distance from the beach. Additional information . has been added to the text •- of the EIR in response to this comment and others. Potential. mitigation measures include the installation of signs along the freeway at major arterials parallel to Beach Boulevard indicating beach access to relieve congestion on Beach Boulevard. Oftentimes, Magnolia and Newland operate at undercapacity and could handle additional volumes. However, transferring additional traffic to other nearby arterials may result in additional impacts on these areas. Additional discussion has been included in the text. in the Final EIR in response to this and other comments. F-6 Comment: Additional site coverage (90-95%) would result in a loss of percolation and loss . of groundwater. Response: With only 32 acres of the entire project area vacant in addition to the yards of the 180 residential units, and the remaining land occupied by buildings and parking, approximately 91 percent of the project area is already covered by, impervious surfaces. -None of the vacant land within the project area is considered to be significant or important recharge areas. Therefore, redevelopment of this area would generally result in the improvement of areas already covered and would not significantly impact percolation in the area. The City does utilize groundwater for a portion of its domestic water needs. Impacts on this resource are discussed in Section 3 . 16 Utilities. _ 162 r F-7 Comment: The Draft EIR does not adequately cover impacts on the Talbert Channel for flood control. • i. Response: With mitigation measures included in the project to minimize additional runoff resulting from development, the project is not expected to have an adverse impact on the Talbert Flood Control Channel. The discussion of flood control impacts and mitigation measures, and the relation of the project to ongoing and anticipated flood control programs, has been expanded in the Final EIR in response to this and other comments. F-8 Comment: Noise concerns over mitigation measures adequately covering existing residential and commercial property. Response: Section 3 . 6 Noise, pages 47-57 , indicate that existing residential uses along Beach Boulevard will be exposed to noise levels over 65 dB CNEL ,r which is considered to be "Normally Unacceptable" . The mitigation measures section also states that sound insulation for existing single family ` residences is expensive and this is considered an unmitigatable impact. Sound insulation for new multiple family residences is feasible and • �- required by State law. Commercial buildings are not covered by State law and generally have a higher level of acceptable noise levels. F-9 Comment: Concern over adequacy of present water supply to provide new development. Response: Water supplies are discussed in 3 . 16 Utilities, on page 112 . The Draft EIR identifies water consumption as an adverse impact. The mitigation d measures section also states that additional wells or additional connections to MWD sources may be required as development continues in the City. '- F-10 Comment: Sewer. The mitigation measures do not address the expansion of existing treatment plants or the construction of new ones. Response: The Orange County Sanitation Districts indicate that their facilities have been sized to accommodate master planned flows. The Regional Water Quality Control Board indicates that the district has a current treatment plant capacity of approximately 240 163 i. million gallons per day and is operating well within that capacity, and is . continuously expanding facilities in response to development requirements. The approximately 0. 50 million gallons per day of sewage flow anticipated for the project is approximately two-tenths of one percent (0. 2%) of the current plant capacity, and does not represent a significant treatment plant impact over the anticipated 35-year development period. The plant is reaching its Biochemical oxygen Demand (BOD) permit limit, but can utilize L chemical treatment to increase the efficiency of the plant in meeting the BOD requirement. The plant is operating well within its Total Dissolved Solids limit. Construction of additional treatment capacity is programmed by the County Sanitation Districts on ._ a regular basis to meet treatment needs in the county. The expansion of treatment facilities is paid for by . fees paid by new development as well as fees imposed on all users of the sewer system. " The discussion of sewer impacts has been expanded in the EIR to include the relation to treatment plant capacity and expansion. F-11 Comment: Where is the terminus of the storm drains and will the terminus be able to handle the extra r, water. The mitigation measures are contingent on upgrading of the Orange County Flood Control Channels. Response: The discussion of flood control measures in the Water impacts section of the EIR beginning on . page 40 has been expanded in response to this and other comments. On-site mitigation measures are expected to provide detention of the increment in runoff that would result from additional site coverage in the project area. Expansion of storm drains in the project area would require approval of the County Flood Control District to connect to major channels. Substantial additional work is required on flood control channels in order to meet the runoff requirements of the 100=year storm. F-12 Comment: Methane gas, underground pipelines and abandoned wells have not been addressed. • 164 Response: These concerns are considered to be project specific and will be investigated to the • satisfaction of the City on a project by project basis. F-13 Comment: Housing. Under Redevelopment Law there are guidelines to protect residents. The Redevelopment Agency needs to insure that the 180 units housing approximately 500 people are protected. r.. Response: Redevelopment Law and other laws regarding eminent domain protect existing homeowners from financial loss due to direct Redevelopment Agency action to take their property for street improvements, other public improvements or redevelopment to other land uses. No protection is afforded to owners who elect to sell to private individuals as part of the normal development process. In general, the residential units in the project area are nonconforming uses in areas zoned for commercial development. The requirement to pay fair market value, provide relocation expenses and supplements to cover additional costs to those relocated are considered to provide substantial mitigation of potential relocation impacts. F-14 Comment: Preservation of neighborhood parks must be taken into consideration. Response: The Rancho View school park consists of a Little League baseball diamond. Mitigation measures include the relocation of this field to another acceptable site within the City. The only other park within the project area, as identified in the .Huntington Beach General Plan Recreation Element is Bartlett Park. Preliminary development plans have been made for this park for anticipated population increases. These are included in the EIR on page 133 . F-15 Comment: Expected traffic increases will create a health hazard due to increases in air pollution .- emissions. Response: Air pollution impacts are discussed in Section 3 . 2 Air, pages 25-39, and indicate that CO emissions are expected to be reduced compared to existing conditions. See response to comment E-2 . 165 i i F-16 Comment: Additional traffic caused by the development will cut down on response time. Response: Section 3 . 14 Public Services, page 102, states that . fire protection response times to the project are under five minutes. Increased traffic during peak hours may impact response '~ times for emergency vehicles. However, the mitigation measures section includes the addition of fire supression and sprinkler systems in new construction. This measure, along with others identified in the Draft EIR, would provide fire protection until manned vehicles arrive at the scene. Traffic mitigation measures serve to ` substantially mitigate adverse traffic impacts on most intersections in the project area. Project Area Committee, City of Huntington Beach April 2 , 1987 G-1 Comment: The EIR report, itself, is inadequate and incomplete and does not contain enough information to make an adequate recommendation. Response: .The EIR has been augmented in areas where specific comments were made in order to provide full information to decisionmakers and the public. G-2 Comment: The Draft EIR has not been sent out to all necessary taxing agencies. Response: California Community Redevelopment Law specifically states that a Notice of Preparation and a copy Draft EIR should be sent to each affected taxing agency. The Redevelopment Law also states that the Draft EIR should be sent to the Fiscal Review Committee. The Fiscal Review Committee was not formed until after the NOP was . mailed out and therefore did not receive a copy of the NOP. Following is a list of all taxing agencies having jurisdiction within the project area and those sent a Draft EIR. Taxing Agencies Sent Beach Boulevard EIR Board of Directors, Orange County Flood Control District City Council/Redevelopment Agency, City of Huntington Beach • 166 ..r ..- Mr. Lee Eastwood, Asst. Superintendent, Huntington Beach Union High School District • Mr. Michael Ruane, Acting Manager EMA/ Environmental and Special Projects, State Board of Equalization - Tax Area Services Section Mr. Steven E. Lewis, Auditor Controller �- Mr. Bradley Jacobs, Assessor, Orange County Mr. Robert Citron, Treasurer-Tax Collector, Orange County ;., Mr. S. M. Chavez, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Municipal Water District of Orange County Ms. Christine Huard-Spencer, Environmental Coordinator, Orange County Transit District Orange County Vector Control Ms. Garri Daily, Real Property Manager, Orange �- County Water District Orange County Cemetery District Mr. William Butler, Director of Finance, Orange W County Sanitation Districts 3 and 11 Mr. Robert D. Ours, Administrator Facilities and Planning, Orange County Department of Education Mr. Bill Hodge, Chief Administrative Officer of Orange County-County Administrative Office County Counsel • Mr. Monte McMurray, Ocean View Elementary School District Mr. C. Michael Webster, Vice Chancellor, Business Affairs, Coast Community College Mr. Gary A. Burgner, Asst. Superintendent Business Services, Huntington Beach City Elementary School District G-3 Comment: The Draft EIR lacks information on existing uses and the wording on page 1 is misleading concerning blighting influences. Response: Although substantial improvements have been- made in the project area to improve blighting conditions, there still remain a number of parcels showing blighting conditions or influences. The text of the Draft EIR has expanded to further define blighting influences. These additions can be found on page 1. G-4 Comment: No discussion concerning the impact of beach summer traffic utilizing Beach Boulevard. Response: Please see response to comment F-5. 167 MEW G-5 Comment: No discussion concerning impact of Downtown • Redevelopment projects on Beach Boulevard. Response: Please see response to comment F-4. G-6 Comment: The elimination of the proposed Warner grade separation at Beach Boulevard is not - discussed. Response: Please see response to comment F-3 . This issue has been included in the text of the EIR in Section 3 . 13. G-7 Comment: Two land use changes at Beach Boulevard and Warner would generate nearly 20, 000 daily trips over existing uses. Response: The two land use changes' in question involve approximately 24 acres of land proposed for commercial development. Based on a conservative floor area ratio estimate of 40 percent, approximately 203 , 006 square feet of commercial development may be expected. With a trip generation rate of 40 trips per 1000 sq. ft. (Orange County Environmental Management Agency) total daily trips generated in this area is estimated at 12 , 200, considerably lower than this comment states. Even assuming conversion of this area with office space at 100% coverage, approximately 1, 015, 000 square feet and a trip generation rate of 15 trips/1000 sq. ft. , this . area would generate approxiamtely 15, 200 trips per day. In addition, the General Plan Amendment for the Rancho View School site, if approved, would be of mixed development and would not be expected to contain this amount of commercial or office space. G-8 Comment: The elimination of parking with the installation of bus turnouts, widening, and red curbing is not covered in the EIR. Response: Additional information regarding parking impacts has been included in Section 3 . 13 of this .report. G-9 Comment: Lack of economic analysis within the Draft EIR.. Response: The California Environmental Quality Act provides that economic impact aspects of the prospect may be included in the EIR or I • 168 another document. In this case, the Redevelopment Agency will consider economic • aspects of the project in a separate document. Flood Prevention Group, Chauncey A. Alexander, Chair, April 3 , 1987 . H-1 Comment: Page viii, Executive Summary (Surface and Groundwater) . The mitigation measures listed (adequate project drainage, storm drain construction, Bartlett Retarding Basin) will not reduce this impact to- a level of insignificance. Until the D01 channel is reconstructed, the increase in the amount and speed of runoff will simply increase the danger of flooding. The Bartlett Retarding Basin was constructed -" principally as an emergency water-holding instrument and does not meet the 100-year flood requirement for protection of the D01 channel. Response: The text of the EIR has been modified to expand the discussion of the current state of the flood control system serving the project area. On-site or offsite detention on a project-byproject basis to fully detain the increment in 100-year storm flow added by development of the project site has • - been added as a mitigation measure. While this mitigation measure will not correct existing deficiencies in the project area, it will ensure that development does not have a further adverse impact on downstream flooding. - H-2 . Comment: Page ix, Executive Summary (Storm Drainage) . The same comment above applies. Response: The text has been modified to discuss additional mitigation as discussed under H-1 above. H-3 Comment: Page 41, Environmental Impact. The statement that the Orange County Flood Control .District' s improvements to the D01 channel and the Bartlett Retarding Basin will adequately contain the 100-year flood is incorrect. Response: The EIR text has been corrected to indicate that needed improvements to the Talbert channel outlet and other improvements will be required to .provide 100-year flood protection locally. In. addition, flooding potential exists in the 169 • project area from the Santa Ana River, requiring • major upstream improvements which will not be constructed for many years. H-4 Comment: Page 41, 43 , Mitigation Measures. Until the channels are brought up to .the 100-year flood capacity, additional drainage simply adds to the �- dangers of area residential flooding. Part of prior flood damage was the result of the approval of developments which contributed additional drainage to the inadequate capacity of the channels. . The suggestion that the Subdivision and Uniform Building .Codes provide adequate mitigation does. not deal with the possible litigation that can ensue from flooding. The possible additional mitigation measures that may be required by the Federal Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) are themselves contradictory to the preceding statement. Response: The text has been modifed to indicate that additional runoff from the project area would exacerbate existing flooding problems. The Orange County Flood Control District has • indicated that it will not accept additional. storm drain improvements causing increased flow until channels are substantially improved. The combination of building code, subdivision regulation and FIA miitigation measures will substantially protect newly constructed structures in flood-prone areas from the impacts �- of flooding. They will not protect existing structures and will not protect from increased runoff. H-5 Comment: Page 111, Water. The mitigation measure for construction and replacement of all substandard lines along Beach Boulevard to the extent Redevelopment funds are available does not appear to provide an adequate plan for a necessary and basic requirement. Response: Redevelopment funding is contingent on development in the project area, which is anticipated but cannot be assured. In general, the available funding will be proportional to the amount of new development, and therefore to the • 170 amount of additional impact on the water system. However, if new development does not take place, • redevelopment funds will not be available for addressing existing problems in the project area. H-6 Comment: Page 123 , Storm Drainage. The Bartlett Park Retarding Basin is not sufficient to contain the runoff from the 100-year storm. Response: The text of the EIR has been corrected to provide a more complete discussion of the existing flooding situation in the project area and the relation of drainage improvements to flooding. A large number of improvements, including reconstruction of the Talbert channel outlet, are required to provide 100-year flood protection. H-7 Comment: (Schedule for Adoption) Has the Preliminary Report and Draft EIR been sent and reviewed by the appropriate county agencies, including the .r County Fiscal Review Committee? Is there a response? Response: The reports were sent to the Fiscal Review Committee as required by law once the committee was formed. A response is anticipated in accordance with the time limits for fiscal review • _. established in state redevelopment law. H-8 Comment: There should be a public hearing prior to the final certification. Response: A public hearing on the EIR was held by the City Council -and Redevelopment Agency in a joint �-- meeting on March 16, 1987. No other EIR. hearings are included in the project schedule. Other hearings will be held on the Redevelopment Plan itself. H-9 Comment: It is the writer's understanding that CRA procedures call for the fiscal review to be included with the EIR. Response: The California Environmental Quality Act provides that economic impact aspects of the project may be included in the EIR or in another document. In this case, the Redevelopment Agency will consider economic aspects of the project in a separate document. • 171 H-10 Comment: Does the holding of a joint public hearing • immedately after the July 4th holidays provide an adequate and convenient time for the public. Response: (Not an EIR comment) The scheduled hearing date provides adequate time for the public to schedule time to attend if desired. Those who do not wish to attend the hearing may submit written comments. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency April 10, 1987 I-1 Comment: Previous comment on NOP was not fully addressed. Specifically, Flood Control and Redevelopment Agency participation in OCFCD channel improvements. Response: The text of the EIR has been expanded, as a �. result of this comment and others, concerning flood control and channel improvements. I-2 Comment: The Draft EIR states that the Bartlett Retarding Basin will contain the projected 100-year flood. However, this improvement will not provide • complete 100-year protection. Response: Again, the text of the EIR has been expanded to include additional discussion as a result of this L comment and others regarding flood control . I-3 Comment: The Redevelopment project should improve the flood control facilities adjacent to the proposed development, or else the negotiated agreement should provide at least 100% pass through of the flood control district's share of the taxes. r Response: This comment is concerned with fiscal implications of the proposed project and no environmental issues were raised so no response is required. I-4 Comment: Any proposed drainage pipes into this channel -- (Talbert) will require a permit from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. Response: The mitigation measures included in Section 3 . 16 Utilities--Storm Drainage have indicated that any connection, modification, extension, or enlargement of storm drain facilities maintained by the County will require appropriate permits. ... 172 r I-5 Comment: If flooding identified in the Draft EIR is a result of the Santa Ana River, identified • mitigation measures will have no effect. Response: In response to this comment and others, additional mitigation measures have been identified and incorporated into Section 3 . 3-- Water. The combination of mitigation measures identified in this section is expected to result in long-term improvements in the flooding situation in Huntington Beach. Department of Conservation i April 16, 1987 J-1 Comment: The shallow depth to groundwater exposes the site -- to a potential hazard of liquefaction during ground-shaking from earthquake. Prior to project approval we recommend foundation conditions be evaluated for seismic activity. Response: The potential hazard for liquefaction does exist and it is expected that the mitigation measures included on page 24 would include foundation considerations and would .reduce this; impact to a level considered less than significant. v J-2 Comment: Currently, there are several active, idle, and abandoned oil wells within and adjacent to the project. We recommend that the active wells be preserved. For public safety, the developer should provide at least an 8-foot wall around the oil wells and associated facilities. Response: The preservation of any active wells cannot be assured at this time and will likely be based on economic considerations at that time. In the event the active well site is preserved, the construction of a wall has been included as a mitigation measure as part of the proposed project. J-3 Comment: Abandoned wells. Any new structure that is to be located over or in the proximity of any previously abandoned well may need to be reabandoned. Additional mitigation measures included. Response: The text of the EIR has been augumented in response to this comment. Additional mitigation 173 W �- measures included in this comment have been added • to the EIR and are considered as part of the proposed project. J-4 Comment: Gas anomalies are known to be near the proposed project area. This. information is contained in "A Study of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells and Methane and Other hazardous Gas Accumulations" published by the Department of Conservation, Division of Oil and Gas. Additional areas that ... could be a hazard include the northwest corner of Atlanta and Newland Streets, and the western side of Delaware Street near Beach Boulevard. .. Response: Neither of these two areas is within the project area, but the text of the EIR has been expanded to indicate that potential gas anomalies may exist within the project area. . J-5 Comment: Because the project will be removing some * available surface land, provisions should be made to designate and set aside land for'. or future drilling sites in the area. Response: The area does provide a potential for oil recovery, an important national resource, and • provisions should be made to ensure that this resource can be recovered as future demand increases. Specific provisions have not been . developed at this time, but this information has ,r been added to the EIR. Joint Public Hearing, City Council/Redevelopment Agency, March 16, 1987 A joint public hearing on the Draft EIR was held by the Huntington Beach City Council and Redevelopment Agency on March 16, 1987 . The following comment was received. Comment: Dean Albright, Huntington Beach Environmental Board. Mr. Albright briefly addressed issues which were raised in the Environmental Board's written Comments on the Draft EIR included. in a letter _ dated March 11, 1987. Response: These comments are responded to in the responses . to that letter on on Pages 160-166. • 174 Environmental Board 'Z CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Muhl%l lINIt Al 11 Post Office Box 190 . Huntington Beach, California 92648 February 77, 1987 Doug La Belle, Director Redevelopment Agency/ �F^�'''^,••-•. Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department City Hall 2000 Main Street y Huntington. Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: At our February 26, 1987 Enviornmental Board meeting, Steven Kohler made a presentation on the workings of the Redevelopment Agency and how it affects the city. A. copy of the DRAFT ;�. Environmental Impact Report was presented to the Board. December 5, 1986 a letter was sent to Tom Androwsky, upon his , request, to respond to the Environmental Checklist Form on the `` Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Upon researching this DRAFT EIR, the Board's comments were not included. .- As the Planning Commission will be meeting March 3, 1987, it is the consensus of our Board that our response be submitted to them for review. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Si erely, �. Dean Albright Chairman Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Committee •` DA:cmw Enclosure cc: Planning Commission Kent Pierce, Chairman Tom Livingood, Member Tom Androusky • 175 Environmental Board CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • MIh�,a �U.111At11 Post -Office Box 190 Huntington Beach. California 92648 December 5, 1986 Mr. Tom Androusky Redevelopment Project Manager City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Dear Mr. Androusky: The Huntington Beach Environmental Board has reviewed the Initial Study - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. One of the questions that was brought up dealt with the coordination and impact between this project and the Super Street, overall and in the phasing stages. The Board reviewed the Environmental Checklist Form and questioned several of the answers given. Attached is a copy of our response to several of your answers. If you have any questions regarding. our responses, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your consideration of the Environmental Board' s input to this project. Sin erely, Dean Albright Chairman Corinne Welch Kay Seraphine Members, Ad Hoc Committee DA:cmw Enclosures cc: City Council Planning Commission 176 I. Description of Proposed Project - Page 1 Do the figures include commercial, office and residential • already in place? Beach Boulevard not appropriate for residential use. �- How much unoccupied office space is already on Beach Blvd.? With 446 acres of commercial, how much parking will be required of the project so as to not .impact the .residential side streets? IZ. Public Improvements - Page 4 4 . Storm drainage. Will the storm drains be upgraded on the east side of Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and +.. Indianapolis? Environmental Checklist Form 1. Earth b. Yes - 90-95% site coverage definitely would result in °- loss of water perculation and loss of ground water. g. Yes - potential for ground failure if there is future development of southwest corner of. Beach and • Indianapolis -. northeast corner of Beach and Atlanta. 2. Air a. Should be yes 3 . Water b. Yes - what mitigating measures are being taken to protect the area southeast of Beach and Indianapolis that flooded in 1983? c. Yes - considering your answer to b, how can (c) be "no. " This seems to be a contradiction. f. Yes (b) again contradicts a "no. " Water• cannot perculate through cement and asphalt. 6. Noise I a/b. Should be yes 7. Light/Glare Beach Blvd. , south of Indianapolis is quite dark at the present time. • 177 i 10. Risk of Upset b. Yes additional traffic due to development will cut �- down on .response time. 11. Population 21 acres of residential will increase the density of the area. 13 . Transportation C. Yes - additional busses could be needed to handle the �. increase in people using businesses and residential. f. Yes - Increase in traffic will have an increase in traffic hazards. e. Yes - increased traffic will increase the wear and tear on the highway, i.e. increased commercial will increase the number of service trucks. 16. Utilities r d. Yes - even with the present expansion, the sanitation • plant is still not adequate, The project will further. impact the problem. 21. Mandatory Findings -- b. Yes - it is impossible to determine the long term effects. C. Yes - traffic d. Yes - depends on how quickly lead_ is eliminated from gasoline.- i 178 Orange County 'Vector Control District DISTRICT OFFICE • 13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD..GARDEN GROVE,CA 92643 MAILING ADDRESS • P.O. BOX 67,SANTA ANA.CALIFORNIA 92702 PHONE(AREA CODE 714)971.2421 • ... BOARD OF TRUSTEES• 1987 9 1987 PRESIDENT•David W.Cromwell J(7 VICE-PRESIDENT•Judie De Perry March 4, 1987 SECRETARY•Paul Bernal --"G AND ANAHEIM v n:%'ELOPMENT JUDIE DE PERRY BREA DEAN F.MILLEN BUENA PARK �� .: KENNETH B JONES _J - COSTA MESA Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager A?NN WILLIAM BANDARUK Redevelopment Agency CYPRESS p g y JOHN KANEL Noon"". 00 - FOUNTAIN VALLEY City of Huntington Beach coA,MUNrT�o= 5 BARBARA A BROWN 2000 Main :Street _ .,, FULLERTON LJFMLIr, FRANCES R WOOD Huntington Beach, California 92648 GARDEN GROVE MILTON KRIEGER Re: Vector Control Proceedings for HUNTINGTON BEACH WARREN G HALL the Huntington Beach--Beach °i 'RMARE ANNGAIDO - - Boulevard Redevelopment Project. _ LAGUNA BEACH GRANT McCOMBS Dear Mr. Kohler: . LA HABRA DOROTHY WEDEL b. LA PALMA DANIELD COLLINS I have reviewed the above report and I do not anticipate any significant LOSALAMITOS PAUL BERNAI vector problems. NEWPORT BEACH 'Y+ AUTHELYN ORANGE Our District should be notified at least two weeks prior to demolition PLACENTIARRERA or grading on any structures or dwellings that may have the potential THEODOREC RUSSELL to harbor rodents. This will allow our technicians sufficient • SAN CLEMENTE KENNETH E.CARR time to inspect or place rodenticide bait prior to demolition and SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO JAROLD8 COLE thus reduce the potential for rodent dispersal . SANTA ANA WILLIAM L.BOYNTON - SEAL Sites should be graded for proper runoff to avoid standing water 6— JOYCE A.RISNER STANTON that could breed mosquitoes. Also, trash should be held in fly EDWARD L ALLEN TUSTIN proof containers and emptied weekly or preferably biweekly. URSULA E KENNEJY PAR K K LLAPAR slLZEI During the landscape phase of the project, plants that. are attractive WESTMINSTER FRANK FRY.JR- to rodents, such as Algerian ivy, oleander, palm trees, yuccas, . YORBA DAVIDID W W..CROMWELL 9 boU ainvillea, etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate types COUNTY OF ORANGE of ground cover less attractive to rodents is enclosed. ir. LEO F.KOHL - DISTRICT MANAGER GILBERT L.CHALLET Thank you for allowing us to review this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact �- me. Sincerely, (AGE Col/ 0 �r� Gary Reynolds Biologist T GR/vb -= ^.A Enc. • h 4 ronTR0'- 179 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. .ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER TO ALGERIAN IVY • Algerian I a popular ground cover in Orange Count is known to harbor > Ivy, P P 6�' E Y, 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 cri spa) 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 withstands moderate traffic. 7. Germander (Teucr.ium 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. 180 f. i� Thc> A1�-itrnpvlitan VViter Dist"rlct o► �outherri California Otin 0 dw l,rnri,;l I%Iami}err ♦r • 1 C) LCi�/ March 11. 1987 ...... '.'_ ""tI, MENT City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ,r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention Mr . Stephen V. Kohler Principal Redevelopment Specialist w Gentlemen: Beach Boulevard • Redevelopment Prbiect Thank you for your letter dated February 20. 1987. transmitting documents and map pertaining to the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. There are no existing Metropolitan Water District facilities within the boundaries of the project area, which is within the Original Area of Municipal Water District of. Orange County, a member public agency of Metropolitan. We appreciate your cooperation in keeping us informed of your redevelopment activities. Very truly yours, Frank Aranda Senior Engineering Technician RKY/emm .181 I 1 1 1 tiun. ! Il ;rir:,url, (n' Angelrs.Calif. .�1.r;lm,;,rJJ�e�..81)a 5415J,1 o) .Angelo..Calif.90054 Telephone:(2131 250-6000 �- fe Environmental Board `2 CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH l.IN(.I0.81,1 II Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 March 11, 1987 ' Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/ Jim Palin, Director, Planning Department City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Gentlemen: At the PAC meeting of the Beach Boulevard Redevlopment Committee held on February 25,. 1987 and the Environmental Board meeting -- held on February 26, 1987, Steve Kohler stated that the Environmental Board's responses had been incorporated into the DRAFT EIR for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment project. The Board's Adhoc Committee met on March 4, March 9, and March 10, 1987 to review the DRAFT EIR. The Committee was still unable to find these responses as stated by Mr. Kohler. Enclosed is a copy of our response to TABLE A, . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY, Page XIV. Would you please refer the enclosed material to the Planning Commission for their review prior to the . March 24, 1987 Public Hearing on this project. Thank you. it Sincerely, • Dean Albright Chairman Beach Boulvevard Redevelopment Adhoc Committee DA:cmw Enclosures cc: Kent Pierce, Chairman, Planning Commission Tom Livingood, Planning Commission Tom Androusky • 182 i .... Responses to TABLE A, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SURVEY Page XIV 1. Air •- A major concern would be stalled traffic which would contribute to a concentration of lead and pollution. (Refer to Page 26, DRAFT EIR, for comments from the AQMD. Page 35, DRAFT EIR, Is there an error .with regards to 9986 co decreased to 9658 co? All other figures on this table showed an increase. 2. Land Use No comments 3 . Traffic/Circulation The flyover at Beach and Warner was not addressed. The city recently approved the Beach Boulevard Super Street Final Report, but denied the Warner flyover. How would this be {- mitigated? The DRAFT EIR did not address the Downtown Redevelopment ., project nor the two-three months of Beach traffic during the • summer months. These are three very serious problems. 4 . Earth Ninety-Ninety-five percent site coverage would result in loss of water perculation and loss of ground water. In high areas, such as Indianapolis, west of Beach, water could . collect behind a project, undermining the soil and result in . slippage of earth. Areas south of Adams are most _ susceptible to this problem. (Example: Blue Bird .Canyon in Laguna Beach is an example of development .in a manner. that stored water in the land mass, resulting in eventual landslides. ) 5. Surface and Ground Water The DRAFT EIR does not adequately cover impact on the Talbert Channel (DO1) . (Example: protection of area southwest of Beach and Indianapolis that flooded in 1983. Study's show existing proposed flood control improvements will not solve flood control . problems of existing development, let alone proposed projects. Mitigating measures must include recommendations for improving the main channels. • 183 kY 6. Noise Will mitigating measures adequately cover existing residential and commercial property? 7. Light and Glare No comments 8 . Water Is the city present water supply adequate . for any new development? 9. Sewer The mitigation measures do not address the realities of life yr .. with the expansion of existing treatment plants nor the building of new ones. Throughout the report the treatment plants are not addressed. 10. Storm Drains Where is the terminus of the storm drains and will this terminus be able to handle the extra water? The mitigation measures are contingent upon the upgrading of the Orange County Flood Control Channels. 11. Schools No comments 12 : Risk of Upset Methane gas, underground pipelines . and abandoned wells have not been addressed. 13 . Population No comments 14 . Housing Under California Redevelopment Law there are guidelines .to protect the residents. The Redevelopment Agency needs to insure that the 180 units housing approximately 500 people are protected. 15. Parks and Recreation As stated in the Master Plan for Parks, preservation of - neighborhood parks must be taken into consideration. (Example: Rancho View and Crest View) . 184 16. Health Hazards The proposed project is expected to generate 73% more trips• within the project compared to existing conditions. The Committee feels this will create a health hazard due to the increase in traffic which would generate more pollutan`.s into the air. 17. Fire Protection The additional traffic caused by the development will cut down on response time. SUMMARY: Flood In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project it will be necessary to upgrade the Orange County Flood Control Channels in order to receive the run-off from the storm drains, which also need to be upgraded. Sewage . L- In order to proceed with the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project it will be necessary to upgrade Sanitation Plant #2 in order to receive the additional affluent which will occur. • • 135 ALIFORNIA ' COASTAL COMMISSION - 61OUTH COAST AREA '245 WEST BROADWAY• SUITE 380 ONG BEACH. CA 90802 5905071 •> / March 12, 1987 Stephen V. Kohler .. Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Califlornia 92648 Re : Draft EIR for Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project (SCH #86111216) Dear Mr . Kohler : Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft EIR for the proposed redevelopment of Beach Boulevard between Edinger Avenue and Atlanta Avenue. That portion of Beach Boulevard from Pacific Coast Highway to approximately 600 feet north of the Atlanta Avenue intersection is located within the Coastal Zone. It appears, . therefore, that only a small portion of the proposed project area would be located within the Coastal Zone. The Commission' s concerns in this area relate to impacts on the Huntington Beach wetlands located between Beach Boulevard and the • Santa Ana River inland of Pacific Coast Highway. Road improvements to Beach Boulevard north of Atlanta Avenue and redevelopment of the adjoining commercial/residential development would not, we believe, have any significant adverse impact on coastal resources . Thank you for the opportunity to comment on . the draft EIR. if you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me at , (213 ) , 590-5071 . Sincerely, Christopher Kroll Staff Analyst , 2410A • 186 Huntington Beach r.. Fountain Valley ]Board of REAETORS® Inc. � - R E A LTO R' 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington [leach, CA 92647 a (714) 847.6093 March 16, 1987 The Honorable Jack Kelly, Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City/Redevelopment Agency Meeting, Agenda #F-3c �- Beach Boulevard Plan Adoption/ Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Mayor Kelly and Councilmembers: As President of the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Board of REALTORS©, I would like to express my support in concept for the Draft Environmental Impact Report which has been prepared for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment • Project Area, I believe that the development of this initial report covering all environmental aspects of this area is a very positive step toward the comprehensive planning that is needed to insure that our community will benefit from the proposed improvements on Beach Boulevard. I realize that the specifics of the redevelopment plan still requires input from the property owners in the area and from the Project Area Committee. We, too, are in the process of reviewing the Draft E.I.R. in detail and will provide you with a written response and specific recommendations if we have any concerns prior to your April 4', 1987 deadline for comment. Meanwhile, I urge the Council to adopt the Draft E. I. R. and move this project forward -. through the public process, and continue the progress made thus far. Sincerely, Lila Nowell, President LN/JAS n , 3 OFFICERS • LtLA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HOR2EWSKI, First Vice President JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman a JAMES RIGHEIMER, SecretarylTreasurer DIRECTORS R.L. "KIRK"KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN• TOM VAN TUYL WILL WOO' ecutive Vice President• JUDITH SEVERY, Vice President/Public Affairs 187 HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER of COMMERCE SEACLIFF VILLAGE, 2213 MAIN, # 32 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 i LJ TELEPHONE (714) 536.8888 March 30 , 1987 1987.1988 rXECUTIVE commr 7EE. "EVEHOLDEN Mr . Jack Kelly , Mayor and SxRtr snores Insurance Apenc,M e m b e r s of City Council Vcave,re.nr City of Huntington Beach rt Avr_ES I Axles.Assocmtes 2000 Main Street IMFpos'dont Huntington Beach , CA 92648 ::HRIS N CLAWSON k4cDm"u lkvvas Ast-cr,Iubcs .pet+oenr Dear Mayor Kelly : AVS GOEDECKE `IMwnable Club o'Sa.tw.,.Ca'romw Ve'e peLOM! On March 26 , - the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce voted ni�WCQK Buachcc"Lww to support the Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project as presented in the Draft Environmental _'?WARDSHUt'E Impact Report . Ve-%er Lod - YyEACKX-'r,er,, The Board recognizes the importance of the Beach Blvd . corridor alsa ftsrftv both as the city' s major commercial core and as a vital link AY&Oa ASHA 1 dwy to the proposed redevelopment projects in. the downtown area . We OARDOFMREC'•ORS feel that the objective of securing tax incre©ent financing "IROMEMBAMF to provide traffic improvements within the corridor is vital. %nonvyA.-Is* to the economic well-being as well as the aesthetic enhancement AOLRIE of the City ' s major arterial highway . This financing will r. R� aL15SiEF:E provide the city with the necessary tool to accelerate the RAS'a•Peal Esta+e:eMar provisions of traffic , parking_ and access improvements . Ic.ABETH c^o,rr tor+ey 10"evsI In regards to the three most significant impacts , Land Use , �.r�t+Iua lmo:,- Air Quality , and Transportation/Circulation , the Board feels �A:-.E L DUNN - that appropriate mitigation is in place. : .,'4,,4too c r:.,qs s Loar 54N FARE -s.+mernCai.""rna Gas Cwnpagirst , in refe ran ce to Land Use , there are no sweeping land >CKHARLOW use changes and are consistent with the City ' s current General '•�+arcwrow6AstKxialas Plan . It is our understanding that any further development , HtPs .+GLEE i.l+•"r Nat-oral Bang selective widening at intersections , financial assistance , %RTLETTS lot consolidation , eminent domain proceedings etc . would be >=,sityCv.uLhant subject to procedures set up in redevelopment law . This would 11KEMARTIN require approval by the appropriate agencies , boards and commis- �-J-vem Ca'aC,-.a Emson com wl. .. . k-AAIrNE NICKEL-01'MAt4EY slons as well as the public hearing process . '7Drt kolectK)' InC ON PANKMARC CLU Second , the Air Quality will be affected but may be partially 1°"""a-nA°e"c mitigated by instituting a Transportation System Management �1E+OOKE oLJNKM NUrA@tl tnsuance ( TSM ) program and reducing consumption of natural gas 'and :ANKRCHMON6 electricity . The proposed TSM measures in addition to street '"°" improvements included in the Super Street Demonstration -Project AxcFsDCEJR as approved b the City will significantly help in this area . .,ocr,oel�t Bakery D D Y Y g Y P FENCER SHELDON "%n0u2EnwV0n"snt4;SenaceJrbird , the Transportation/Circulation concerns are being addressed - -RED$OF7 a through the improvements proposed in the Super Streets project . lsamq YoEETILLOTSON To reiterate the Chamber ' s position on this issue , we sent *aa,$40Mpboertrss a letter to the City Council dated January 27 , 1986 , supporting —TANTKACzYK the Beach Blvd . Super Street Demonstration Project concept �ebo`DKO°e' cO"'°ar'y with access control and parking receiving heavy consideration . At the ;. me , the Board also expressed support for " the. TSM 188 Mayor Jack Kelly and Member of City Council March 20, 1987 Page 2 • alternatives and 24 hour parking restrictions on Beach Blvd . The Chamber further suggested that City redevelopment funds and Orange County Transportation Commission Super Street proect funds be used to help with driveway- accessibility and increased onsight parking wherever possible. The Board encouraged further review and study on the proposed grade separation on Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue . In conclusion , the Board of Directors appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Beach Blvd . Redevelopment Project as proposed and to offer our support . We look forward to commenting on the final draft when it comes before the Redevelopment Agency . Please keep us advised as plans progress . Sincerely , I kd� hu Steve Holden President SH:kb cc : Charles Thompson , City Administrator • Doug LaBelle , Director of Redevelopment 189 APR 61987 �COTISNiaEU+Nu -- _ I j�./�J"-.0^' P�'� U.•,NG PNp PMENj iApril 2, 1987 °oO`" �- 1-7 TO: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency FROM: Project Area Committee - Beach Boulevard SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Report Redevelopment Plan for the"Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Project To complete the major task of the Project Area Committee, we feel there has. been insufficient time to adequately review the draft E.I.R. Report before the due date of May 14, 1987. The E.I.R. Report, itself, is inadequate and incomplete and does not contain enough information to make an adequate recommendation. We also -feel that, this .incomplete E.I.R. Report has not been sent to all necessary affected taxing agencies. (Examples: Cal-Trans and Orange County's Fiscal Review Committee..) Due to the limited time provided, the Committee's remarks concerning the E.I.R. will address the following issues: A. Lack of Information on Existing Uses. Page 1, First Paragraph, -� states "Elimination of Blighting Influences currently.preventing the full and effective use of the land".. The Committee feels strongly that the wording needs to be changed. The statement is misleading and does not mention the tremendous amount of recycling and renovation of existing property in the proposed redevelopment area that has already occurred. The E.I.R. is to be an information document .(Page XVIII) and complete information is not provided. The Executive Summary also does not provide adequate description of existing uses. B. Transportation/Circulation (3.13). The E.I.R. is inadequate in -- several areas concerning analysis and proposed mitigating measures for. this important "item. 1. No discussion concerning impact of Beach traffic during the summer months. The proposed increased density and use will tremendously impact an existing serious traffic circulation problem. 2. No discussion concerning impact of Downtown Redevelopment Projects on Beach Boulevard and twelve major East-West arterials. Resort destinations, i.e. , hotels. tourist attractions, mean an increase in vehicle traffic �- trying to reach freeways. 3. There- is not An adequate review of the Super..Streets Demonstration :Project Final Report as approved by Council. The impact of. land use c anges _ in the project area and. the elimination of the flyover at Beach/Warner., would change the impact on the .mitigating measures outlined in the Super Streets Report. Two. land .use changes at Beach and Warner (approximately 24 acres). would generate :nearly 20,000 daily trips over existing land .use. 190 . Redevelopment Agency April 2, 1987 • Page 2 There are 509 acres in the project area. Does the Super Street Project address these major proposed changes? Volume of traffic is addressed; however, how to handle- the 73% more trips in .the project area is not adequately covered. Page 94. Table 23 clearly shows intersections at unacceptable level of service at intersections in the study area. ` 4. . The elimination of parking on Beach Boulevard with the installation of bus turnouts, widening and red curbing is not even covered in the E.I.R. The tremendous impact on existing businesses and residential areas needs to be carefully analyzed with mitigating measures. C. Lack of Economic Analysis Within the Draft E.I.R. The P.A.C. Committee recommends the Redevelopment Agency/City Council carefully review the Committee's concerns of the draft E.I.R. and accept input from the Environmental Board, Planning Commission, and other agencies, and not certify the E.I.R. until the concerns are adequately addressed. The Project Area Committee believes that there must be a final Public Hearing on the proposed final draft of the E.I.R. The final draft E.I.R. must be made available prior to the Public Hearing. All public agencies, businesses, property owners and the general public must be notified of the Public Hearing and have access to the document thirty (30) days in advance of the meeting. When the final E.I.R. Report is sent to the Planning Commission to determine if the E.I.R. is in conformance with the General Plan, that meeting should be scheduled as a Public Hearing. On your present Calendar Schedule. -- July 6 is a holiday weekend and .would be an inappropriate date for a meeting to be held. PAC:dc 191 PW 0 loll :. ;• IL 0!!M ww� or—m ... .Q-,--.n. r-r-�r--v ® .. —,---.. ownwas - 9 An - - - - - - - - APR 71987 3 Aoril 1987 COUIN%BELANU Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator g7 Redevelopment and Housing Administration City of Huntington Beach, {� �,oPM`NT. 2000 Main Street, P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Le Belle: v On behalf of the Flood Prevention Group of Huntington Beach, . I am submitting the following comments relative to the Draft Environmental Impact Re_oort for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Proiect: • 1 . Page viii , Executive Summary, Surface and Groundwater The mitigation measures . . .Private developments to _provide adequate drainage, installation of storm drains, and the current construction of the Bartlett Retarding Basin. . ." will not, as indicated, --reduce reduce this impact to a level of insicnificance." Until the County plan for reconstruction of Channel DO1 is carried through, the increase in the -amount and speed of runoff during storms," will simply increase the dancers of flooding because of the current inadequate capacity of the DO1 channel . In addition, it is important to point out that the Bartlett Retarding Basin was constructed principally as an emergency water-holding instrument and does not meet the 100 year flood requirement for protection of the DO1 channel . 2. Page ix, E.S. , Storm Drainage - The same facts hold in apposition to the statement ' . . .are expected to reduce this impact." 3. Page 410, Environmental Impact - The following statement is incorrect: • "However the Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) n8 yt 192 is currently improving the Huntinqton Beach Channel (DOl • with the construction of the Bartlett ret.ardinq basin. This improvement will adequately contain proiected 100 year flood •.• levels." As indicated above. it is a misconception to consider that the Bartlett Park Holding Basin construction meets the 100 year flood level . That can only be done when the DO1 channel has been reconstructed, and, may also depend upon the construction of the continuing Reaches and the outlet. 4 . Page 41 & 43. ?litigation Measures - It is important to again point out that until the Channels are brought up to the 100 year flood capacity, the additional drainage. by private development or by the Redevelopment Agency, simply adds to the dangers of area residential flooding. Part of the prior flood damage was the result of the approval of developments which contributed additional drainage to the inadequate capacity of the channels. +� In addition, to suggest that the City's Subdivision and Uniform Building Code o_ rovide adequate mitigation does not deal with the possible litigation that can ensue from r, flooding. The possible additional mitigation measures that may be required by the Federal Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) , as set forth, are themselves contradictory to the • preceding statement. 5. Pace 111 . Water - The mitigation measure for "construction and replacement of all substandard lines along Beach ►- Boulevard. . . to the extent Redevelopment funds are available. " does not. appear to Provide an adequate Plan for a necessary and basic requirement . 6. Paqe 123, Storm Drainage - The discussion regarding storm drainage continues to make the same inaccurate assumption regarding the mitigation effect. of the Bartlett Park Retarding Basin, i .e. "This improvement will allow this channel to adequately contain the runoff expected from the 100 year storm effect." In addition, I raise the following questions on the Schedule of Adoption for the Pro_oosed Beach Boulevard Redevelo_ment . Project Area: w 1 . Has the Preliminary report and draft EIR been sent and reviewed by the appropriate County agencies, ie. the County Fiscal Review Committee? (2/18/87) . Is there a response? 2. April 24, 1987 - It is my understanding that there should ��1 19 3 y.. • be a public hearing prior to the final certification. 3. May 29. 1987 - It is my understanding that the CRA procedures call for the fiscal review to be included with the EIR. 4. July 6, 1987 - Does the holding of the ioint public hearing immediately after the July 4th holidays provide an . adequate and convenient time for .the public? Sincerely, Chauncey A. Ale nder, Chair Flood Prevention GroUD of Huntington Beach • Pane .� 194 V _ t . �. � " 19a7 4 O U NTY O F 1 J ERNIE SCHNEIDER H\�I` DIRECTOR, EMA 2 1` PITADOMM�N TY Cl�ELOP�EµL DIREC OF P 3 Ft R 5 r RA N GE LOC 12 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O. BOX 4048 —' ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA,CA 92702.4048 PLANNING MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 404e April 10, 1987 SANTA ANA,CA 92702.4048 TELEPHONE: (714j 834-4643 FILE NCL 6064 Stephen V.. Kohler City of Huntington Beach Housing and Redevelopment 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Draft EIR Dear Mr. Kohler: The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the above referenced document which addresses the environmental impacts associated with the redevelopment of approximately 509 acres of land. The proposed area evaluated consists of retail, commercial, auto dealerships, office, residential, recreation• and mixed use developments. We have the following comments regarding flood control: Our previous comments on the Notice of Preparation, dated .December 4, . 1986, were not fully addressed (see attachment) . Specifically, paragraph two, under Flood Control was not addressed in. the EIR. This comment dealt with Redevelopment Agency participation in the improvement of Orange County Flood Control District (OCFCD) channels. The EIR does not mention those improvements and should be revised to include that discussion requested in the letter, dated December 4, 1986. Section 3.3 in the text states that the Bartlett Retarding Basin will contain the projected 100-year flood. However, even with the Bartlett Retarding Basin in operation, tributary areas may be inundated from storms of a lower intensity than a 100-year storm, due to the lower recurrence interval of local storm drain delivery systems. Moreover, the existing Talbert Channel is not capable of conveving runoff from a 100-year storm. The subject redevelopment agency amendment should improve the flood control facilities adjacent to proposed development, or else the negotiated agreement should provide at least 100% pass through of the flood control district's share of the taxes. Since considerable funds have already been expended on the Talbert Valley Channels, the flood control district's share of the taxes ought to be greater than 100% pass through. Any proposed drainage pipes into this channel will require a permit from the Orange County Environmental Management Agency. • 195 w. , Stephen V. Kohler Page 2 Section 2.3, page 41, paragraph 4 states that, "Approximately 70 percent of the project area is within an area of minimal flooding and this impact is not considered significant in these areas." It is not clear if the above flooding. is due to storm drains or channels, or due to the. Santa Ana River. If the case of the flooding is due to the river, then the mitigation on page 41, second sentence, "Storm drain improvements ," will have no effect. Thank you for the oppor,tuntty to respond to the draft EIR. We would appreciate receiving one copy of the final EIR when it becomes available. Should you have any questions, please contact Chris Miller at (714) 834-6932. Very truly yours, r,. Michael M. Ruane, .Manager EMA/Environmental & Special Projects Division CM:pa (043) � I 196 •ATE C" �AIIFORNIA-OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN• Gp...q -OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1987 400 TENTH STREET CRAMENTO. CA 95814 COT1eq�gELgND Stephen V. Hohler April 9, 1987 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency w �: 2000 Main Street �` r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C^.W MU;OuJ IIv At,,) Subject: Beach Blvd Redevelopment Project Area- SCH# 86111216 TYo N�E`°`"'ENT Dear Mr. Hohler: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) Ware) enclosed. Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your convent package is complete. If the package is not in -- order, please notify the State Clearinghouse imrndiately. Your eight digit State Clearinghouse number should be used so that we may reply promptly. Please note that recent legislation requires that a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive comments on a project which • are within the area of the agency's expertise or which relate to activities which that agency must carry out or approve. (AB 2583, Ch. 1514, Stats. 1984. ) These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If you need more information or clarification, we suggest you contact the coamenting agency at your earliest convenience. Please contact Glenn Stober at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. -- Sincerely, -vol -G � v John 9. Chanian . Chief Deputy Dir—e-ftor Office of Planning and Research cc: Resources Agency Enclosures 197 STATE (Jf CA Ur Vw m..—vrnLc yr n[ vv•. r•..•• - FFiCE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 14,Y) TENTH STREET APR 2 7 1987 SACRAMENTQ, CA 95814 COTT@N/8ELANU 916/445-0613 -� April 20, 1987 Stephen V. Kohler Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency APR, 2 � 1� 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 WWStNGAND 69p/MUNfTY.DryEtO�MENt Subject: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Agency Project Area SCH# 86111216 ✓ear Mr. Kohler: '!he enclosed comments on your draft environmental documents were received by the State Clearineouse after the end of the state review period. We are forwarding these corranents to you because they provide. information or raise issues which may assist you in project review. To ensure the adequacy of the fLnal document.you may wish to incorpor-ate these additional cor=ents into the preparation of your, final envirornental docu-meat. Please Contact Glenn. Stcbe, at 916/445-0613 if you have any questions concerning the review process. Wl-,en you contact the Clearinghouse :n this matter, please use the eight digit State Clearinghouse nw.-.ber so that we r respond promptly. S�'_ncerely, a' Yn B., C"hanian �7hlef Deputy Director Enclosure cc: Resources Agency • 198 ~ d ,ititornio THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF CAUFORNIA . morandum To Dr . Gordon F. Snow Date i • Assistant Secretary for Resources Subi Stephen V. Kohler Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency o; 4P 2000 Main Street Rj Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From Department of Conservation—Office of the Director L t? The Department of Conservation has reviewed the a ' IR for a 5-mile long corridor along Beach Boulevard. That a land area involves 509 acres . We have concerns on both seismic hazards and oil field/methane gas impacts . SEISMIC The shallow depth to groundwater exposes the site to a potential hazard of liquefaction during ground-shaking from earthquakes . 3 . Prior to -project approval , we recommend that foundation ... conditions be evaluated for seismic activity affecting the project area . 011. FIELD Currently, there are several active , idle , and abandoned oil wells • within and adjacent to the redevelopment project . We recommend that the active wells be preserved . For public safety, the developer should provide at least an 8-foot wall around the oil wells and associated facilities . Climbalbe landscaping should be prohibited around the outside perimeter of these enclosures . Although some abandoned wells appear to be under. existing structures within the redevelopment project , any new structure that is to be located over or in the proximity of any previously abandoned well may need to be reabandoned. 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 reabandonment operations shall be the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the structure will be located . In spite of the fact that wells within the project area may not result in a hazard , or wells are reabandoned per Section 3208. 1 , a diligent effort should be made to avoid building over any abandoned oil well . To ensure proper review Af building projects within the subject -- area , the Division of Oil and Gas has provided the City of Huntington Beach with a "Construction Project Site Review and 199 Dr . Gordon F . Snow ` Mr . Stephen V. Kohler - - - •.1 ,,;. Page 2 • Well Abandonment Procedure" packet . The procedures outline the in- formation that a project developer must submit to the Division for review. Developers should contact the City of Huntington Beach Building; Department for a copy of the site review packet . Gas anomalies are known to be near the proposed redevelopment project . This information is contained in "A Study of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells and Methane and Other Hazardous Gas Accumulations" published by the Department of Conservation , Division of Oil and Gas. Additional areas that could be a -- potential hazard are : Northwest corner of Atlanta Avenue and Newland Street , and the western side of Delaware Street near Beach Boulevard . Because the project development will be removing some available surface land , provisions should be made to designate and set aside land for future drilling sites in the area . If you have any questions on our review, please contact me at ( 916) 322-5873 . J Dennis J . O ' Bryant Environmental Program Coordinator cc : Ken Carlson , Division of Oil and Gas , Long Beach Bob Reid , Division of Oil and Gas , Sacramento Zoe McCrea , Division of Mines and Geology Ed Kiessling, Division of Mines and Geology 200 chc Appendices • NOTICE OF PP"AWICN -- T0: FfM, Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Enviro®ental Impact Report Huntii�(;ton Beach Redevelopment Agency _ will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environunenta impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. — The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study X is, is not, attached. *Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response roust be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Tom And rusky at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Project Applicant, if any: - DATE October 31, 1986 Signature Title Redevelopment Project Manager Telephone (714) 536-5583 • 294 INITIAL STUDY BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I October 21, 1986 City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Cotton/Beland/Associates 1028 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, California 91004 #402 Description of the Proposed Project The redevelopment project under consideration by the City of Huntington Beach includes the following. actions: 1 ) Approval of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan by the Huntington Beach 'Redevelopment Agency. Approval of plans for redevelopment of approximately 513 acres of land. Development -- will . be based on existing General Plan designations. Approximately 446 acres of the project area is designated as commercial , approximately 15 acres as office professional , approximately 21 acres residential ( 14 acres medium density, 1 . 5 acres medium high density, 1 acre high density, and approximately 4 . 3 acres planned community ) , and approximately 30 acres recreation. Anticipated final development may include up to 5 . 8 million square feet of commercial space 290 ,0001square feet of office, and approximately 675 units of residential. -- 2 ) Upgrading landscaping along centerline and frontage roads, theme signage, street furniture and decorative street lighting as necessary. 3 ) Undergrounding of utilities wihin the project area. 4 ) "Super street" concept improvements including signal modification, new signals, access control , parking restrictions, restriping , intersection widening , and bus turn outs as necessary . 5 ) Upgrading sewer , storm drainage, and water lines within the public right-of-way as necessary. 6 ) Assembly by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency of '- development sites if appropriate and necessary, demolition of existing structures and sales to private developers under a disposition and development agreement . It is anticipated that relocation of some existing business and .residents may be necessary. 7 ) Approval- of private developers plans including conditional use permits , zone changes or other permits required to implement to redevelopment plan. Figure A-1 shows the location of the proposed project . Figure A-2 shows the current General Plan designations within the project area . Table A-1 lists public improvements included in the proposed project . • A-1 • a CO Edinger Avenue -_`— MNWMeM@= Hell Avenue jr 77 AA � J Warner Avenue l—:,� l: n • -7 l 4 • $Idle[ Avenue ti I it � '•�• ! I � , � —� z Talbert Avenue I l ' North ; 'r I ; 7. 2000 stile in feet - GhCll Ellis Ave MATCH LINE Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project • �- North Half A-2 Ft5urPA- � ky",w`-rt' _MATCH.LINE _- Ellis Avenue t i � ^���_�, •r�� Garfield Avenue ;- ...A. ':i•:. �. II-, I' •� �` i= Yorktown !.venue II •�7 I, r!. 1 r.I t- a1�1J•'',.. I. ... . Adams Avenue r11 Jr..I •� i -�,i; , , LIA , � 0 N: :_ ;'1 i li`Ili I ?, �6_:: Indianapolis Avenue r, E Atlanta Avenue North qc.1000 ''• Oc, Hamilton Avenue _ . a 1, I11 tE III01 Idb a) • Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project South Halt A-3 F%'C�Lclw-tP 4- 1 TABLE A-1 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS • BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 1 . Landscaping Centerline and frontage roads along existing .medians from `- Edinger to Atlanta Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights 2 . Undergrounding of Utilities - Entire length of Project 3 . Super street Improvements - Signal modification - Ellis Avenue - New signals - MacDonald, Newman - Access control - Ellis Avenue, Warner Avenue - Parking restrictions • - Restriping - Intersection widening, New right-of-way Bus turnouts 4 . Storm Drain and Sanitary Sewer Improvements Storm Drainage 2200 feet of 24" and 18" storm drain from Stark to Sher, south of Aldrich One-half mile of 48" storm drain on west side of Beach Boulevard between Atlanta and Indianapolis Sewer 2700 feet of 12" line from Adams to Yorktown A-4 5. Water Line Improvements 20, 900 feet of 8" main on east and west side of Beach _ Boulevard, complete loops and replace 6" line 1800 feet of 20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" main, crossing every one-half mile at Heil Avenue, Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Ellis-Main, Garfield Avenue, Yorktown .Avenue, Indianapolis Avenue, and Atlanta Avenue 6 . Potential Land and Parcel Consolidation _ 12 . 4 acres on northeast corner_ of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue 6. 7 acres on northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue 4 . 8 acres on southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue 4 acres on west side of Beach Boulevard from Cypress — south to strip shopping center 2. 0 acres on northwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue 12 . 1 acres on southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue • A-5 -' Environmental Setting Beach Boulevard extends. from Pacific Coast Highway (SR-1) to the • San Diego Freeway (I-405) in the City of Huntington Beach. Beach Boulevard is located on the coastal plain of Orange County. The topography is characterized by flat terrain with slopes between zero and two percent. The soil is generally alluvium principally deposited by overflows from the Santa Ana and San Gabriel Rivers. These soils are generally deep and rich sandy loams that could provide prime agricultural land if they were not already urbanized. The project area is seismically active and the Newport-Inglewood fault is within the project area. Portions of the project are identified as being within the 100 year flood zone. - No rare or endangered species of pants or animals are known to exist within the project corridor. No properties within the project area are either listed on or eligible for the -National Register of Historic Places. The -- Newland House near Adams Avenue is listed as .a historic site in the city. In addition, three known identified archaeological sites exist within the project corridor. Probable Environmental Effects The environmental effects of the land development • considered will be discussed in the Environmental Impact Report. Impacts discussed in the EIR will include -- cumulative impacts on air quality, noise, light and glare, land use, population, housing, traffic and circulation, public services, utilities, aesthetics and construction impacts. The redevelopment project EIR will also consider any historic or culturally significant structures identified in the project area. T' Potential environmental impacts of the project are further detailed in the Environmental Checklist Form attached. A-6 Land Use Cotegories RE S47E NI IAL •: �� `s, �;• •�b, C..Estate >2urevoc �,. 1 Estate 7 trt c»c • WEslate >4unpoC t,:—Densd y "t Mecum Derndy O - ••, •"•�• iM Densil e ak;m 'wghDens.ty rSenior Resroer000l WGenefol • IIIIP; I \1MERCIAI •� fL8 Visitor-Serving "'�•• 14 ED OIIKe Professional .., �— '^ 1111�11` •I MtxED USES .M,red Development l �• ;Otl.�:e Residenhol Commercial Support Pact INOUSIPAL General �. .Resource Reduction Inoustiiai Energy Products, O '� / / `,•,'j' OPEN SPACE Water Conservation 9 �� .Recreation t � dr. !OINER USES PuDhc.Quosr•Put)fic.lnstit i / r Solid Waste Focihly 4 i S. aannetl Community ,,; Planning Reserve ;. i j —Cobstol Zone Boundart r �� �,j'•.'• � � `'.'.Conservation Overlay o. GENERAL PLAN ® HUNTINGTON BEACH COILIFORNIA LAND USE DIAGRAM PLANNING DIVISION ,itoovtea Decernnei 1976 _•.Rerrtsed JUNE 1986 .. �w4r0 A-7 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I BACKGROUND 1 . Name of Proponent_-Uuntlaxgtua.Zcb.-"d v44w t._Ago%QY __ 2 . Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 7(1()0 Main- 11fintinotnn car b ('" - — _(714) '06-5981 3 . Date of Checklist- i n- 1-A 4. Agency Requiring Checklist: Huntin1ton Beach Planning Dept. 5. Name of Proposal , if applicable Beach Blvd Redevelo m n Project _ II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets. ) YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substruc- tures? X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X C. Change in topoography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? X f. Change in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X -- g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar • hazards? X CEQA Guidelines, California Office of Planning and Research, January, 1984 . A-8 �• YES MAYBE NO 2 . Air. Will the proposal result in. a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air- quality? X b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ X c. Alteration of air movement moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X.__ 3 . Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or freshwaters? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns or the rate • and amount of surface runoff? X f c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception .of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available. for public water supplies? X A-9 YES MAYBE NO i . Exposure of people or property • to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? x j . significant changes in the temperature, flow, or chemical content of surface thermal springs? X 4 . Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants) ? X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique. rare or endangered species of plants? X C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or result in a barrier to the normal -- replenishment of existing • X species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agriculture crop? X 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result _ in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and -- shellfish, benthic organisms or insects) ? x b. Reduction. of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? x C. Introduction of new species of . animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or -- movement o.f animals? x d. Deterioration to existing fish or • wildlife habitat? x A-10 i YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X r 7 . Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X '- 8 . Land Use. Will the proposal result in substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an - area? X 9 . Natural Resources: Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? X • b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? lo. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? x b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human popula- tion of an area? X_ 12 . Housing. . Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? X • A-11 YES MAYBE NO 13 . Transportation/Circulation. Will • the proposal result in: a. . Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? X C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or ` pedestrians? X 14 . Public services. Will the proposal • �- have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? X b. Police protection? _ X c. Schools? X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X e. Maintenance or public facilities, including roads? X f. - Other governmental services? X 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a . Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X • A-12 YES MAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of X new sources of energy? _ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? x b. Communications systems? x c. Water? —X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? x.. f. Solid waste and disposal? x 17 . Human Health. Will the proposal result ins a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? x b. Exposure of people to potential health. hazards? x 18 . Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of any aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19 . Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality. or _ quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic • archaeolog.ical site? — X A-13 YES MAYBE NO b. will the proposal result in • adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X _ d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21 . Mandatory Findings of significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of .the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to • eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? x b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is -- one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) X C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the -� impact on each resoure is relatively small , but where the effect of the • total of those impacts on the environment is significant. X A-14 YES MAYBE NO d. Does the project have environs mental effects which -will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings; either directly or inditectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation! I find 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 significant effect on the environment, there will not a significant effect in this case because the mitigat .- measures described on the attached sheets have been added to the project: A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE • PREPARED. x I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the- envir6htent; and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC REPORT is .required. Piqgnature) — Nate: Thomas Andrusky titlei. Redevelopment Project Manager i A-15 ENVIRON14ENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Earth b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of soil. The project will result in coverage of approximately 90% to 95% of the site with impervious surfaces. Current flood control measures anticipate ultimate urbanization of this area and this impact is not considered signi- ficant. c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features. Grading for individual developments within the project site may result in minor changes to topography. This I mpact is not considered significant. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site. The project will expose soils to erosion during construction. Because of the lack of slope to the site, impact during the construction period is expected to be minimal, and is not considered significant. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards. Active faults are known to exist within the proximity of the project site. The geographic location of the project site anywhere in Southern California allows exposure to potential groundshaking. Building codes will make this impact insignificant. 2. Air a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. Increased traffic generated by development in the project area will result in increased vehicle pollution emissions. The significance of this impact cannot be determined at this time and will require further analysis and will be included in the EIR. Potential impacts from construction activities will also be included. A-16 3 . Water b. Changes in absorption rates, drainages patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff. Coverage of the area will increase the rate of runoff ._ from the area during storms. Adequate site. drainage will be required. Portions of the project area have been identified as having inadequate storm drainage. At. these locations the impact may be significant. In the other portions of the. project, this impact is not considered significant. �- i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves. Portions of the project area are within the 100 year flood zone. Mitigation measures in these zones will be required to reduce the impact to an insignificant level . The impact to the remaining project area is not considered significant. 4 . Plant Life a,.c. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species. The project will result in the introduction of- additional number and species of plants, shrubs and trees for w. landscaping. This impact is not considered significant. 6. Noise a. Increase in existing noise. levels. Project traffic will result in increases in noise on local streets which will be considered in the EIR. Potential impacts from construction activities will also be included. 7 . Light and Glare Will the proposal produce new light and glare?. Portions of the project will be lighted for security and safety. Lighting -will not cause unusual or unique problems • A-17 for. surrounding uses, and this impact is not considered potentially significant. • 8 . Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. The projE•ct will result in more development than currently exists in the project r,rea. A general plan amendment is currently being processed to brin,i the proposed land uses for certain sites into conformance with the General Plan. The project will be consistent with the General Plan and Preliminary redevelopment plan for the area, and this change in land use is therefore not considered significant, secondary impacts of the land use change are considered elsewhere in this .analysis. . 1.0. Risk of Upset a. A risk of an explosion or' the release of hazardous substances (including, but not -limited' to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation.) in. the event of an accident or upset conditions. Some materials considered hazardous may be used in conjunction with normal construction activities. or business uses locating in the project area. However, no • -- unique .hazards or risks associated with the project are known or anticipated. 11. Population Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area. The addition of employment at this location may induce -- demand for housing and population growth throughout the City with diminished effect as distance from the site increases. This employment growth is consistent with regional employment projections and this impact is not considered significant. 12 . Housing Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a =- demand for additional housing. The project may induce demand for housing within an area of potential employee residential locations. The project will A-18 not re ult in large demands in a concentrated area and should not r7sult in significant market pressures on availability or prick's . The/ proposed project - could result in the need to relocate aproximately 40. residences . Due to the size of the project some of these residences can be accommodated within -- the project area. 13 . Transportation/Circulation The project will result in significant additional traffic on the local street network , demand for additional parking, and require street improverients . These impacts will be discussed in the EIR to be prepared for this project . Potential impacts from construction activities will also be included. 14 . Public Services Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a, c . Fire and Police Protection The additional development in the project area may result in additional police and fire demands . There are no unique or unusual hazards presented by the project , — and these increases are not considered significant .in the normal growth of police and fire service. ._ d . Parks and Other Recreational Facilities . The General Plan identifies a recreation . area within the project area. The impact of develpoment on this area will be considered in the EIR. e . Maintenance of . Public Facilities, Including Roads The project may change maintenance requirements . Improvements included in the proposed project may reduce costs from increased traffic loads, and this impact is not considered significant . f . Other Governmental Services The project will result . in additional planning and building reviews as necessary . This is not considered significant . 16 . Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems , or. substantial alterations to the following utilities: A-19 f i c. Water The project will result in increased demand on the existing water supply and system. Plans include improvements to portions of the existing water system, and this impact is not considered significant. d. Sewer or Septic Tanks i The project will result in increased demand on the existing sanitary sewer system. Development plans include improvement to the sanitary sewer system and this impact is not considered significant. e. Storm Water Drainage L The project will result in increased demand on the storm drain system during heavy rains. This impact will be considered in the EIR. L 19 . Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. See answer 14d. • 20. Cultural Resources a. Will the proposal result in the alternation of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeologic �- site. Several locations along Beach Boulevard have been identified as archaeological sites. Because most of the area has already been developed or disturbed, the impact is not considered significant. L b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or *obj ect. A historic building has been identified within the proposed project. The building is set back a distance i.: from the street and the impact on this building is not considered significant. i A-20 • ii APPENDIX B Abw YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS p If Ih �i III, 6, i �PN0t cps t � 4 n o . . �9TgT' GG� ON ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION L may 23, 1985 To: Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project File From: Rob McCann Subject: Final Traffic Projections For Year 2005 i.. This report documents the development of year .2005 traffic projections for the Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project. While the focus of this project is on improving. existing conditions, these traffic projections will be used in the development of long-range super .street improvements for Beach Boulevard and in the accompanying environmental impact analysis. BACKGROUND On January 8, 1985, OCTC staff met with Caltrans District 7 staff to discuss the future traffic volumes to be used for the Super Street study. After reviewing the needs of OCTC and Caltrans' Environmental �— Planning, Transportation Planning, and Traffic Operations Branches, it was agreed that the forecast year 2000 traffic volumes developed for OCTC's Beach Boulevard Corridor Study j (BBCS) would be acceptable for use in the current study. This determination was based on the following: 1•The network detail of the BBCS travel demand modeling will provide future . volumes for all arterial highways that intersect Beach Boulevard. 2.The LARTS volumes are understated in the section of Beach �- Boulevard between Route 22 and I-405. It was also agreed at this meeting that year 2005 volumes could be developed by applying growth factors to the BBCS year 2000 volumes. Although Ron Helgeson (Caltrans Environmental Planning Branch) indicated that year 2000 volumes would be adequate for the preparation of a CLQA environmental document, 20-year forecasts are desirable in order to satisfy NEPA requirements. A NEPA document would be required should Federal funds be used for any super street improvements to Beach Boulevard. i1055 NORTH MAIN SUITE 516 SANTA ANA, CA 92701 (714) 834-7581 B-1 �r DEVELOPMENT OF GROWTH FACTORS AND YEAR 2005 TRAFFIC PROJECTIONS The development of traffic forecasts for year 2005 involved the following tasks: I-C m arison of BRCS year 2000 socioeconomic data to the most • •-- recent year .2000 data available from the Orange County Administrative Office's Forecast and Analysis Center (FAC) to determine the need to update the BBCS data. 2. . A link-by-link comparison of BBCS year 2000 volumes with recent ground counts to determine the need for any adjustments to the BBCS volumes. - 3-Calculation of the percent change between year 2000 and .2005 i- for population, employment, and vehicle trips generated. 4-Using the percent changes between year 2000 and 2005 as a guide, develop appropriate growth factors and apply them to the BBCS year 2000 traffic volumes to derive volumes for year 2005. Task 1 Year 2000 BBCS population,dwel ling unit and employment data was aggregated to the Multi-Modal Transportation Study (MMTS) zone level and compared to the most recent data (sorted by MMTS zone) available from the FAC. This recent data is used by the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (OCEMA) for travel demand modeling purposes (dataset name=SE.00TAM.Y2000.00P3.MASTER)- Although some minor differences (less than 1.0%) existed for many zones, the overall totals for the Beach Boulevard Corridor differed by only 0.04%. Because of this close correlation, it was determined that the BBCS socioeconomic data is still valid for this study. Task 2 The County of Orange's 1984 Traffic Flow Map was updated with the 24-hour count data collected for Beach Boulevard by PBQ&D on. April 9 and 10, 1985 (Figure 1 ). BBCS year 2000 volumes (Figure 2) were compared with the existing traffic volumes for Beach -` Boulevard and each cross-street link immediately east or west of Beach Boulevard. Several links, both on Beach Boulevard and the cross-streets, were assigned lower than existing volumes by the �- BBCS model. These links are circled on Figure 2. Volumes on these links were manually adjusted to reflect the year _ 2000 travel demand increase expected in the Beach Boulevard Corridor. The manual adjustments were made using screenline volumes as control totals. This method assumes that the total trips assigned by the BBCS model across a given screenline are reasonable, but that the distribution of the trips resulted in some links being assigned volumes lower or higher than expected. To provide consistency to the analysis, screenlines crossing links that were assigned higher than existing volumes were checked to ensure that other links along the screenline were not • B-2 assigned lower than existing volumes. Figure 3 shows the adjusted traffic volumes for Beach Boulevard and the cross-streets. The adjusted year 2000 volumes provide the base volumes for deriving year 2005 traffic volumes. Task 3 Year 2000 BBCS socioeconomic data aggregated to MMTS zones was compared to year 2005 data sorted by MMTS zones. Year 2005 data was extracted from the report Ore County Demographic Projections 1980-2005 for Transportation Stu z—es'an ro3ec ions ` of Jobs for MMTS Zones in Orange County . 1980-2020. Because the latter report only contains data for 2000 and 2010, a straight line .interpolation was used to develop year 2005 data. The socioeconomic data for 2000 and 2005 was loaded into a computer spreadsheet program which was used to calculate the percent change in population, employment, and vehicle trips generated in the Beach Boulevard Corridor over the 5-year period. Vehicle. trips were calculated using OCEMA's trip generation rates of 12 trip ends per day for single-family .dwelling units and 7 trip ends per day for multi-family dwelling units. Trip attractions were not calculated in this analysis. Typically, in the travel demand modeling chain, trip attractions are calculated �.. and then normalized zone-by-zone to equal total productions. Since this analysis is concerned only with overall growth in the Beach Boulevard Corridor, it was assumed that trip productions equalled trip attractions in the study area. • Based on these calculations, the projected increase between 2000 - and 2005 is 4.8% for population, 4.2% for employment, and 3.6% in vehicle trips generated. These growth rate increases are summarized by three subareas ( I=Route 90/Route 91, II=Route 91/Route .22, III=Route 22/Route 1) in Table 1. TABLE 1 Population, Employment, and Trip End Growth (Year 2000-2005) Subarea I (Route 90-Route 91) Year 2000 Year 2005 % Change �- Population 192, 386 200, 382 4 . 16 Employment 97, 305 100, 350 . 3. 1.3 Trip Ends 681, 011 698, 326 2 . 54 Subarea II (Route 91-Route 22 ) Year 2000 Year 2005 . % Change Population 302, 467 317, 137 4.85 Employment 123, 639 128, 033 3 . 55 Trip Ends 1, 036, 393 1, 073, 452 3. 58 Subarea III (Route 22-Route 1) Year 2000 Year 2005 % Change Population 378, 563 397, 445 4.7�Z3 Employment 115, 121 121, 620 5. 65 • Trip Ends 1, 402, 821 1, 459, 509 4 .04 B-3 Corridor Totals Year 2000 Year 2005 % Change Population 873, 416 9148964 4. 76 • Employment 336, 065 350, Q03 4. 15 Trip Ends 3, 120, 225 3, 231, 287 3. 56 Task 4 Growth factors for this analysis were originally developed based on the overall population and employment growth projected in the Beach Boulevard Corridor between 2000 and 2005. The application " of a 1.0% annual growth factor to year 2000 traffic volumes - . appeared reasonable in developing traffic projections for 2005. However, the higher-than-average growth rates in Subarea III �- (Route 22/Route 1) suggested that a 1.0% annual growth rate might underestimate the actual traffic increase in the area. The. employment growth rate is almost double the rate in Subarea I. Because of these higher growth rates, a 1.5% annual growth factor appeared reasonable for application to the year 2000 traffic volumes south .of Route 22. A 1.0% annual growth factor would be appropriate for traffic volumes north of Route 22. Compounding these factors annually would result in a 5-year increase in traffic . volumes of 5.1% north of Route 2.2 (Subareas I �- and II ) and .7.7% south of Route 22 (Subarea III) These 5-year factors were applied to the adjusted year 2000 BBCS volumes (Figure 3) to derive year 2005 volumes shown in Figure 4. c� Since the above method is somewhat subjective, a second set of growth factors based on the increase in trip ends was developed. The growth factors applied to each subarea were the percent increases in trip ends shown in Table 1. The year 2005 volumes shown in Figure 5 were developed using these growth factors. Because the increase in trip ends provides a less subjective basis for analysis, the volumes shown in Figure 5 will be used in the current study for identifying long-range super street improvement alternatives for Beach Boulevard. Technical Advisory Committee Review Prior to using g he year 2005 volumes for the long-range improvements analysis, members of the Super Street Demonstration Project Technical Advisory Committee were requested to review this report and the year 2005 traffic volumes. Receipt of comments was requested by May 22, 1985. Neal Thompson (City of Westminster) felt the year 2005 volumes on Beach Boulevard between I-5 and Stage Road were low, since they were only slightly higher than the existing volumes. OCTC staff reviewed the volumes at this location and determined that they are reasonable since, by the year 2000, Stanton Avenue will be completed between Malvern Avenue and Artesia Boulevard. This -- connection will provide a parallel route one-half mile east of Beach Boulevard and is projected to carry approximately 20, 000 • B-4 vehicles per day. No other comments we're received during the review period. In OCTC staff's final review of the hand adjustments made in Task 2 of this analysis, minor refinements were made in the following locations : Location 2000 Adjusted Final Yr 2000 Beach n/o Edinger 80, 000 82,, 80Z Beach n/o Garden Grove 58, 000 63, 000 Beach n/o La Palma 52, 000 56, 000 These .final adjustments have been incorporated into Figures 3, 4, and 5' of this report. The year 2005 volumes shown in Figure 5 will be used for the long-range improvement analysis of the Beach Boulevard Super Street Demonstration Project study. y w.r L • B-5 Figure 1 �'. --r'• •— :III County of Orange 1984 Traffic Flow 't"= :' s •- _._-�•••"�• Map with updated '' 1' _..— —=-•—"_' . ,_ Beach Blvd. volumes �I + _ i .. _ �f-�•l,�n-�y'rr-.1:. '�►•�1,�::.�:,1r.�ri-r•r<==�i='-''�Gr:�.�•'{'�:�_ '� r.'e� _ .•-�[fy L:3-1 �-.•� =p. _�i�-+.v:]-»ate u a T,T' •1\ J:rt. _ �_ -'. G 1 ; '„ 33 FI : 3 rrY�:r-�•::�-11\1!i. ..:�\J' .s- I :frr['•oOt�la )I.1,-li' »i!1-T 7L ntK a 7, rrr. 3• 1S �-I+1��..,vo C R. A, a s. a::. •— it 1i.,[w L 17:S1 !' 'f, •'• r M 23 `.: 1 f 'P `" 17 Zt a• I �w� 1 1�!•-T Il-�•1• la �� ,� 77 ,• Il)Y T �' 1) 1/ V » 1 ! 1 7• ra la /1 37 ,�.• 17 !� �iK I_ }�a a-f) c,f13 If_ �7 7, I T!t-1i • LI:-•�"y"�'y�•�-nTl• 72 •K�,�J���ns a-a I.,o," 1 i•_ �7 7 '� .._ �''\� . 24� �,.'C I, • t1s,73�f �� r t. 1' 13 GI,tR• !f a•yo,,.. a�':, „ a aZ is 17 .3. I I U(.,rs •+•» e u is . !a tip• d -T +y rf! 1ry�_ ,r-�',7+,I'•1-11 1 !• + 1, , 1 - I.yr Y N LL •{-1) 1 . 7a I \\ , 3, 11 ir7f- :.�1••i]'.1?-�'��1 It 70 , IN 1. , 3, 7, :, t.", .TI , Lf -3s . 1307-t- -� !�"+ _ . 3 `•i r �rs�p_ �: IS is+'l+UTI•+11 ') " , a T 1 I A 1 �D•• ' ]31.7 .J »1•�»T" 1 "+71 73-'�3); 71 !•• w� l D u1}M \�•+-0--••1 i1.u1�,1•�••I-i�'�11 i ,��N�7'+• i ,�Nl-..�t.la�l _�.-"7•-1,-{-11 1 •, •y A,Fj n,T• :tir I•.', tl �l.f- - I•.•f ' g�f '. 7T. —a 1! N " e \ -1��I- 1�-+^•'1• -{>'li • » l0 3 1 L L 7•--3=T:e•\_ :• :1 .� ,JT" f a s:a 63 ji S1T1.T t73 •a a y. 1 �i 1 Is 1 1• 1, u+7i 1 73 T , :7 x u \\ +•1 �a il.[l+' I 1C ,I. 1 -=y uJ �,T -! .6'1�1• ), f�\7i ll;:•�. e.r �` TrM!f[• =[ 31 ] JP�1") 7 " r• ITWt�=Fw 7�3 7e T 7]'•7r2 2 '• I .0 •;\i is C', Y 33 1 tu,. �ro� �'�' ` ]7 1 �a �1-•+-e \�^Is] �' 1•a !• ,nY ]L 1 '!'• Si. 7]�7)Y'. n 'I! �p M' 61 K.I ]'L 3T T x�» » 7]+76 77..Ai Lta 33•' 1•.��}.r-f�'•\ I ... ZG . 1 f^5 "+„ 1• a Dt- Is ' to .7 Ja..c.'aL t c,.a cra rn-��:e7.., -• L . —1 p.'Ir�\'__ T 7] 'YI T r 7T_TT,_-r�^T I/+sT'�s�w1B—'*�r��_4' ? 'f'.:r•:a�:a•TC \\i+l �.11 u -„ •\!r ��"BaY1 T -�77.�•11 T1:+:.-��3 1�, J 1 �G—"�' ; �' I •s 1F \3�ra-•t-:r » 3r +77.D i .3' :_�•TI 'T '�� 61' !a 17 - 1 :] ], —21; :a 1 ri 17 •� -K.� ' »a'I{-a 4']T, o \•T--'��,T�1]+:.• :7•"1 �- ,i ,4 " • -•�11�-:, ��,+-161 " D ><M 77 D -N 13 ° IS x yYy �1 "��-,.-�:: ,• x � QI 1\ 11+ 1�+„ is 1 n�"�'s 27 u u :• 7. » r.-r. 7]�-3•-=' Sr7 SI '. C'•:t _ 1 :a ]s \ I' 71 ,_L}f• N1 .'[� 91°' 1 ' 77 1-" "12 flr N 'rt.-7�:e��G c LT,_i}ay.—{— 69 cs \\:b 11 ! n-� »1-r. = �''� ��n^7• 23 23 33 64-•rG• ,j-••SIG--aTu-l-:. T p 16u�•tl� _ �,1 :r—•—• ,,i ,, � L,�u�•1:-_'c-'�':�• lay to :I3 � r.t •, I ar7 .i-. ._f •� , � ..:rlti_,=4 L._Ir,-s}-x'��.e-•�'a 1�k, ]' 7, V»�,•...�le+t• sl K 1' 1 �• 36All 32 r.•_�, \ r�* :I's �I-�.'�"err I-n�T•'}-:. T`, .`:1 I �''.\�: ;./��f • �� t'_`••""'r •,�.,�••1._I •° s `yy -•,ter"''/� •,''��.':�-,•c �•=00, y•: •. r an-so BR-67 Whittier Blvd La He a Blvd Jr' 24 M ... Lambert Rd_ 37 . tin 55 r M O N Imperial Hwy=- Aos crane Ave /7 Bastanchury Rd o N m 3 3' Ib Artesia Blvd /7 _m / 2Jr Commonwealth Ave e .m hl iv1 to Oranpetnorps Ave � 32 3o s� 35 I Z3 D4 f es v 20 �c� 30 L• Palms Ave M SRtit 39 �6 35� 7 Lincoln Ave m 2� N Bell Rd ,fir v SON S ¢¢ H coKafelia Ave L o 0 /7N ZO�c ZOMw' Chapman Ave mM SR-22 \ Garden Grove Blvd _ o `c 22 25 27� ZZ Z ZQ Westminster Ave e Dee .flL N `D to i-S 1-723N 25� 23N 9 ^a $ NO 1� Balsa St ,17� IB �� t'`�51 �5�' i z Edinger Ave 9 N `6 `" N ORso 20 28 42 37 94 39 Warner Ave /a . 1 1(0 1 N SR-S5 -// - - - -- Talbert Ave 27� z 00 AVERAGE DAILY TRAM ti N N o0 1-406- (IN THOUSANDS) t" G1 g Zo 32 Adams Ave CID Volumes circled are love than existing volumes Figure ;L FORECAST YEAR 2000 HIGHWAY TRIP ASSIGNMENTS - Pacific Gout Hwy - B-7 LA M/N [RT id m _ Fi ure 3 sS rM►tura Yea r 2000 volumes (adjusted) -- /9toereR.a I V� Hater gyp► Paw \ M0.LM M - / A► ... Mt�nrA 9 futA -er 101 ` COMOWT.ITM '8 ZJ T" et¢ocTMruf►r 30 18 - ,,.. i cei I LI2 ft � w .� etrttrtT I b .r M LrMt'Olt 3 36 or v w.Afr r I � �o ., I Mll Z 7 Rl 30 eML.L tflAT•0t IS Ib �t'*Lu LI - h L.w-ty r 3 figo I$ Z3 DAtD[M Man I tsTYr�*n aT t q( S tr .r saeA L �4 B-8 t •Heft LAWSON ♦el DAMN +w:r r - w TRAY R► r. Y or K ` w IT"IN RT f Ir we ►O//CY 19 13 of 70 .. 3'1 4ti 70 AT r r 2 AV IRIL II H 2 �D 37 Ytt OpAR6R � AV ALOTn i 9 TALRT (� O" K rRu 3 ELL1/ •' . l oRA.In/ Il n OUL[R AV CLOT MRYRJOM AT Rf r0 TORRT14 •r 1 Sam A IYRI �OLi/ •T 9� FAIR n 1� ATLA r -R/ YILIOY /f � VICTORIA AT S WWILTJ AV 1 /A. t" LftM /T 3� AV Figure 3 (cont.) Year 00 vo umes (adjusted) s '�► P �a f B-9 f " U wVlll 1 Figure 4 Year 2005 volumes using population and employment growth factors ` " �RoecctR�e e �P J.N .tmrtc. e�`p �r N.IKRN ..hAV AAM t. 20 7l 1 g i cna, L425' 3 raRa MIMI AV tlR!{LR 35' 3$ .. AV tom., ...�.� r NO ■r i � F SALt 171 Ro 3 - N i.r�u 3Z No 23• 41 ------------ ■ I� ZN 6NttKM ORDK E r OY � MRl CIt♦ u e ~ t .Y rOli11 e B-10 ,e rn r I eRrstr ae+r LAMPOON 1 - „ ESL I ` „ r' rter� :.1.0 Of � snl tr yy _ 1 tna 2b r` ZS M 40 97"WN RrIZ $ Ry sLR*[t IDTALKRT 0 s $ / ULM er � 10 olsLss AT osR+Tas CLOT Rr to Rr �♦ 6AR[ll- 11Rwiml Rr r +euT v RT e � F rt RRIg9C. Intl MLIt of 9„ FR1R N RTLA Fly ri LSer ST O` rlttotlr IT HAMILT111 RV 00n ire 1ITR eT r' I o R1 Figure 4 (cont.) ' �+ b i B-11 w LA , y FFiguuree55 Year 2005 volumes using trip end growth factors ` RbfC[RR" PIWEre O At MRLYERN L•'\\ � p Ar COMWWrgLTTI *to-Vr? aRn 31 Z9 /-7 / —• Tfl — Cam LN Z5 - A e /7 Rr LtR[�R 3`i 27 jL .fo P3 .r 13 = SALL 28 112 f,31 IF 16 1-7 too 24 Bat W aeaYC ., i tfflR 3 rw""n?" Rr a MR1RRf u ' s B-12 MC rMl M rT �, r toRAo[yanl ieY e el wrnCY ae+r •+ .' TRMQ n e . 33 r 29 - E r pp of r nn rw Z5 n 2k Or � 2 cal A[ ►RIDE, Or �3 41' ZI RT 91 rCIL 't 38 W. Ar ... ntOTCI I N I k TRCRCAT 1 5 Rr MJ s 3 Cll I6� Rt ' ttmt►rnn n /R AT ouDeR Ar CLOT r .. aceArnfow AT Dr .eAAT .. ♦ .ARlR s � t 46 e rC RR1AA[ k trft roaI AT 9j. iA1R IF `+ OTLAr AV YTLSDV IT � rf[TpRtR /T rAnt�T Ar yz e4r rro IYTM er r' AV Ra 'f �a Figure S (cont. ) s� �a B-13 APPENDIX C RESPONSES TO NOTICE OF PREPARATION • f f Of Huntington Beach Union High School District ..-•'' 14 ki 10251 Yorktown Avenue.Huntington Beach,California 92646(714)%4 3339 •y ry \tti$6 CF.RTIPiF.D MAIL `]ll•t O�� ��'�,1�"I' rJ • 1 ,at Marie Otto Board.of Trustees �/ J unermtenneny of Scnoo,. pE r Bonnie Castrey 1986 co, Vice Wartield vice 14e—i—1 I i . Jerry Sullivan November 25, 198ti un'• Tn: Nnnt'fngton Sparh Rpdovelnrynpnt Arjenry Brian Lake Linda Moulton PRnM! Mnntp r. Mr'Mnrray A-11atant stip.•rintondent HuntinyUui dcaut rtedevelopment Agfrncy i Pueinece sprvir,ec pity of Huntingtun Beach 2000t'lain RE: Rptspon�e to Notlrp of Preparation of a Draft Huntington Beacri, CA 92646 . I i nuvlronmpn ta] ImrarE Rppnrt RE: rtc,ponse to Notice of Preparation 1tATR: Nnvemher 21 1QRFi War Sirs: The Huntington Beach Union High School Uistrict. responds as follows to your r.,PntlPmPn/[adle�:. request. The Orean View Srhnnl flietrtr.t rpgpondc as fol lnw� to yonr I regttee t ;lnce the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan generally requires that at least 10;. ,)f tal increment monies be used for low and moderate income housinq, the Since the arinption of a RPd PvpinpmPnt Plan general I regnlr— Uistrict uelieves that the Initial Study (p.5) shnwinq no p+issible imuact. •in that at 1pact 20%. of tax increment mnnieq he used for low and schools ;nay be in error. :ie therefore would like to See this issue discussed mndprate income hnueinq, the nictrir.t hplipvp•-. that the initial I in the '.draft environmental impact report. Rtndy (p. 5) ahnwInq nn pnaclhle Imp.arr nn �rhnnlc tray he in error. We therefore wn111d like to ape chic iannp rti�civ—d in (hank ya.Jfor your cooperat' n. the draft Pnvirnnmpntal impart rppnrr. Cord aJ I y, Thank ynn for yn,ir .rooperatinn. L14. c� signed 11n ! Lra East.e• d !,•,':IatAn[ S,tp'tr-in[ ndent .. � MnnteC. MJ-Mnrr•ay � business Servtcos i 1986 Mr.M•.id CO7fu:•,euJr.•J c,: Alan iiarns I I I _ 0;u3a/Lt:ss i OCEAN VI �NPl IUM1'I!NltI YI Ir,tAl:rt ltJ 4:r r:.Irlti SCHOOL DISTRICT Ati\/ti I.1 N'I\I/J'!/1/.YII Yli/V!Y , .. .•.r'l••••'•' ' VJ,r R lrylll rrl+Yl/Y,'I+N NlA J' C-1 ' I I ( ( I [ I 1 I C ( f ( 1 i • f SA�4 k SCD W W 1 c ,A. tlVo7— / -T- A BOARD OFTRUSTFFScoast srrnv L.B.rrn 1 �j/�pyy�� //1� /��/�Q cal..n Noranul,l IAL .0 • /m�wie II, Nlin YA.1•Ilod _ t ✓✓ -✓✓- Arm do R.Rol .� _ __sr• TRU of Westminster Distrkt T."L.Ewmw,Swd-1 T—T. fffwww (�`(��,� CRANCELLOR f,1VIC CENTEH Oand A.B.ownalt 8200 WESTMINSf EH TIQULFVARD 1Y WES TMINST E H.CAL IF OBNIA 92683 c District Admlmftratim: 1J70 Adams Avenue, Costa Mesa,Cahla nia 92676 __. ..... .... ........_ .... lta CODE N'FN J.111 �V`'► NO November 17; 1986 G� i/v� nos'iva•pe November 21, 1986 �•��V CCCD-S6-('MW-IOa Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency NOV 211986 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 C01.,,. _...., Mr.Thomas Andrusky Redevelopment Project Manager Attention: Thomas Andrusky Iluntinglon [)each Redevelopment Agency _000 Main Street Gentlemen: Iluntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject: Notice of Preparation - Draft EIR Dear Mr. Andrusky: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project This is in response to your notice of preparation dated October 31. 1986. mailed to the Board of The Community Development Department has completed review of the Notice of Trustees,Coast Community College District, 1370 Adams Avenue,Costa Mesa,California. Preparation. We have identified three areas of concern which we believe should be examined in the EIR. These areas are: An administrative review by my office has been made of the notice of preparation of a draft environmental impact report concerning the Beach Boulevard redevelopment project. It Wis. A. Traffic impacts upon Beach Boulevard north of the project with particu- been determined by our staff that there will be no negative impact on the services prodded b% lar emphasis upon the intersections of Beach Boulevard with Edinger the Coast Communio College District in regards to this project We also confirm receipt of file Avenue and McFadden Avenue. information provided by the Ifuntington Beach Redevelopment Agency' B. Air quality impacts resulting from the expected increases in vehicular If we can be of any further service to you,please feel free to contact me at(71-3)432-57.35., traffic and related traffic congestion. Sincerely, C. The impact, if any, upon stonn water surface level in the C05 flood control channel northeast of the Beach Boulevard undercrossing. f � Thank you for the opportunity of providing input for the forthcoming EIR. ('. stich.el N'cl+vrl, fd h. We look forward to reviewing it. Vice Chancellor. Ilusinea% Affairs Sincerely yours, (',\ls\'/dc DFCO COMMIINITY DEVELOPMENT'DEPART MENT 1 1986 Jerry Kenny CullOh.BitA'i[I Deputy City Administrator ' JA By: fbn Vestal, Planning Director It cc: City Administrator 11114r11,1 '114 11.11111'I:f.ri1)l 11111 LVI'.I I.r It f(.1 CPA'.11 INf COUM IN'I,1'IIt 1 f l:l n.tif IV Iy111'11� f' 2 r 7, t L CITY OF COSTA MESA S.. j r CALIFORNIA f7it0.1200 P.o.sox 1700 �•V LLwR hd&&,J Southern Callfama Edison Company •o flow UK$ C 1MVEIOMIXIST SIOWKES oEIM1MENt A we sru�av ew Lft..0.w.9:6.l,xef Ct.. MIW3 December 9, 1986 96IAQN JJIli FO November 7, 1986 Cotton Beland Associates 1028 N. Lake Avenue yr. Tom .410rusky Alto dena, CA 91104 Huntimton Wach Redeveloement Agency 2000 Kiin Street Subject: F.I.R. - Reach Blvd. from Edinger Avenue Huntington Reach, CA '92648 to Atlanta Avenue, 11untington Reach Dear Mr. Andrusky: Gpntlenen: Thank you For the opportunity to review the.Notice of Preparation for Tliis is to advise that the sul:irct property is locatrd The Peach 'ioulevard Fetievelopment Project. The City has no comments at within the service terrrtnrp of the Southrre. California this time but is lookinn forward to reviewing the draft EIR Once- it is Edison Compary and that the elPctrir_ loads of the project distributes'.. are within parameters of projected load growth which Edison is planning to meet- in this area. Sincerely, Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds our •_stirates, and prow' ded that there are no unexpected outages mayor scurces of electrical supply, we expect to 4I.ICE A%US m,•,rt our elect.riral requirements foi. the next several years. Associate Planner our tet..'_ s -stem demand is expected to continue to increase sw(C;-14) acnaall;; however, excluding any ur.frreseen problems, our plans frr new r-cneratior. resources indicate that our Ability to serte net: 1--ads during peak derwri', periods will be zdrau..tr during the Cer eo of the 'SOS. current conservation efforts on the part of Edison's cust.nmers hart, resulted in Pnergy r-avir.ctc• Optimization of conservation measures in thiF pro)r-t will ccntrihnte to the o•,:ral1 energy saving.^- real. t Very truly yours, Ra1;•h C�.•nlidge F,ervirf� Pl.trrer I.11 754 5,1:fi y.n.,., .a.,. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT .. COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS ; "Of .6—I— . VAX 11 rerMJ-W— .CrMw �nb92&=1114) wros `j• OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA n w Mew P O.BOX 6127.FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORMA 927260127 © Jt.t �,i�^` 4„,•'•,,,A` 140"ELMS.FOUNTAIN VALLEY.CALIFORNIA 92700.7010 17141 962-2411 ARD OF TRUSTEES DEC 04 1986 co;„ December 2. 1986 1»!•I , tr "4-O P^•^•+ November 24, 1986 .Mr. Tom Andr•u::ky Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency M.nwa aw•.^.• thmtington Dc'ILh R•7developmcnt Ar7•n<y 1 2000 Main Street DEC 05 u«..1... :;000 Phin Stre••t � Huntington Reach, 6 92648 FA lluutinvton Reach, Calil'ornia +1Y1,4r+ •'•^"'B"' Attention: yr. Tom Andrusk Redevelopment Project Manager OD11m ,tr,..1w. • y. pmeR J 9e .. D D s Rv: R••sponn., to tlotice ,11' Pr�par:ll:.-n Drart K.I.k. Subject: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project I1••ar Mr. Andr:l;-ky: - This letter is in response to a Notice of Preparation for subject project 1 received in this office on November S, 1986. Portions of the project are The: Huntington 1?•:ach City School District responds as rollow, located within County Sanitation District No. 3 and portions are within County IOMINISTRATION U, your reque t Sanitation District No. 11. It is difficult for this agency to comaent without knowing the precise nature and magnitude of the proposed development. However, •M Pa .F. D since the adoption or a Redev:;,:pmont Plan generally the Sanitation Districts do need to be closely involved in the planning to 1.K1s.•P.•,^•<^1w, rv:quir?s that at I,:;tst 20% o:' I.'1x increment monic, insure adequate capacity exists in the collection facilities in the area. There be used for low and inoderat.• inrene housing, the will be different levels of impact to our facilities. In general. District Di,trirt believe:, that. the Tn,tia: :Ctudy (p.5) show- 1 No. 11 lines will be raore heavily impacted than will those in District No, 3. ine no G,•,sible. impact. on sct,• i. i:= ,n error. We l District No. 11 includes anything on Beach Boulevard south of Garfield Avenue. va•mr t.h..r••rtr. would l,kp t,n an,. :ni:1 discu,nred in Ih•• aria''. ••Heir ^•nta! imf;: As you are aware, the Districts' facilities have been sized to accommodate ••r n'•o^w.1F.M. master planned flovls. The Districts operate under a NPDES permit issued by the s ,,......^„•^ thank you 1'or your cnohlrt,ltirnl. I California Regional Water Duality Control Board; this,.•.,� y y permit has a set discharge_ limit for biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids. The staff projects ".lots„r•,•lY, that each million gallons per day of additional flow will add one part per million to the biochemical oxygen demand after treatment, therefore, signifi- cant land use changes will impact the Districts' facilities, and particularly t...�t\ 1�.� industrial and co,r7mn-cial users should take on-site measures to reduce the load strength of the sewn e. In addition, in order to reduce the total volume of wastewater to the sewer, all available floc reduction measures should be incor- G.::ic -int :';:;F."rt,-na,•n1. porated into the project. Lastly, redrtvelopmrnt areas do have a significant financial impact on the opera- tions and maintenance budgets of the Sanitation Districts because of the freezing of the tax base. Contact should he made with Mr. William Butler, Director of Finance for the Sanitation Districts, to.di%cuss the impact% of this project. jf ; 1J1, , j Thlmat M. Dawes hire,for of Engin-,ring I i TIIFI:H,111 CC: ?b•. W111i.un But lot C-4 rie r-­ d' ri / GEORGE OEUKYE AAw.G•.eiew Arm LIFO -RISOLK* AGEPICVORANGE COUNTY SUPERINTENDE19T OF SCHOOLS sTaTe of caof MEET nxa WATT ft R SOUR _ DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES . -- \�r4 Ccxarity ntrr�r.2tc1pGrouccartio" V LOS.OANBo.6E 6598LES jvooss 200 KALMUS DRtVP..•P.O.BOX 9050•COSTA MESA,CAI.IPOIU'11A 92628'9050.17 1 41 9664000 RQ--►r.TI—M ca n. Sam rAr.u.r Au n i v y� ° l o „n rwnmtivrw�rnartrrt \986 �� 2 �: ,.�r•°'ao°+ . 1986 i,urre,a�w..w ^°+ City of Huntington Beach • 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 December 10, 1986 Attention: Tom Andrusky I Mr. Tom Andrusky, Referenced Notice of Preparation of THEIR for Beach Blvd. Redevelopment Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency �. Project, dated November 10, 1986, SCH 86111216. 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r IRecommendations of the staff of the Department of Hater Resources on the , subject document are attached. The recommendations are related to water Dear Mr. Andrusky: II conservation and flood damage prevention. 1' The .Orange County, Department of Education submits the following information Consideration ahoul&also be given to a comprehensive program to use reclaimed concerning your fetter received November 6, 1986, referencing your draft ; water for irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for Environmental: Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. beneficial uses requiring high quality water. i In response to the preliminary ETR findings, the Orange County Department of j For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at Education offers that. this project would create a substantial increase in. the i 213=620-3951. need for Schools and'school related services, if approved. This Wetter is also to notifyour agency that I am the contact i Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this report. Y 9 Y person representing the Orange County Department of Education in this area. Please Sincerely, forward any future correspondence to me directly, Robert D. Ours, Administrator, Facilities and Planning, (714) 966-4084. Thank you for your cooperation with this request. Sincerely, Carliis Madri Chief Planning, Branch /✓%'�a .. Southern District Robert D. Ours I Attachments Administrator I aCilit.ie5 and Planning cc: Office of Planning and Research RDO/dd State Clearinghouse 14(10 'Tenth Street. Sacramento, CA 95814 OKANOV('0I/MY fiOAf(/)01 1:7)(WAT10N n'nnII nrnl ra /l;lhi I\ ru.I r r1'tn nrtiti ro.t uurnr n I Ict•r I`rn M-111 l'I v'tMrrtl Ivtrnrl( C-5 f_ ._ _ �._._ ._. �._.-_ .._ rr.._ �_�3__ �.__. �__._ ._..._ �_ _ _.. �_ • r-7. SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA COMPANY C5VAM COLOM DWtXW•vo eon 31V NWrrM.qY 6O(tMn s)em 3334 Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed cn Dec. a. 1986 an individual basis and are obtained from a Market Services Staff representative W calling 4714)634-1177. We have drvelop.rl W.veral program; which are available, upon negwst, �- to )x-ovid-! a::;i:t,arw� in srlrctin g tlwe most effective uhpiication of Huntington Beach r p U ; energy mn.,�rvat ion trr-hnirpurs fora (urticuLer (hroj(rt. If lou Redevelopment Agency 11t'h� l &sire furt!xrr informiti)hn on any ot` our cinergy proirans, phase 2000 Main St. o)Mm contact tJ1l i Otf 1�7I tor JtiSlSt.7nM. Huntington Beads, CA 9264tl r�. S irae ire ly, Attn: Tan Anirusky / �C•/�Subject: EIR - Ilaxh Blvd. Rcttlew_lopment Project .• 1.. F'. Hur 1 putt This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual com:utment to Trchnicnl St{>ervisor the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern California Car. Carpany has facilities in the area where th` above-naued project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be served from an existing main as shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on Gie cnvironnent. The service would be in accordance with Lie lli:,iu Canpany's policies and extension rules on.file with the California attaclunent Public Utilities Cammission at the tine contractual arrangements are made. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply arwt rrqulitory pulicies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Catyhany is urxler the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or tour condition unier which service is available, qa:; srrvicr will hp provi&d in accordance with rvvtspu onditions. Residential (System Area Average) yciarly Single-(tinily 1095 therms/yaar/duelling unit MUItt-fMily 4 or less units 640 tw!r.ns/year/du+•1liru1 unit Multi-family 5 or more units 580 therms/year/dwelling unit Ttene utimates are based on gas consa ption in n�tiidential units serw_ri by Southern California Gas Caghany durin.l 1975 and it should mat h'r urplivj that any particular Ixn?, apartment or tract ut lxrh!s will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly tram the to the SLkte..'s niw insulation rcxluiruatrrnts and (x)nsum:rs' efforts to"kard energy conservation. C-6 rie r.- 07 r- ttURaAY STORtE DIRECTOR,EWA • _ ,. '"ROGENT 4 FISl1ER Tom Andruskq .. '. . 0 • ■P4TY ORANGE P OIIKCTOR OF PLANNING Page Z V LOCATION 1 17 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA P.O.a0 111111 t 4Otl s SApTA ANA,CA O2T02 AOtl Also, the eatabl Lshment of the Redevelopment Agency will probably result MAILING ADIIRFSS in a reduction in revenue to the.Orange County Flood Control District. P O GO.4040 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY SANTA ANA.CA 92702 4040 AIR�11 LITY PLANNING It Lr,•n ONE 11 a��Asu The air quality analysis for this project should be prepared in accordance December 4, 1986 FILE NC1,6C64 with the techniques recommended by the California Air Resources Board and the South,Coast Air Quality Management Uistrict. E I KMYS Tom Andr,sky ` U Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency L'.-��+ The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways (Ml'CM) d.•pirts [wo regional Class 'OUO Main Street 200 Huntington Beach, CA 9?64R Ijf.h 1U`(jr,�l 11 (on road, sLrilxd lanes) Bikeways crossing Reach Boulevard.in the project nn . area. These bikeways are establ.ishvd along Garfield Avt•nur and Slater Avenue. In addition, local Class 11 bikeviy.s arc established along Yorktown SUBJECT: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project NOP ` Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Heil Avenue and McFadden Avenue that cross Beach Boulevard. The project 'should address these' bikeways"and"include si};niitg Dear Mr. Andrusky: and striping plans with adequate provisions for bicycle travel through the above intersections. lockers and racks should be established throughout The County of Orange Environmental Management Agency has reviewed the above the project area at appropriate destination lutints. referenced document which addresses the environmental impacts associated These facilities are mitigation measures to .reduce traffic congestion, with the redevelopment of approximately.513 acres of land. vehicular noise and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as We have the following comments: an alternative mode of transportation. Such measures would be in compliance . with the Air Quality Management flan 1982 Revision, adopted by the Orange Flood Control County Board of Supervisors on September 77, 1983. . The boundaries of the Redevelopment Agencv just southerly of Adams Avenue Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the HOP. We would appreciate . and .just northerly of Atlantic Avenue appear to include portions of Huntington receiving two copies of the Draft Elk when it becomes.avarlabie. Should Beach Channel (DOI). If this is true, provisions for the improvement of you have any questions, please contact Chris Hiller at 874-5550. ,. the channel will need to be included as a part of the Redevelopment Agency and discussed in the EIR. Redevelopment Agency funding will be required Very. truly yours, for DOI improvements. If Huntington Beach Channel (DOI) lies outside the 'boundaries of the Redevelopment Agency, this needs to be clearly shown on a map and discussed in the text. .. ^""'�"" • . tirhaol '`I:.Ruana•,"Act inp, Manager. Portions of East Carden Grove-Wintersburg Channel (CO5) and Ocean View F.MA/FRvironme pit al ,and Spl•cial l•ro jrpts Channel (CO6) also lie within the Redevelopment Agency boundaries. Redevelopment Agency participation should be required for improvements to these channels. These improvements, as well as DUI improvements if they lie Within the C>lcmh(2/021)bJ)R boundary', shall-be constructed in accordance with Orange County EMA standards and.specifications and shall be approved by the Director of Public Works, , The project will result in increased density. This will cause changes in drainage patterns, or in the rite and amount of surface runoff. The hvdr.nllic effect that these changes will have on Iluntinglon Beach Channel (01), East Garden Grove-Wintersbnrg Channel (COS) and Ocean View Channel (COh') should be discussed in the Draft FIR. ' C—7 r­� :r Orange County Vector Control District DFATIeCT OfE10E DE• 13M OAUM OROVE avo.,GAMMA 4*DWL CA Sam PA"'— EEAnswo ADDRESS• ".10110.SETA AMA.CALWOOt A estms SAA-J 0•P s -to ENIOME iAAEA CODE 71401E t4lT g. Goldmoss SLonecrop 60 well 51ap Li,lc°L.Io. This ground cover is a hardy, succulent evergreen which will o� 1UiI..�_o.:: in sun or shade. They dill grow to 3 inches in height end should be G eOARO Or TRUSTEES 191111 - FEB 131987 re.*ff Lu planted G to 12 inches apart. PRESIDENT n,•,d w ..N....�� . vicE PAlS.DEM/ :,,l...t„n.��; COii A/bCLW'W February 9. 1987 Tew :o. 4 WCEP *SI .•...�N,l..„ ,). Ilnlins ivy (Ih*►cra h•.•lix) fcArA=IN% �S '• "'�"• f•_ GO,{ I•routul cover fur croL:ilvi control. Grow:: well in es or shade to eREA a he ipJit of 1 inch--.-. ::ho,ild be spaced lam' to ill inches :•Parr.• DI.w1 r Ilw MMMA PAINT ��t'�. T Taal...e+owes COSTA MESA ThORWS AndrUSky '.�r 1(1. y,red ll' !hint. Iv musr e.":MAIM s Redevelopment Project Manager ' i�•,i:: ::u1;ap.•ci.: et' has the same Ch.Ira^.tcristica, ex•.lt thy. JO.,N•.Nt. FOUNTAINLLEr City of Huntington Beach r'"' l+:ay.•s art, intcd. ?'lm,t. the ::.:one- as Ilalms lvg. "•""•"• '"'"� Housing and Redevelopment fULLE14TON 9 patent ,nANCis"­OD 2000 Main Street 11. Mondo Grass p . OAROEN CAOK (�R,h i opoo;on 18 Orll C�Sel7 rd ING1 .dA Huntington Beach, California 92648 NurnNGroNeEACN FVcrcrcen ru:d rr.rr-like, Lhis plant dill.reach 10 inches in hrilhr• .N,wN..-." r e and is very hardy• G W 11 imrlNE Re: Vector Control Proceedings for the plrmt•r ,pl,v%r nee improvv�; wiith tl'., r•"'•`"""^' Beach Boulevard Corridor Project Area. i:,'ryes upr-r•. LAGUNA BEACH j G—. I.N..res LAHABRA Dear Mr. Andrusky: r dNnn N..rd]R 12. Sand Vtrawi,rrr; r:u:nria chiloensis LA PALMA U.Nd�ri�:rv,�•Ns 1 have reviewed the above report and 1 do not antici to an si nificant ' P P �. ^ Ill LosALAroos Pa Y 9 b u]ar orn:u.-ntal plant ir. Or-u ' Co+Inty. Very hardy and raPl vector problems. spreadinr-. I?I•ar:, heicl1l of incl:••s. Plant 1. to ] in:►cs av:ut.. NEWPORI Of ACM ORANGE Our District should be notified at least two weeks prior to demolition.w0, e•N+eA. ; I�. Snow-in-Slimmer ;Ccr'.rLilim Lomer,tosttm PLACENTIA or radio on an structures or dwellings that.may have the potential + cr+nuiial with ,:revish folic"'':• Ib.'s Soli :" h�'• 'Ir, A low :prexdir•i 1' :I: ;n•ho' "TUMI .ussFu 9 y 9 Y f? ! areas. i�row; to �• it,(:he: in height and slio�tl11 be t{•aced t' :�• SAN W . 14TE to harbor rodents. This will allow our technicians suffi. �,�nt - ..•.".:.., time to inspect. .fAN,UANc.PsIAANo peel or place rodenticide bait prior to demolition and apart•• fiMi`,►T,i. "I . thus reduce the potential for rodent dispersal. sEALeEA4 IN sites should be graded for proper runoff to avoid standing water IL. :Print Cinmu:fc, osentilla vernal STANtON that could breed mosquitoes. Also, trash should be held in fly ,: at;r:.••'i:• ::ar..:.t. :"rawlerr::-likO folia:-e. dal•^ '••''''" " '••1.•r. 1;., rrL du�r•' r, i ri:'b- YellOw Plover. ••t:: urL. TUSTIN proof containers and emptied week! or preferably biweekly. �rr�•'td:- rrr''.d1 P Y D Y Y r nLLA PAR e t a.c ''••.l•? i c :pacc.i t:x t a{:Lrt. Verb' h ac MEs,X*fliRT, Duringthe landscape phase of the it. I:.:t l:l,. P D Project, plants that are attractive to.rodents, such as Algerian ivy. Oleande.r, palm trees, yuccas. 11. ;'railin,• !!' roReiLINDi• 9 Y P Y t:;:•. rnrtaLr ] .' I l.o.n::: t1.r•, rh •.r.e.I bougainvillea, etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate types ��, I :,:.t i.. s.,.r•.. „::, ;:..COUN,rOT ORANGE yp ,i er.or i 'ra'r+l ,'round :','••' 7' .I,:. .•.. of ground cover less attractive. to rodents is enclosed. OIe IR.C!.!ANAGER , ;riot cool Will re•Ir.i ^. Thank you for allowing us to review this project. If you have I any questions regarding these cortments, please feel free to contact me 1 Wool:: 'i•Irr 'h i 11•., trmcnt or:I or'r•Id: rlpi.dl:: :u:d is i+`� for cr.•rIct, .,r.•1- !`lit•.. rr. i! fol:::.' r'i ,.t t.• it:•!I.: $i nCPrt•1Y, !r.od.t,.,,r i l..•. fl,•,••r:: :u tln: :'•,•cir..• and is hardy. •l:mt••I; r: t•� 1-• :r..I;a: :,part.app6f COb'7I �• '• .... O ` Gary Reynolds roin,.y t',•, fliologist ran:• r,i ;rov,. 'w fRlvh - F COr1Tf10� C 8 ti .A,t of GtyodtlA'._IM RESOURCES AGENCY Gtol GE MR K A&pt G!= A11 OF CAIOOs,AA—T[t/U"CIS AGENCY WOKS lltutmEAAN,GG+..,e. . :AIIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION' ; DUN,C(k Sr AREA SUUFN CGASt.AREA R '.f nest roAnwAr,sane IRO A to wa ooAowAr,sun Do DAM;SFACN,CA VaM _ O' IONC REACH.CA sam •� . '111 lroS071 ^y f0 V, all)smmel . February 30, 1986 December 1. 1986 c^ i Tom Andrusky Wayne Ballantine, Chitf city of Huntington Beach I Cal'trans District 7 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach. California 92648 Environmental Planning. Branch 120 South Spring. Street Re: Notice of Preparation for Reach Blvd. Redevelopment Project I Los Angeles, California 90012 (SCII 086111216) ; Subject: Draft EIR for the Super Streets.Demonstration i Project-Beach Blvd. Corridor (SCII •85070303) Dear Mr. Andrusky: Dear Mr. Ballantine: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the preliminary proposals for improvements to Beach Boulevard (Route 39) as, proposals for improvements to Beach Boulevard (Route 39) outlined in the notice of preparation for the draft environmental' impact report. That portion of Beach Boulevard from Pacific Coast. as pzoposed' in the draft Environmental Impact FEport. That Highway to approximately 600 feet north of the Atlanta Avenue Portion of Beach Boulevard from, Pacific Coast Highway north intersection is located'. within the Coastal Zone. I have enclosed a to approximately 600 feet north of the Atlanta Avenue inter- copy of a February 1986 letter in which we commented on the draft section is located within the Coastal Zone. FIR for the "Super streets Demonstration Project.-Reach Boulevard The Department of Fish and Came in a 1983 report. and the Coastal Corridor." Our concerns regarding road improvements to Beach Commission in its findings on the Huntington Bea ch'LocaI Coastal, Boulevard within the coastal' zone are discussed briefly in the Program identified a large area southeast of Beach Boulevard earlier letter. and north of Pacific Coast Highway as degraded wetlands with high use by wetland-associated birds including the endangered If you have any questions regarding these comments, please call me Belding.'s Savannah Sparrow. The Commission's chief concern at (213) S90.5071. with roadway improvement projects in this.area is the potential effect on wetlands and coastal' dunes, and the endangered Belding's Sincerely. Savannah Sparrow and Least tern. populations. � From discussions with staff of the Orange County Transportation � •k c , -' Commission, it appears that no widening or grade separation is oroposed' for that portion of Beach Boulevard located within Christoph r Kroll the Coastal, Zone. It is our understanding that the only imorove- ..Staff Analyst ment.proposed for this stretch is signal coordination at the IRIlA:cak C-9 I r�, '�`r.+y. :c�•s.': ;*..'7',�^ � ..4:�� {� 4�Y� ��}{V�h�S��i��{`}f.F+`F.Y+•'��•4��' ���' ���*YF �i ��.���•��s�...R�t"Y�,��i�"'� Dom.•'��,�'�y3 r,�F�,������•�,..,Ra,i ��;��,(r�} ` � 4 ,�,j$S "?,',�'[ '� air. '+.;..;f 'I, •• t Ell 'x ''' v 't :'Y fr•�'>ti-4 y rf' ti`i�1 *t '� ,'J7 t [ T •r �^,,.'^ q -` y" `�1 �: S b� .,h„p ""L-. t�+l^r'`4 a'4ae 't}�• �r S. 'Ftil .. `. J4 1 .,, ,"•' .• F1 t " is f`� Y `I' ; A ,✓J 3 iCA c}�n tL-�rFolr�°`c�C{iyi L'v�''e} �aY��r fit.,s v"�:• ,�,��rt � r. °2. ��Y 3'a.�•-��p t.-.t ,�.;`�� -:. a v a. � t .6'+� n r.:r ♦M 1r r." �,r Ac r zC V - 7 Tqf- t +alp )h �y�P J •' -7 -�i -.f 4r '�'� W -• tr 4'r., w� 1 y nyt ate ap t•#V'- ,� ,-'� � .3 '�c"ss�..E- �"~.�✓ <?A N.. �. t 7'•y J r t,C'•5- � S f t i i� � �.,,t i;R'� f✓.^v: _ ':`•". 'Y !^ 6.�, c v ,fac S�..a a"�+T r =v"el.' F' c' � tf+.ti'.a�y v'.`t•3S�( '�4�^r< L: 3 r K � ` F 4. y ,�(,� r ,1, r . k 3P v tf r y L �«e } •ti n F� v = :r r ec� +�, - t � w �'•'�'k t 'iS k r� ,Y V� v. .e fa r� r� 77 _ � � 43 #� +'i. li ip '•'31 'r'rr�74�v�� )f ,r• s r p�iw.�.•'�: � ,.<.w �i i is di P_ t t F. yZ ) 7 t Ti t �M. .t F '1'k. ,'f�a�nr .�•v .�}, t T�.- � id �, *; a`y - -�,�E� � x �[•`. y:��.t. e -ywr, +� � i c ,,,,>,� 7 • ra b �. „ T�:a � a-r�'.�' 'Y; t't ffr ){ -�r T v;y•`v 2� lYTr voa.t s. ♦.'Rs ;r t•,t `* •� iA-r" rr•f1,rJ r'L a ,ri{" A �.t `){� �rY,}� .•t.r a- -; } q\i 9 Y fx i�- � i� �'-,•+`� ��b•��Y�'�� '+? F •- -J� 'c v, u ° t. -� Y :iK✓' �.r tfy !" > r s -,t �' S:n i s ". "-.,"w 1..Y:.Sr I{, � t•;j .r r r 11 '+ _ :y)� '�' idt 'rJ;� G c� 'S �,a .��, H L.�} Y x�i. �j S+r(t, r �t ,i� J 7 w4y if _ 'p•hu '\w`C r ;�I`2r� �-i,'s 43 `*x 9i v" e t + � S t t� "'. •s,. f tE w g ��` tti. 't. •t' J' rs 1. ,,',t. w� �'t tfs .a`� 4) "Y1 ° •r�.�S z �' Z ` �t tkv:r"ty ' `•� « 3 �F - .rt i. ��l.d� ML. ri'f lY�ti ";'1�,( '. �. r iY 1'.+r ��,(J j..la � ;y Fi.} Yt(• �04 . 9 h.r 'w 43 N�mz vh 1� ps N .w ctp�' ; Y'd�,l•« "i..k1 r a.kty `�.` off.,. �� r�;,£ .+'�.,a ��'� `"'. 4+" � ��^r°�)�Y� .-• tr v,• � S v_ � S'./tea} x-� fAr1r r�r :car•- a. 7:+!txa ,��.���'tr•'3a`''a�";.,a5 ��}i'.}. .c, c r. v 4�.,. Y i ,, ,M:'.� h e ,� '�� t r �r Kr ;4.r,,ixfi wt t + 43 r'.. a• u't ��•1f �-t,;'�, � 5 .`yir� 'ti ti^/H t N`. #mot .a��>twtYi �` `wt}✓ a. �e .r,.r�ti Ft� .r. i'{. h., f 1, y x, t .r iv,,,,,3 a•,�ek rra i• Gp jai J :LS t3 r�+ �rU k pk a r 1 ° N.. to vt. »/� t rt� ty�¢ rb +� AC �tr•trr s� 'tt + i f`.M1 4�` >�S c 'j�_ j�id- v4`�'"�x{i' �4 ,� Sx. t ..r•�-L 7 :,� .�r',i.s. ra 4� t.`�'� r-v �` _ ) L 74 s �1 ') .* 1 N' .�t ti J�u `nf N'r• i � �trlP"^ J) `7 •7fl4,J ,y ;r pia N P.S Jib, 3L 7 t f ('�,p- y)' Nor v 9i:i`y i -ff t ,f-.a f ttt tilt 1�C, •r`!i: Xr - )c,,.,?�• �i'L' . .,r a p{ ,� F 'ti". $� t " ,••+•1t•14'yy�lhR'�.-� "'^' � ;C tSx'•(-. 'a"t1'b��'�+nr x.'S•t♦ � 1' ": T � }.sNJ J r�i+ +i„ - p,q��{rt r /6 G �D c Y. . ✓'a•'Y"kSL••. Vic. '.`hr- :. h 1 r •a•�i�,�' wJi -yys 1 c r li t- r ZC: '}e.�C ;� '4 t 57C•t J""4�. •" �s��+'.zE'f��t,•Ft�.k n ) th syG�n' ,�x tf•tr .r, YJ ' 'n i�ti ��'rt; z/ 8�, h;y'•�. 1 S r./'+'4k`' y: +rr i, •� � ��r� cts�°�♦ s_?-9r ...;Y't +�t T sutr. k vt . ''y ..yAM1;i r tLa' !r?l�� �•tr ��,r fin �4h . +� " "<. 4i�i.�� h� �'t 14 � .r,4� ('�',���. LJ�4)7�r�� . ..� ri. 1 �' ` d7c'Snl R �'r t°�: r� A•r,� c.. -� l.�. � �� .y. ,L U .t„ t r &�y�.Y f � ) �. � C •r�,�•c � k""ryqD,�'h.s ,h tj0 J.44��- ;�'i}'�'{'.�•E4� `fyr Fi,. tr�u�.� �;� r` y�Ei• �'�,..yr"� �r�� ^•if ,f�.f t,•-� 1 /1t „� �ka�,a icy 'y �.{! #``Y ,� k"? �c uXtt_4.. E: • '1�," � � v�.b"'�3_,, p � .,�.,$' kr�,b�} a M sr +t„"t t4 '.�.. a t416:� •"-'^r.Y���Jr••.� 'cw C , 'iic? .. 'rt .. ., � . � - -(T-_-_-, 7 �,,.,-7- r I _- -Co C7, M li - I ��-. I - . . .-.._ ,_ _ ,.. _._ .. , _ . - - _- ._ .- . : .. - .. . . . .. - _ _ ... .. . i. 4 y: ... - .. t.,.'.. ',�r a" ii _.. - ..-. ,. 4. l 4 •,•6 S t F 'il —. _ 7i1 S: C :: _ t �fe Saet ��• tM. �� k Le.. '.L:�:'a!!'r' - : '...,:.'i '., _,..�- ,.. _ I - !Mrmv,-"rts v } fA/ .sr- 4 �� N //_ L' . . rrV ... " � '!" V' T 1. P � ZOO I i T f y e rr , Y «:3:`:. _ ;e R'Ftal it at;4iw an"., y 'r > / K c� C t'5FUtiNtutN. tt ' Cf ',•x;_ ., y :z ` -r _., t _•�+�'::;. .. . 0 "rcd.r t'f.�to.L,•\ 4 :.r ,.r",l��w 'u. ;;.{ t 'St• 5 +y, fir: Y;"'L v"J11.� ,.f.•`c �-i _?"-s,,it °Ewi11' Ft _ ,'.... f, - m - f, St-MY F• fr,` .f t.,• .'^..'Sy',t .t�N �r S ":7X^ s ,M1• :. �,�,.r _ _ 'e i''3=--�1 jrY d> :s j! h�o-"d�r'•�:".• :.:'.. "^ ..:L. hfi'.tF: p •.rr l a 2 rI'll N $•ti X,' t Y-•, ; :i .. ... },. ti _. .\>w� '{. "...e. _ 7i 4..K 31 'I�k�i'i•a11✓ 11�1�s '';',y S 2: - is!, '�tt... - r.: 7. - .. _. °j'Y Y ,. +••t ra 3 t91..13xi T a, 4 {it RR au Ss ♦ " - �I.; E«� 7�,a0..ttn e a d: �, k' {;l1Q7�.. .,T Yey * t:. 1�.(} .rk,,�. r�l,:.�'�QOPst �4 ' C�'.ae'l4ae.'� ��►i�1 £s .w d'z' .„ rLaS/r'aF.r� :. ,< y •G .�sl 1R0)vet c a 4. < . _ F k , •_ G� ". �' ,. �� tl� kl- ;` ....,'. 4 .,,fs :.. *yf '1:�:.4 f - •.'6IDW. I.7�t- .p.•.. ,::,., a< .:,L'A'Ls.. NOverpe_r 10'. 1986 .; ,trw��+sr►�° .r y . i . tta.z+. ,n� fl x t ..' ` 9�ptia7w,t af' ywu•v t t� f .J4t74t r�ee Jt r' -, �. : tea cr., a"� • "f a 0. ..>•-t•. " ., •,... a . . a�' ,v- ".k r, t sir .� ..are. a"'' I. �- s. T j , yerrnt \ rt�t1 M r . . ,he: J..ty,()f.;4unt�ngton b do -" �." " .for _ _ a t _ _ - Ctl'- lv :,v .1 ..^, tw - v ,. tilx lr#oc. *' Y-•;.aC'yF+.4N".r .+�. ' .' t� rx. sfic'•- !?<eJ 3 Q �eCe a Qooz t`r'j�rp a ;; .,: ,.al;i :vr_ : . ?w": :.. - .3,. a v.:'_. - :_.-. t q 7 . I ra< r:..o[,!. aee!i1 xn ;r awr.. at � ,^'saes` Hw " ..fir,' fry t ',x.: :Sty 21i1r'12'ib :", .. 4aomi-�ertP - .1. - r�. 'r..��" it �"ti' itas s x,- '4 µ y'.',._ 'n '-... ' i ° {_ ivI. �' -� r'1✓ +.F•�i.:n{'! 7'r:n'.� '�;c.,rd.�r'� s.i'r- �kf: _..r '_ ,. .a+. ,. �, :..,. r;. :c^''" sz., .r� S fRYYFc't�"''1`' ,•w't. , �z,` :gx- a6 ..tQr r f.. :;�: i'- f•. i" :RIP !r -..:tiC.t'.. ".."'.f'•e' Js Qfl�Df t •�aee's7ae:'ses: .\ 71•,^7 � ,-ri' #`',' •:; �l " ';';: a., !., L'i� ,,C� @ S'f�'L:.:....D.,,,,.M1tnCaal $__:_1?_ -:&. il'rl *,AF .i - � S a7 �+ -:, .a• •..Q :.F. :`.n' - ': ?-,, .,y:, :. tr. _dr - d' ?t '+S.C\' r•' :3 - f - wc:!s�•r }�'.,qa• t -j,t �v4_r.m enx­11 �tN ttr�Jt Reoart•:(•'cr ,,..fioe:th �r n glvLl.ReG rodnet� '�rn:eri' Y .,�.r' <:,. ... 7_ X ;b :?". _ - _.-r.:. __r y.1. ',Llrs'I-ia r - �.w ���y - ',r-�t4}'-�4, ;F--^a ft.j z' i;;; tr 7Y�P�' =tea, +ad -`-',t :. .. _ ..&. „ 4. „h1t",n; " CS�k'fi'li,•f4 ny:w .,t';dC� k L �,,�.. {.. )TF ''-' 'i',.c I. ^'..:'�".� _ .i.. _ �ri�P-s s.S�+tm' ..t �S:v,:,a 7� ?jr a f. 4. I.�li5.r�.$�IP=106 '�"�t.� `y.eST tr . e"•nr 3 • y��l ; °... Pii{� '7 Q� �@' p'''� ".LS:n#r G 83: G a? OI).3' L�._L`J2-� lilk 51 s1. r,. a a, C1iR[: 'T�iLf' :�'�'�.`',i$J,.�.� 1'�:/,.i1!r r _ °: $ G s. f �.a.� .GC.C:2 'r1,2.. v-�ti,y" t,i+.rs y r.`C.t`a�•cc' ee' .r.i., r ,%. {- ', 1 .r-... 4 r: 1 �q• d '`.. .�..... �- ITI f^-,fLlf aw, !.t,t1�l�j`�-ti " ���'.d'J&+5 �' � CJf: ���r._. �.Gr. %-..,i�`�?�t�3 1.,y:,f1C�rsw'fS'93i`..r •:,.�},� 4Sv,� tom•� s y'r+ fr`.CBjt5a -'{.. l - �✓ Y.�9' .-� L. 4 !>-� ^' i�-z r <5° �4; .. .,. t a X�' ? r a. - y, ,..75 ,1. . ee�.'!i` '�"'�j 1. 1 w- r ., l ` y^: ,•f i�: r.t T•'.' �. ,44nc a.�"v.fE . +w. �' - r i, r .r 'ra.:`e i... Y..-ac- �.:. .., '°.-- '•9• 1j�` ^;,. w3- .- r r V s a�!4='l!'ni¢^" .(+'.!-t,;!•'f+!'�.L zi' _ r ,�1. t �, { y;; I'rfJS`L.i S. r. .t .�', vN �'.. +1.. i WA.'3t tiiy7j rs_-J^ze 4 N. r.i.' 4Q -!�t)n t,. LcA`$eac`) .3.. .. 1. 1. :��:.--l. �' i I.sn7. ,., �rr 1 r . ,: A. F+;,n;°naty^ Beach. Ca' ?24•.° :.:r, Z33 •t I . . . . . F 1 l . .: .. . . .. ..." _ . . , ., _ -,.r• > , fit r. v .... 1 -:. ... - t "'L1 3n0ge.. •. .� ' _ :,ace:.,c.e_,:�ve s.. :. r:ffik^F.".2^C3 .i'CQ�"' �' -- _ +at ° "� L : < a h: e < 4 a .�.� ..a.: a :r �< ..... .- -'r� ..1. +nt �., r ._ -�--:+ , _ u 't s' v-a-.•s _; t'3 .�"rr�.....? tz z�5�.h3.�a..,...e,_st'l. r e 53. . f.�,.,Seen S,ecer - _.. { Y 3y�f is� .8 _` te. r 7 , J' � :..- ... - �_ry. /' 111' B. _= �.'• . .�.... n. I. .< � , ' - 11 - .a- - t _ . , - _ . . .-. .. /,, . ^�,�. 1_j _ _ t la ir'l.W.v ii� _ + _N qvv ,..sue I `Lr • ', {i J 5 , . '. 1 1. y p , ._ ._, I t I� j*y,:: �is, .max��.� I� w�-.;�sg v - ' `�� •'� sjt� ''"1 .:,. J1� 6 t"4 vi a .� • 1'�i F ti 1 t _�. 1 ! { (:) (. 15 1 b a" 1 j.'� � (S'le{�'o y� iTt r -Z w � ^ ; ' � i' :� r til r M.- �j , '{ t '�. +'� i7.r1"' - l `5' ' T. i hr r 1 j ,7 _�,, IN Id y ,-G 'i .{',� r :! 4 vk,, 1''1 i} .�' 4 f}`�s< "$ s _5 -(.�_} ,j { «{ �. y d e »c a r •Y i 1Z- 1- t�jy,Oiyy _ K j 41 rt�• ek 1>19 a5 �F t { i<>lt t 1,. -1 Sb ,t - i t l; i. 19 t of I d- 5 t' I __ !t lT s_5�,ti, ✓• r� ' .V'_u,1—I's "y `f.' t r _E, ,V "cvr S ri - l a �4 tl i if t / y n, r"rl' f r 1 rt, �1=x { 1 t { J5 r, �C�T1 �, '� f,. , i `1 `� I� l ��f •6r YuS FY r t i j} 3 r'�` _ t d{s. f ,?Cif .t (. j Y i-R ;sA +r`+'�" t=t I D 'sa - ` �t --r 1 -_ . rk. - t .d y.r�.l' . v.H.t' pj�l•.•�r�`�' 4ti' z ,'` ,t J,;:i dvp A ~ i <_{ r �` .1' - V ;'r r-1- -.1 5 �-tt t - L�, ;i. yx5P°'..�; r` i�, y. � r., ,' ,-�,�u,l- s } - d',i S.t .•r- 1 - I 3 -Y�s �� F 1 a iv. dd ,.. r41, SY 5 j d�f. ' ll X h fb �. p .77 � , 1 �.d _ 1l.4j, i j p �1r :a rA� .,Y d Ji Y g, 1# sr^;� i i xi r � r� 4 i A kk'` yC�, s`M - a -�j ,y S'1."i 'i -s to r tik �- � j '- 9� - r8 '>IG•, c !': 1- R ]-all l ,' �,- r:Y rly i -i J-4 r 'i r p-y -�'. �" '11,74 a Ti:3.4 1:- r `<°, }; .. j - � x �q`a•i ,fir i F kj .T �.r--1';i o - 1- l- Q;a -%'l_Sr � .- -Ay.w'6Q- •"rK_ j s•x -f_ M ,s a .i j A +-I- 1 ,l.r`' 1 -, T� Wei -Y t L r 1. �I 1�� � �. � F tC < i:. .y i _.- _ _ '� f }.��,,I +i �r._ .1• rfff _ _, __ UCCC. .tj ,ll j I L ,' to .a w': t i f p y (� j r,, .. r9 C 6 j %;' -jN Ih r M F r '-\ j . < r 1' �Il �rj y , ,', i ,_ { � ?. ll 7 -.s S : rpl 2 r +i,g.. i,7 ' -t'f 1 '°y:t I v� A S; , r-x �t ,t r - U - - }' C. t - 'r t ' u. �k f r 1- n. ai , t 1. i - - - y- - a -1 s �. . t j 1. r ''; t< a };: 1 i.' 4 S 3 1l r 4 e €I I �' E ,_ - i 1 t. d 1 t y f S. 1 _Vk v -t , r i t, E! E t t j r' r ,ram r t„ - j- - r r , � 14�1, k N 1 z - I j.. Z b 1 - t .a jj k. - c r; j % i' r. ae I , ` x ,: r - K* a i. ,. A"If j . ,Y ,y.. i; , - 5•`.i 74, -Yf j'NJ�,1 Q . j 1. t. - Fi ,. - - < 5 ,ri'f'a z , F . n, Y t L 1.!! R1Y f} -•t :' tt N' r 1- Y i' 7 F 'd rrZ~ + ` r j L 7 't,_ i rl* , ` 3`� 1. ,1. 4 i- tHI _k. ,.i< ff �" Y� ( A if'J 4 tr,��rl , Y) I ..,- i 7' 7 �`.kt it 9r_ #.6 -S1 i�h1 ,, a_ D. -! t _,� I k.�y 1 �'Y s x' i. t{{ Fti. _f, i. ,x ;� You, tit SFt ..,d,1y, t x - s sy Is _ s - f ;.. r i - 'AA 1 % _ ' y[ , A - 1 f. F- i i -F� "#i5.at A!'1 i7 ' 1+ d I _ li dy J 'l ati< '7' I'j , -. t , - 1. I t - V ,, i 1 .� _ I 1 r, , j , h. ' rla.. i-.� t S� E �Y a, 11 a�i} T i,h Jii a _ a '`y, 1 r 1. _ q2 I.. 1,4 r�( ^:ti I { r {F Y f t f +, a S <, F- -`k I -A - j r'SKst+ .r- ( -i i _ >. r a 1 , - It, .y i j 4s 4 x11 ! ;7.. '1 F� •S -ts j I Mr Q -' 1 !! rk- y f t 1'' a 5 ' rf _4�}� 1 i _ , •l 1 F, _ �49t _r• _j __ n _ r i i . `� - �,cy°.4 ,- t l , 'G'S4 '� i�ra, dy y ji'1'{ y --.s<Y1 A , .. �- - . [ jy�l rT'jK - _ r .l 1 ( - -1�5 . .7•i _ k• i�'l d 1[ i ' F -I- , k l 1+,j .4 is t , s r i_ r r i j ^ .J{ - , Al �y 4 �. y, ' j .4. 4.�, y�.i ' �• 7 - ..� 'i !' ttI.41 Q .I "` - �i TY it ol`sr 'gr5 -r: 4,* ) t I•M� .{ `,� t,4 E. y it a: - -��'.: - , -xA ' j i.j a r 1 zf, -lr)i i Y r •(>' ,�- r to ts;t, - , JQA - - ! k - !;r r- fi 1• - y► . _A` kti)_. h t n�,�i Y,_r.. ' S 4 Ict}'_ 1 1 o {<`t �.''l r { y� its� I ttt .r .- ,^,,.. t-.7sr+ vf: .�.,# Ay-u,Pa _., ;r'.k�.y. ., ,IW._.H-�.'.>, r,.r-+: ,� .t.... I �..-`: I.« Environmental Board Z CITY Of' HUN1INf,TON BL ACI+ I• Description of Proposed Project - page 1 „ Po office Box 190 1fim1"rolU In lli�.,r h, Cdl�+�u,u., '.1.1�•iH DfC09 1986 fi Do the figures include commercial, office and residential Co. already in place? I December 5, 1986 ° I Beach Boulevard not appropriate for residential use. How much unoccupied office space is already on Beach Blvd.? Mr. Tom Androusky With 446 acres of commercial, how much parking will be Redevelopment Project Manager required of the project so as to not impact the residential. side streets? City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 II. Public Improvements - Page 4 RE: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project 4. Storm drainage. Will the storm drains be upgraded on the east side of Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Dear Mr. Androusky: Indianapolis? The Huntington Beach Environmental- Board has reviewed the Initial Envitonmental Checklist Form Study - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. One of the questions that was brought up dealt with the coordination and 1. Earth impact between this project and the Super Street, overall and in the phasing stages. b. Yes - 90-95% site coverage definitely would result in loss of water perculation and loss of ground water. The Board reviewed the Environmental Checklist Form and questioned several of the answers given. Attached is a copy of g• Yes - potential for ground failure if there is future our response to several of your answers. development of southwest corner of Beach. and Indianapolis - northeast corner of Beach and Atlanta. If you have any questions regarding our responses, please feel free to contact me. f 2. Air Thank you for your consideration of the Environmental Board's a. Should be yes input to this project. 3. Water Si erely, / b. Yes - what mitigating measures are being taken to `/'e�2protect the area southeast of Beach and Indianapolis that flooded in 1987? Dean Albright C. Yes - considering our answer to b, how can Chairman "no." This seems to be a contradiction. (c) be Corinne Welch. Kay Seraphine f. Yes - .(b) again contradicts a "no." Water cannot Members, Ad Hoc Committee perculate through cement and asphalt. DA:cmw 6. Noise Enclosures a/b. Should be yes cc: City Council Planning Commission 7. Light/Glare Beach Blvd., south of Indianapolis is quit- dark at the present time. C-13 r i I ( ! f i • ! F f 10. Risk of Upset b. Yes - additional traffic due to development will cut down on response time. 11. Population 21 acres of residential will increase the density of the area. 13. Transportation C. Yes - additional busses could be needed to handle the increase in people using businesses and residential. f. Yes - Increase in traffic will have an increase in traffic hazards. e. Yes - increased traffic will increase the wear and tear on the highway, i.e. increased commercial will increase the number of service trucks. 16. Utilities d. Yes - even with the present expansion, the sanitation plant is still not adequate. The project will further impact the problem. 21. Mandatory Findings b. Yes it is impossible to determine the long term effects. C. Yes - traffic d, Yes - depends on how quickly lead is eliminated from gasoline. C-14 r- ro r _.. sr...i �•�,.p. I (o ti•y. n 1...--J :.nr✓,^;f� _ Page 2 Mr. Thomas Andrusky DEG111g86 December 4. 1986 �. CO i l u-u,ULL;+,`%j ioMG*VIRGMNU;� Aaoclait 600ImthComm ouseckhAvefto-mu►I000•laRngMe/-Colaornio.90o -2t31385-N)00 (�l, In evaluating both the transportation and air quality impacts. the Othe should also provide a detailed description and documentation of the assumptions used in estimating total trips generated and their related December 4, 1986 V vehicular emissions. This information is essential in estimating the project's impact on traffic in the area. To relieve significant air ;cl ll 8 1986 quality and traffic impacts, the DEIR should include transportation system and demand management programs to encourage the use of mass transit, ridesharing. trip reduction strategies, etc.. in order to Thomas Andrusky """ "°"'"' reduce these impacts. City of Huntington Beach 2GO 14din Street thank you again for the opportunity to comment. SCAG would appreciate the Huntington Beach, CA 92648 opportunity to review the draft environmental impact report when it is available. If you have any questions. please contact Wendy Murphy at (213) Re: Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project 739-6648 or me at (213) 739-6649. (SLAG File No. OR-39997-NPR) Sincerely, Dear Mr. Andrusky: i *th you for submitting the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental ank , �,di4pact Review (EIR) for Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. Staff has RICHARD SPICER I :reviewed the. Notice and offers the following comments in accordance with Principal Planner ` our review procedures for voluntarily submitted projects. RS:miv Tllg DEiR should address SCAG plans and policies. For population, housing finA employment forecasts, the document entitled SCAG-82 Modified, adopted fir:... :,. 4'1ebruary 1985, is the basis for review for consistency with regional 1 p18ns and policies. In order to evaluate the relationship of this project to the forecasts, the FIR should address the following issues: • What is the growth permitted in the project as a percent of the growth forecast in SCAG-82 Modified for RSA 38 at the anticipated dates of project r-onpletion or phasing? What does the project contribute'to jct!hovsing balance in PSA 38? • What is the anticipated employment level associated with the project and how does it relate to the most recent SCAG growth forecasts for PSA 38? What is the availability of housing to accommodate the employees in the area? • What are the cumulative Impacts of this project, as related to SCAG-82 Modified for the anticipated dates of completion or phasing? • Are the provisions of the Regional Air Quality Management Plan. adopted in 1982, being implemented? What are the air quality imparts of the project? C-15 i.." Mwn�,.•eewuu"nw"w•,tin.H Kw.i o,anq.M..coMe."o.lOcxn.n�+"+.H n . i ` Mr. 23, 19R Tom A 9R � kv Iecember 216 . Page Two A concrete hiss pad sufficient to support the weight of a Sus (See OM. 's Design Guidelines For sus Facilities) may have to ORANGE COUNTY TRANSIT DISTRICT be provided at each transit stop. This woulA he necessary assuming the material used to construct Reach Boulevard would December ?3, 1986 be insufficlent to support continued transit use of the bus stops. WP annreclate the onnnrtunity to provide Input to this DF.1R, and would Mr. Tom Andhlakv •�✓ ,�:.'\J3b like to receive a copy of the IW.IR when It Is circulated for public re- Redevelopment Project Manager view. We are available to dlsrltsa rntr concerns with agency staff and 11untington Reach Redevelopment Agency "� individual developers. if you have any questions, or reautre additional P.O. Pox 190 ;,+�''� Information, tlleasp call me or nave Michaelson at q71-4152. lluntingtnn Reach, CA 92648 Sincerely, Dear Tom: (V% h ^ SOBJFLT: RIOT OUR IF.ACR 11MIEVARD RBDF.VFLOPMP.IIT PIIDJWr Chrlstloe Huard-Snencer We have reviewed this Proposed redevelopment project area as described in F.nvtronmental Coordinator . the NOP and have the following comments: • M:Tn currently offers service on Beach Boulevard as shown on the Attachments: attached area man, individual route mans and schedules. I. Rntlte Mans atul Schedules for OC.TD Rontes 29/29A, 37/17A and 74 2. Table 1 - Rus Stop Lncatinns in the Reach Roulevard Redevelop- 0 There are a number of bus stops located In the oroiect area, as went Pr oiect Area indicated on the attached table of existing stops. • In order to maximize the availability of transit services for rest- dents, emploveea and visitors to the area, we encourage the lnte- erntion of the following, transit amenities in. the planning process for oroiect% In the redevelopment area: Rus turnouts, consistent with OCTD's Design Guidelines For Rus Facilities (attached) shoold be provided at each stop. The provision of hus turnnots, particularly where no narking, re- atrlctions are, nr will be, to effect, is consistent with the transit improvements nrnnnsed as part of the Reach Roolevard S,irwratreets Improvement Program currently being Pursoed by the Orange County Transportation Commisslon. if the City traffic engineer determines.that turnouts are not necessary at . certain locations, due to the roadwav crass sectlnns, travel volumes or %needs, we will defer to City staff's professional ' judgement. The area adjacent to the transft stop% should Include a paved pa%%P.n Rer vatting Area complere with a bus shelter and bench. The bus stop areas shnpld he connected to adjacent developments with paved, lighted and handicapped accessible Pedestrian aceessways. C-16 ,i.• ....,, f.I-A—VVAY*I'.t111l,. .,., •i..duq,,,.niIVI I'a,111 1.'.1'i.11'1/1,.:'u � �`�� Slwi(d Urwdww _ _ �f I4 a c Tv OP foulMNGTON BEACH a.G ' O 10 HAIM AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION �M✓ �� V; '2 INTER-DEPARTMENT CO CATION /� _10 � 915 Capdd Mali,Rl o t,?811 IN.i1 w,.rrcnr M.tw DEC 10 W64 �w�°„cio� Socrowpno.'Cohl—go 95616 - COi1pM/pElApp •r„w (916)322 7791 To Stephen V. Kohler, Principal O 0 James W. Palin, Director „Gt;�ly E D Redevelopment Specialist D Development Services 2 December 1986 DEC 0919% utG 05 0 Subject NOP AND INITIAL STUDY Date October 29, 1966 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT ARF. Tom Andrusky --AND .,.i r--n+rrrwr City of Huntington Reach • 20011 Main Street We have reviewed the Initial Study for the Beach Boulevard Huntington Reach, California 92648 Redevelopment Project. The project description list.,: a considerable amount of construction. It this is the case, impacts from. the RE.: The City of lluntington Reach' MOP for Construction period including dust, noise, additional truck traffic Beach BIvJ. Redevelopment Project and the need to reroute traffic should be noted in the checklist in SCHP 86111216 Sections 2a, 6a and 13d respectively. Dear Mr. Andrusky: .. In addition, the explanation in section 8 Land Use, states that, 'The project will result in higher intensity land use throughout the Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced project area. This use is consistent with the General Plan.' It project. would be more correct to state that a general plan amendment is currently being processed to bring the proposed land uses for The Commission is aware of at least 11 archaeological sites located certain sites into conformance with the general plan. within and/or near the proppsed redevelopment route. Of these 11 recorded sites 2 of them contain human remains and 2 more are recorded Otherwise the initial study seems to he accurate and complete. We as possible burial sites. While 1 recognize that these sites might will be happy to review the draft EIR and any other reports on this have been mitigated since the inception of their recordation, it is project as they become available. essential that the Commission be assured that the-proposed project will not adversely impact any burials of Native American origin. JWP:PP:tI The burials in.question are located in both the south half and the (6551d) north half of the subject property (Ora-183;353 and Ora-145;296, respectively). The Commission requests that you make every effort to ensure that the redevelopment project will not.impact Native American burials and that if human remains and/or sensitive cultural resources are encountered i dnriug flit- redevelopment this office will be notified immediately. I'pon such notification the Commission will contact the affected 1 cultural group and snch group will make recommendations for the disposition and treatment of the burials. iIf you have any questions relative to the above do not hesitate to call me. Respectfully Vocals, (Ms.) R. Paine Talley Special Ass is fall t C C-17 .I 6 � // ` t t Kaullollis REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Adopted: Ordinance No: HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA • 051987/6 0752.h nt/tmc Kat% 11011ts TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. I Section 100).. I.NTRODUCTION...................................................................l 1.1. (Section 2001 PROJECT AREA BOHNI)ARY AND L1+;GA1., DESCRTPTION .........................................................4 M. [Section 3001 PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITTES..........................5 A. [Section 3011 General.... . ..................... ............ ..................:...5 B. (Section 3021 Owner Participation and Business Re-Entry Preferences...............................................5 1. (Section 3031 Opportunities for Owner Participation......................................................5 2. 1Section 3041 Preferences for Persons Engaged in Business in the Project Area......................6 3. (Section 305] Participation Agreements.................................6 4.. [Section 3061 Implementing Rules ..........................................7 C. I section 3071 Property Acquisition ................................................7 1. 1 Section 3081 Acquisition of Real Property ...........................7 3 1. I Section ejc tiorc 091 Personal Property............................................8 1). I section :31.01 Property Ma.nagement.........................:......................8 . K [Section 31I1 Relocation of Occupants Displaced byAgency Acquisition .............................................8 1. [Section 3121 Relocation Housing Requirements.....................8 2. [Section 3131 Replacement Housing Plan................................9 . 3. [Section 3141 Assistance in Finding Other Locations ... ................. ........................ .........9 4. 1Section 3151 Relocation Payments.........................................9 F. [Section 3161 Payments to Taxing Agencies for iri Lieu Taxes and To Alleviate Financial Burden .................................................... 10 c;. (Sec:t.ion :3171 Demolition, Clearance, Public: Improvements, Building and Site Preparation ............................... 10 1. I Suca.ion 3181 Demolition and Clearance ............................... 10 2. (Section 3191 Public Improvements...................................... 10 3. (Section 3201 Preparation of Building Sites........................ 10. (ii) KatzHolfis PAGE ..................... H. (Section 3211 Property Disposition and Development ................ 11 1. (Section 3221 Real Property Disposition and Development 11 .......................................... a. [Section 323] General................................................. 11 b. [Section 3241 Disposition and Development Documents ............................................ 11 c. (Section 3251 Development by the Agency b or Other Public Bodies or Entities ..... 12 d. [Section 3261 Development Plans ............................... 13 2. [Section 3271 Personal Property Disposition ..................... 13 I. [Section 3281 Cooperation with Public Bodies............................ 13 J. [Section 3291 Rehabilitation, Conservation and Moving of Structures........................................... 14 1. [Section 3301 Rehabilitation and Conservation .................. 14 2. (Section 3311 Moving of Structures................................... 15 K. (Section 332] Low or Moderate Income Housing ........................ 15 1. [Section 333] Authority Generally.............0........................ 15 2. [Section 334] Replacement Housing.................................... 15 3. [Section 3351 Increased and Improved Supply ................. 15 4. [Section 3361 New or Rehabilitated Dwelling Units Developed Within Project Area .......... 17 .5. [Section 3371 Duration of Dwelling Unit Availability......... 17 IV. (Section 4001 LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS .......... 18 A. (Section 4011 Redevelopment Plan Map and Project Area Land Uses.................................................... 18 B. [Section 4021 Major Land Uses .................................................. 18 E 1. (Section 4031 Commercial (General).................................... 18 2. [Section 4041 Commercial (Office Professional) 18 . ................. 3. [Section 4051 Residential (Low Density) ............................ 18 4. [Section 4061 Residential (Medium Density)....................... 18 5. (Section 4071 Residential (High Density) ........................... 19 6. [Section 4081 Open Space (Recreation).............................. 19 7. [Section 409] Mixed Uses (Mixed Development) ................. 19 C. [Section 410) Reserved............................................................... 19 (iii) Katz11ollIs • PAGE D. [Section 4111 Other band Uses .................................................... 19. 1. [Section 4121 Planned Community ........................................ 19 2. (Section 4131 Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional................. 19 3. (Section 4141 Public; Rights of Way .....................................20 E. I Section 4151 Conforming Properties............................................ 19 F. I Scx:t.ion 4161 Interim Uses............................... .........................21 G. [Section 4171 Nonconforming Uses ................................:..............21 H. [Section 4181 General Controls and Limitations...............6...........22 1. (Sec;tion 4191 Construction...................................................22 2. 1 Se(! ic►n 4201 I,imitai.iur► can l.he Nintiber• ()f Biaildings..........................6.........................'22 3. 1 Svi-Liceri .1211 Nurnbesr or Dwellirig llriit.H..............................22 4. I.Setc:ho ri 42.21 I.imitral.ic,ns on Typn, Size nrnd If(,-ighl. of FiuildingH........................................22 5. 1 Section 4231 Open Spaces, Landscaping, Light, Air and Privacy .........:.........:..........................22 6. [Section 4241 Signs ...............................................................23 7. [Section 4251 Utilities...........................................................23 B. [Section 4261 Incompatible Uses ..................................... ..23 9. [Section 4271 Non-Discrimination and Non-Segregation.............................................23 10. 1 Sec:tion 4281 Subdivision of Parcels...................................23 11. [Se(..t.ion 4291 Minor Variations.............................................23 12 1 Section 4301 Design Guide ..................................................24 13. [Sec-tion 4311 Building Permits.............................................24 V. [Section 5001 METHODS OF FINANCING THE PROJECT ..........................26 A. [Section 5011 General Description of the Proposed Financing Method ...................................26 B. [Section 5021 'Pax Increment Funds .......................:.....................26 C. ISe e.tion 5031 Agency Bonds.............:............................................27 1). 1 Section 5041 Time Limit orc Establishment of Indebtedness......................................................28 F. [Se;c•tion .5051 Other Loans and Grants.........................................28 VI. IS(wtic,n 6001 ACTIONS By 'rHF., CITY....................................................29 V 11. 1 Section 7001 FNFORCEMENT ...............................................................31 V11 I. (Section 8001 DURATION OF THIS PLAN ........................................32 IX. [Section ction 9001 PROCEDURE FOR AMENDMENT ....................................:....33 • (iv) • 1 r Katz lio1 I is EX IfIHIT "A" RRDEVELOPMENT PI,AN MAI) FXIIJBilll "H" LHGAI, DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA FIXHIIIIT "("' PROPOSED PTJBI-,IC IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES PROJECTS • Katz Hot 1 i a REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-REACH BOUJJRVARD R1DEVELOPMENT PROJ)F:CT . 1. [Section 1001 INTRODUCTION This is the Redevelopment Plan (the "Plan") for the Huntington Beach- Bench Boulevard Redevelopment Project (the "Project") in the City of Huntington Beach (the "City"), County of Orange, State of California. This Plan consists of text (Sections 100 through 900), the Redevelopment Plan Map (Exhibit "A"), a Legal Description of the Project Area (Exhibit "B"), and the Proposed Public Improvements and Facilities Projects (Exhibit "C"). This Plan was prepared by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency (the "Agency") pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seq.; all statutory references hereinafter shall be to the Health and Safety Code unless otherwise designated), the California Constitution, and all applicable local codes and ordinances. The definitions of general terms which are contained in the Community Redevelopment I,aw govern the construction of this Plan, unless more specific terms and definitions therefore are otherwise provided in this Plan. The _ project, area (the "Project Area") includes all properties within the Project boundary shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map and described in the Legal Description of the Project Area. The proposed redevelopment of the Project Area as described in this Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, . as applied in accord with local codes and ordinances. . This Redevelopment flan is based upon the Preliminary Plan formulated and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Planning Commission") on October 21, 1986. This Plan provides the Agency with powers, duties and obligations to implement and further the program generally formulated in this Plan for the redevelopment., rehabilitation, and revitalization of the Project Area. This Plan does not, present a specific plan or establish priorities for specific projects for the redevelopment, rehabilitation, and revitalization of any particular area within the Project Area. Instead, this Plan presents a process and a basic framework within which specific development plans will he presented, priorities for specific; projects will be established, and specific solutions will bu proposed, and by which tools are provided to the Agency to fashion, develop, and proceed with such specific plans, projects, and solut ions. In general, the goals and objectives of a redevelopment program in the Project Area are as follows: 1 Kati llol l is I The elimination and prevention of the spread of blight and deterioration and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. 2. The elimination or amelioration of certain environ- mental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting the Project Area. 3. 'The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of thin Redevelopment Plan. 4. The enhancement, cif a major, region-serving thorough- fare to provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circulation. 5. The replanning, redesign, assembly and reparcelization and development of undeveloped/vacant areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. 6. The encouragement of investment by the private • sector in the development and redevelopment of the Project Area by eliminating impediments to such development, and redevelopment. 7. The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees,. taxes and revenues to the City. 8. The expansion of the community's supply of housing, including opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. 9. The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high standards for site design, environmental quality and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project. 10. The promotion and creation of new local employment opportunities. 11. The encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns. 12. The provision of a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system which ica Coordinated with land uses Katz, HolIis • and densities and adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. 13. To encourage the cooperation and participation of residents, business owners, public agencies and community organization" in the development and redevelopment of the at•ea. 14. The enc:ouragemernt of the development of a commercial environment which. positively relates to adjacent land uses and to upgrade and stabilize existing commercial uses. 15. The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly overhead utility lines. 16. The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses within the Project Area. Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to this Plan and the above goals and objectives will attain the purposes of the California Vommunity Redevelopment Law: (1) by the elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation and disuse; (2) by the replanning, redesign and/or redevelopment of aroaH which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not. be arcomplishod by private enterpriser acting alone without public participation and assistance; (3) by protercting and promoting sound dervelopment and redevelopment of blighted areas and general welfare of the citizens of the City by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of appropriate means; and (4) through the installation of new or replacement of existing public: improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities and utilities. • Kati11ollis IL [Section 2001 PROJECT AREA BOUNDARY AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION They bourndar•y of they Project. Aron is Hhown or► the► Hodevolopn►el►it i'I,►n Map allacheld as Exhibit "A", and iN dem'.1-ibod in they Le gill I)ei8 ,1.1phim Of tho Project. Area attmc:hod as Exhibit. "H". 4 Kato 1 fell i s • 111. (Section 3001 PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES A. I Section 3011 General The Agency proposes to eliminate and prevent the spread of blight _ and blighting influences, and to strengthen the economic base of the Project Area and the community by: I. Permitting participation in the redevelopment process by owners and occupants of properties located in the Project Area, consistent with this Plan and rules adopted by the Agency; 2. Acquisition of real property; 3. Management of property under the ownership and control of the Agency; 4. Relocation assistance to displaced occupants of property acquired in the Project Area; 5. Demolition or removal of buildings and improvements; 6. Installation, construction, or re-construction of streets, utilities, and other public facilities and improvements; 7. Disposition of property for uses in accordance with this Plan; 8. Redevelopment of land by private enterprise and public agencies for uses in accordance with this Plan; 9. Rehabilitation of structures and improvements by present owners, their successors, and the Agency; 10. Rehabilitation, development or construction of low and moderate income housing within the Project and/or the City; and 1]. Providing for the retention of controls and establishment of restrictions or covenants running with the land so that property will continue to be used in accordance with this Plan. In the accomplishment of these activities, and in the implementation and furtherance of this Plan, the Agency, is authorized to use all the powers provided in this Plan and all the powers to the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, which powers are not expressly limited by this Plan. H. [Section 3021 Owner Participation and Business Re-Entry Preferences 1. f Section 3031 Opportunities for Owner Participation • The Agenr,y is authorized to permit persons who are owners of commercial and other types of real property in the Project Area to be given 5 Katz1follis the opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of properties within the Project Area by purchasing other properties in the Project Area, by participating with developers in the redevelopment of all or a portion of their properties, by acquiring adjacent properties from thje Agency, by new development by retaining all or a portion of their properties, by rehabilitation, by retention of improvements, or by other suitable means. Persons and firms who own property within the Project Area shall be afforded the opportunity to participate in the redevelopment of properties within the Project Area consistent with the objectives and proposals of this Plan and subject to implementation rules adopted by the Agency. In addition to opportunities for participation by individual persons and firms, participation to the extent it is feasible shall be available for two or more . persons, firms or institutions, to join together in partnerships, corporations, or other joint entities. Participation opportunities shall necessarily be subject to and limited by factors including but not limited to the following: . (1) the elimination and changing of some land uses; (2) the construction, realignment, abandonment, widening, opening and/or other alteration or elimination of rights-of-way; (3) the removal, relocation, and/or installation of public utilities and public facilities; (4) the ability of participants to finance the proposed acquisition, development or rehabilitation in accordance with this Redevelopment Plan; (5) the ability and development experience of participants to undertake and complete the proposed development; (6) the advisability of consolidating • parcels in the.. Project Area where appropriate to maximize productive land units; (7) the construction or expansion of public improvements and facilities, and the necessity to assemble areas for such; (8) any change in orientation and character of the Project Area; (9) the necessity to assemble areas for public and/or private development; (10) the requirements of this Plan and applicable laws and regulations of the City of Huntington Beach; (11) any Design Guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to Section 428 hereof; (12) the feasibility of the participant's proposal; (13) the need to maximize revenue generation, job creation, shopping opportunities, and to attract beneficial uses; and (14) comparison of the proposed participation project with other proposals meeting the goals and objectives of this Plan. 2. [Section 3041 Preferences for Persons Engaged in ..........................................._......... . . The Agency _ shall extend reasonable preferences to persons who are engaged in business in the Project Area and who are displaced by Agency action to re-enter in business within the redevelopment area if they . otherwise meet the requirements prescribed by this Plan. 3. [Section 3051 Participation Agreements The Agency may require that, as a condition to participate in redevelopment or to obtain a building permit pursuant to Section 431 hereof, each participant, shall enter into a binding participation agreement with the Agency by which the participant agrees to acquire, rehabilitate, develop or 6 i I Katz1follis • use the property in conformance with this Plan and to be subject to. provisions hereof and such other provisions and conditions as the parties may agree to. In such agreements, participants who . retain real property may be required to join in the recordation of such documents as is necessary to mike the provisions of this Plan and such participation agreement applicable to their properties. in the event an owner or participant fails or refuses to develop, or use and maintain, its real property pursuant to this Plan and Ruch participation agreement, the real property or any interest therein may be acquired by the Agency and sold or leased for development in accordance with this Plan. Whether or not a participant enters into a participation agreement with the Agency, the provisions of this Plan are applicable to all public and private property in the Project Area. 4. [Section 3061 ImpleMpritino gules The provisions of Sections 302 through 305 shall be implemented according to the rules adopted by the Agency prior to the approval of this Plan, and the same may be from time to time amended by the Agency. Where there is a conflict between the participation and re-entry preferences provisions of this Plan and such rules adopted by the Agency, the rules shall prevail. (`,. (Section 3071 Property Acquisition 1. 1 Section 3081 Acquisition of Real Property The Agency may acquire, but is not required to acquire, any real property located in the Project. Area by gift, devise, exchange, lease, purchase, eminent domain or any other lawful method. It is in the public interest and is necessary in order to execute this Plan for the power of eminent domain to be employed by the Agency to acquire real property in all portions of the Project Area. No eminent domain proceeding to acquire property within the Project Area shall be commenced after twelve (12) years following the date of adoption of the ordinance approving and adopting this Plan. Such time limitation may be extended only by amendment of this Plan. The Agency in authorized to acquire structures without acquiring the land upon wliiCh those structures are located. The Agency is also authorized to acquire any other interest in real property less than a fee. Without the consent of the owner, the Agency shall not acquire property to be retained by an owner pursuant to a participation agreement if the owner fully performs under the agreement. The Agency shall not acquire real property on which an existing building is to be continued on its present site and in its present form and use without the consent of the • owner, unless such building requires structural alteration, improvement, modernization, or rehabilitation, or• the site or lot on which the building is 7 Katz 11ol I is situated requires modification in size, shapes or use, or it is necessary to • impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of this Plan or of tiny Design Guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to this Plan, and the owner fails or rofuseH to pArtici.pate in the Plan or in conformance with any such Design Guide by executing a participation agreement. Any covenants, conditions, or restrictions existing on any real property within the Project Area prior to the time the Agency acquires title to such property, which covenants, conditions, or restrictions restrict or purport to restrict the use of, or building upon, such real property, shall, when the Agency complies with the. procedures of Section 33397 of the Community Redevelopment Law, be void and unenforceable as to the Agency and any other subsequent owners, tenants, lessees, easement holders, t mortgagees, trustees, beneficiaries under a deed of trust, or any other persons or entities acquiring an interest in such real property from such time as title to the real .property is acquired by the Agency. 2. [Suction. 3091 Personal Property Generally, personal property shall not be acquired. However, where necessary in the execution of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to acquire personal property in the Project Area by any lawful means, including eminent domain. D. [Section 3101 Property Management During such time as property, if any, in the Project Area is owned by the Agency, such property shall be under the management and control of the Agency. Such property may be rented or leased by the Agency pending its disposition for redevelopment, and such rental. or lease shall be pursuant to such policies as the Agency may adopt. H. [Section 3111 Relocation of Occupants Displaced by ............._.. ..... ........... .._... Agency Acquisition 1. [Section 3121 Relocation Housing Requirements ............ ... No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced person or family at rents comparable to those at the time of their displacement. Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwellings. The Agency shall not displace such person or family until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy. Permanent housing facilities shall be made available within three years from the time occupants are displaced. Pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to such displaced occupants adequate temporary housing facilities at rents (;omparable to those in the community at, the, time of their displacement. 8 Katzliollis • 2. [Section 3131 Replacement Housing Plan Not less than thirty days prior to the execution of an agreement for acquisition of real property, or the execution of an agreement for the disposition and development of property, or the execution of an owner participation agreement, which agreement would lead to the destruction or removal of dwelling units from the low and moderate income housing market, the Agency shall adopt by resolution a replacement housing. plan. The replacement housing plan shall include: (1) the general location of housing to be rehabilitated, . developed, or constructed pursuant to Section 33413 of the Community Redevelopment Law; (2) an adequate means of financing such rehabilitation, development, or construction; (3) a finding that the replacement housing does not require the approval of the voters pursuant to . Article XXXIV of the California Constitution, or that such approval has been obtained; (4) the number of dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate. income planned for construction or rehabilitation; and (5) the timetable for meeting the plan's relocation, rehabilitation, and replacement. housing objectives. A dwelling unit whose replacement is required by Section 33413 but for which no replacement housing plan has been prepared, shall not be destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market until the Agency has by resolution adopted a replacement housing plan. Nothing in this section shall prevent the Agency from destroying or removing from the low and moderate income housing market a dwelling unit which the Agency owns and which is an immediate danger to health -and safety. The Agency shall, as soon as practicable, adopt by resolution a replacement housing plan with respect to such dwelling unit. 3. [Section 3141 Assistance in Finding Other Locations The Agency shall assist all persons (including individuals and families), business concerns, and others displaced by Agency action in the Project in finding other locations and facilities. In order to carry out the Project with a minimum of hardship to persons (including individuals and families), business concerns, and others, if any, displaced from their- respective places of residence or business, the Agency shall assist such persons, business concerns and others in finding new locations that are decent, safe, sanitary, within reasonable financial means, in reasonably convenient locations, and otherwise suitable to their respective needs. The Agency may also provide housing inside or outside the Project Area for displaced persons. 4. (Section 315) Relocation Payments The Agency shall make all relocation payments required by law to parsons (including individuals and families), business concerns, and others displaced from property in the Projecl.. Such relocation payments shall be • made pursuant. to the California Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code Section 7260 et seq.) and Agency rules arid regulations adopted pursuant 9 Kato liul I is Lheretc are such may he amended from time to time. The; Agency may make • such other payments as it may deem appropriate and for which funds are available. F. [Section 3161 Payments to Taxing Agencies for In Lieu Taxes and to Alleviate Financial Burden Subject to the provisions of Section 33401 of the Community Redevelopment I.aw, the: Agency may make the payments specified in this Section 316. In any year during which it owns property in the Project Area, the Agency is authorized, but not required, to pay directly to any City, County, City and County, District, including, but not limited to, a School District, or other public corporation for whose benefit a tax would have been levied upon such property had it not been exempt, an amount of money in lieu of taxes. The Agency may also pay to any taxing agency with territory located within the .Project Area (other than the City), any amounts of money which, in the Agency's determination, are appropriate to alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused to such taxing agency by the Project.. G. [Section 3171 ! Demolition, Clearance, Public: Improvements, Building and Site Preparation 1.. [Section 3181 Demolition and Clearance The Agency is authorized to demolish and clear buildings, structures, and other improvements from any real property in the Project Area as necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. 2. [Section 3191 Public Improvements The Agency is authorized to install and construct, or to cause. to be installed and constructed, the public.: improvements, facilities and utilities (within or outside the Project Area) necessary to carry out this Plan. Such public: improvements, facilities and utilities include, but. are not limited to, improvements referenced in any of Section 325 or Exhibit "C," and the following: (1) over- and under-passes; (2) sewers; (3) storm drains; (4) electrical, natural gas, telephone and water distribution systems, or any other public utility; (5) parks and plazas; (6) playgrounds; (7) parking and transportation facilities; (8) landscaped areas; (9) lighting; (10) street and circulation improvements; and (11 ) flood control improvements and facilities. 3. [Section 3201 Preparation of Building Sites The Agency is authorized to prepare, or cause to be prepared, as building sites nny real property in the Project Area owned. by the Agency. The Agency is also authorized to construct foundations, platforms, and other structural forms newessary for the provision or utilization of air rights sites for buildings to be used for commercial, public, and other uses provided in this Plan. 10 hilto 11ol I ati • H. (Section 3211 Property Disposition and Development 1. 1 Section 3221 Roo Property Disposition and Development M. 1 Section 3231 General For the purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to sell, lease for a period not to exreed 99 years, exchange, subdivide, transfer, assign,. pledge, encumber by mortgage or deed of trust, or otherwise dispose of any interest in real property. The Agency is authorized to dispose of real property by negotiated lease, sale, or transfer without public bidding but only after public hearing. Before: any interest in real property of the Agency acquired in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, with tax increment moneys is sold, leased, or otherwise disposed of for development pursuant to this Plan, such sale, lease or disposition shall be first approved by the City Council after public hearing in conformance with Section 33433 of the Community Redevelopment Law. All reril property acquired by the Agency in the Project Area shall be sold or leased to public or private persons or entities for development for the: uses permitted in this Plan. Rea) property may be, conveyed by the Agency to the City and, where beneficial to the Project Area, to any other . public: body without charge or for an amount at less than fair market value. All purchasers or lessees of property from the Agency shall be made obligated to use the property for the . purposes designated in this Plan, to begin and complete development of the property within a period of. time which the Agency fixes as reasonable, and to comply with other conditions which the Agency deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this Plan. During the period of development in the Project Area, the Agency shall ensure that the provisions of this Plan and of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan are being observed, and that development in the Project Area is proceeding in accordance with development documents and time schedules. b. [Section 3241 Disposition and Development_ Documents The Agency shall reserve powers and controls in disposition and development documents as may be necessary to prevent transfer, retention, or use of property for speculative purposes and to ensure .that development is expeditiously carried out pursuant to this Plan. To provide adequate safeguards to ensure that the provisions of this Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, all real property sold, leased, or conveyed by the Agency, as well as all property subject, to. participation agreements, shall be made subject to the provisions • Of this Plan and any adopted Design Guide and other conditions imposed by li KatzHollis the Agency by leases, deeds, contracts, agreements, declarations of restrictions, provisions of the zoning ordinance, conditional use permits, or ether meant;. Where appropriate, as determined by the Agency, such documents or portions thereof shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County. The leases, deeds, contracts, agreements, and declarations of restrictions may contain restrictions, covenants, covenants running with the land, rights of reverter, conditions subsequent, equitable servitudes, or any other provision necessary to carry out this Plan. All property in the Project. Area is hereby subject to the restriction that there shall be no discrimination or segregation based upon sex, marital status, race, color, religion, national origin, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure, or enjoyment of property in the Project Area. All property sold, leased, conveyed, or subject to a participation agreement, by or through the Agency, shall be expressly subject by appropriate documents to the restriction that all deeds, leases, or contracts for the sale, lease, sublease, or other transfer of land in the Project Area shall contain such non-discrimination and non-segregation clauses as are required by law. G. (.Section 3251 Development by the Agency or Other Public Bodies or Entities To the extent now or hereafter permitted by law, the Agency may, with the consent of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, pay all yr part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and construction of tiny building, facility, structure, or other improvement which is publicly owned either within or outside the Project Area, if the City Council determines: (1) that such buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are of benefit to the Project Area or the immediate neighborhood in which the Project, is located, regardless of whether such improvement, is within another project area; and (2) that no other reasonable means of financing such buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are available . to the community. Such determinations by the Agency and the City Council shall be final and conclusive. Specifically, the Agency may pay all or part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and construction of any building, facility, structure or other improvement, set forth in Section 319 of this Plan, including, without limitation, those set forth in Exhibit "C", Proposed Public: Improvements and Facilities Projects. When the value of such . land or the cost of the installation and construction of such building, facility, structure, or other improvement, or lh()t.h, has been, or will be paid or provided for initially by the City or other public corporation, the Agency may enter into a contract with the City or other public corporation under which it agrees to reimburse the City or other- public corporation for all or part of the value of such land or all or part of the cost of such building, facility, structure, or other improvement,. or both, by periodic payments over- a period of ,years. 1,� Kal of I is The obligation of the Agency under such contract shall constitute an indebtodness of the Agency for- the purpose of carrying out the redevelopment. project for the Project Area, which indebtedness may be made payable out of taxes levied in the. Project Area and allocated to the Agency under subdivision (b) of Suction 33670 of the California Redevelopment Law and Section 502 of this. Plan, or out .of any other available funds. In a case where such land has been or will be acquired by, or the cost of the installation and construction of such building, facility, structure or other improvement has been paid by, a parking authority, joint powers entity, or other public corporation to provide a building, facility, structure, or other improvement which has been or will be leased to the City such contract may be made with, and such reimbursement may be made payable to, the City. Before the Agency commits to use the portion of taxes to be allocated and paid .to .the Agency pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 33670 for the purpose of paying all or part of the value of the land for, and the cost. of the instalInt.ion and construction of, any publicly owned building, .other than parking _facilities, thci City .Council shall hold a public hearing in accord with the provisionA of Section 33679 of the Community Redevelopment Law. d. (Section 3261 Development Plans All development plans (whether public or private) shall be processed in the manner provided by applicable City codes as they are or as they may be amended from time to time. All development in the Project Area must conform to City and Agency design review procedures, including any Design Guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to Section 430 hereof. 2. [Section 3271 Personal Property Disposition For the purposes of this Plan, the Agency is authorized to lease, sell, exchange, transfer, assign, pledge, encumber, or otherwise dispose of personal property which is acquired by the Agency. 1. (Section 3281 Cooperation with Public Bodies Certain public bodies are authorized by state law to aid and cooperate with or . without consideration in the planning, undertaking, construction, or operation of this Project. The Agency may seek the aid and cooperation of such public. bodies and attempt to coordinate this Plan with the activities of such public bodies in order to accomplish the purposes of redevelopment and the highest public good. The Agency, by law, is not. authorized to acquire real property owned by public bodies without the consent of such public bodies. The Agency, however, will seek the cooperation of all public bodies which own or intend . to acquire. property in the Project Area. Any public body which owns or leases, property in the Project Area will be afforded all the privileges of owner participation if such public body is willing to enter into a 13 part.icipatiOTI agreement. with the Agency. All plant♦ for dcivelopme,nt of. property in the Project. Area by a public., body shall be subject to Agency approval. 'rhe Agency may impose on all public, bodies the planning and design controls contained in and authorized by this Plan to ensure that present, uses and any future development by public bodies will conform to the requirements of. this Plan. The Agency is authorized to financially (and otherwise) assist any public entity in the cost of public land, buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements (within or outside the Project Area) which land, buildings, facilities, structures, or other improvements are of benefit to the Project. J. [Section 3291 Rehabilitation, Conservation and Moving of Structures I. [Section 3301 Rehabilitation and Conservation The Agency is authorized to rehabilitate and conserve, or to cause to be. rehabilitated rind conserved, any building or structure in the Project Area owned by the Agency. The Agency is also authorized to advise, encourage, and assist (through a loan program or otherwise) in the rehabilitation and conservation of property in the Project Area not owned by the► Agency. The Agency is. also authorized to acquire, restore, rehabilitate, move and conserve buildings of historic or architectural significance. It shall be the purpose of this Plan to allow for the. retention of as �. many existing businesses as practicable and to add to the economic life of these businesses by a program of voluntary participation in their conservation and rehabilitation. ' The Agency is authorized to conduct a program of assistance and enforcement to encourage owners of property within the Project Area to upgrade and maintain their property consistent with this Plan and such standards as may be developed for the Project Area. The extent. of retention, conservation and rehabilitation in the Project Area shall be subject to the following limitations: a. The rehabilitation, of. the struct.rire: must be compatible with land uses as provided for in this Plan; b. Rehabilitation and conservation activities on a structure must be carried out in an expeditious manner and in conformance with the requirements of this Plan and such property rehabilitation standards as may be adopted by the Agency and the City. c. 'rhe installation, expansion and/or upgrading of required public improvements, facilities and utilities shall be accomplished, and not prevented. by, such rehabilitation. 14 Kati. l iol I is d. The assembly and develoP went of areas in accordance with this Plan shall not be prevented by such rehabilitation. The Agonc:y may adopt property rehabilitation standards for thF rehabilitation of properties in the Project Area. Where there is a conflict between the building requirements set forth in .this Plan and such property rehabilitation standards as may be adopted, the property rehabilitation standards shall prevail. Thu Agency shall not assist in the rehabilitation or conservation of properties which, in its opinion, is not economically, aesthetically and/or structurally foas ble. 2. [Section 3311 Moving of Structures As necessary in carrying out, this Plan, the Agency is authorized to move or to cause to be moved, any standard structure or building or any structure or building which can be rehabilitated to a location within or outside the Project Area. K. [Section 3321 I.ow or Moderate Income Housing 1. [Section 333) Authority Generally 'rho Agency . may, inside or outside the Project Area, acquire land, �*- improve sites, or construct or rehabilitate structures in order. to provide housing for persons and families of low or moderate income. The Agency may also provide subsidies to, or for the benefit of, such persons and families of households to assist them in obtaining housing. The Agency may also sell, lease, grant, or donate real property owned or acquired by the Agency to the Orange County Housing Authority and may otherwise cooperate with the Housing Authority in carrying out the provisions of Section 335 hereinbelow. 2. [Section 334] Replacement Housing In accordance with Sections 33334.5 and 33413 of the Community Redevelopment Law, whenever dwelling units housing persons and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the low and moderate income housing market. as part of a redevelopment project, the Agency shall, Within four years of such destruction or removal, rehabilitate, develop, or- construct, or cause to be rehabilitated, developed, or constructed, for rental or sale to persons and families of low or moderate income an equal number of replacement dwelling units at affordable housing costs within the territorial jurisdiction of the Agency, in accordance with all of the provisions of Sections 33413 and 33413.5 of the Community Redevelopment Law. 3. [Section 336) Increased and Improved Supply Pursuant to Section 33334.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law, riot less t.hran 20 percent of all taxes which are allocated to the Agency pursuant 1.5 Katz 1fnl l IS to subdivision (b) of Section 33670 of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 502 of this Plan shall be used by the Agency for the purposes of increasing and improving the City's supply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable housing cost, as defined by Section 50052.5 of the Health & Safety Code, to . persons and families of low or moderate income, as defined in Section 50093 of the Health & Safety Code, and very low ineomn households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health _& Safety Code, unless one or more of the following findings are made: (1) that no need exists in the City, the provision of which would benefit the Project Area to improve or increase the supply of housing for persons and families of low or moderate income or very low income households; or (2) that some stated percentage less than 20 percent of the taxes which are allocated to the Agency pursuant to Section 502 is sufficient to meet such housing need; or (3) that a substantial effort to meet low and moderate income housing needs in the, City is being made and that this effort, including the obligation of funds currently available for the benefit of the City from state, local, and federal sources for low and moderate income housing alone or in combination with the taxes allocated under Section 33334.2, is equivalent in impact to the funds otherwise required to . be set aside pursuant to said Section. In carrying out the purposes of Section 33334.2, the Agency may exercise any or all of its powers, including, but not limited to, the following: 1. Acquire land or building sites; 2. Improve land or building sites with on-site or off-site improvements; . 3. Donate land to private or public persons or entities; 4. Construct buildings or structures; 5. Acquire buildings or structures; 6. Rehabilitate buildings or structures; 7. Provide subsidies to or for the benefit of persons or families of very low, low, or moderate income; and 8. Develop plans, pay principal and interest on bonds, loans, advaric es, or other indebtedness, or pay financing or carrying charges. The Agency may use these funds to meet, in whole or in part, the replacement housing provisions in Section 334 above. These funds .may be used inside or ouf.Hidr the Project Area provided, however, that prior to use of such funds outside the Project Area, resolutions from the City and the Agency which include findings of benefit to the Project, shall be made as required by said Section 33334.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law. 16 • The funds for this p%irpp!qe Nhall bo held in ii Slip rate 1,()W and Modf-t-tAto 11loo ute Housing Fund until used. Any interoRt erti-ned by such kow nrld Moderniv Income Housing Fund shall accrue to the Fund. 4. 1.5pction. 3361 Now or Rehabilitated Dwelling Units .............. -... .Dwelling. ..- Units Developed Within Project Area ... Within..... .. .......... At least thirty percent (30%) of all new or rehabilitated dwelling units developed by the Agency, if any, shall be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low. or moderate income. Not less than fifty percent (50%) of the dwelling units reqpired to be available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income shall be available at affordable housing post to, and occupied by, very low income households. At least fifteen pf3rcent (15%) of all - new or rehabilitated ed units developed within the Project Area' by public or Private entities or, persons other than the. Agency, if any, shall he available at affordable housing cost to persons and families of low or moderate income. Not less than forty percent (40%) of the dwelling units r-oqqired to be available at affordable housing vost, to. tww�ns and families of low or modorate income shall be available at, itfford nf,)le housing costs to very low income households. 'rho perrentage requirements met forth in this Section shall apply independently of this requirements of Section 334. and in the aggregate to housing made availal)le pursuant to the first and second paragraphs, respoclively, of Chia Section 336 and' not to each individual case of rehabilitation, development or coristructi-on of dwelling units-. If all or any portion of the Project. Area is developed with low or moderate income housing units, the Agency shall require by contract or o.ther appropriate means that such housing be made available for rent or purchaser to the peraons and families (.)f low and moderate income displaced by tho Project. Such persons arid families shall. be given priority in renting or buying such housing; provided, however, failure to give such priority sh.411 not effect. the validity of title to real property. 5. [Section 3371 Duration of Dwelling Unit Availability The Agency shall require that the aggregate number of replacement dwelling units nrld o.Iher dwelling units rehabilitated, developed or coristructed ptirsuKrit (.() Sections 334 ;-.%nd 3.36 shall remain available at affortimble housing cost to persons and families of low income, moderate irwoiiio niid very low income houstiholds, respectively, for .not less than the p0rio(l st-i rcwth iii tiwciion, 800 for the duration of this Plan's development I Katzliolfis 1V. [Section 4001 LAND USES AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS ..........................................._..................................._..._................. ........ .. ._............................. • A. (Section 4011 Redevelopment Plan Map and Project Area Land Uses The Redevelopment Plan Map, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", illustrates the location of the Project boundary, identifies the major streets within the Project Area, and designates the major land uses and other land eases authorized within the Project Area. The City may from time to time update and revise the General Plan. Except as provided in Section 410 below, it is the intention of this Redevelopment Plan that the major and other land uses. to be permitted within the Project Area shall be as provided within the City's General Plan, as it currently exists or as it may from time to time be amended, and as implemented and applied by local codes and ordinances. The major and ether land uses authorized within the Project Area by the General Plan are described below. Other uses may be authorized from time to time by General Plan amendments. B. [Section 4021 Major Land Uses 1. [Section 4031 Commercial (General) The areas shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for General Commercial uses may be used for the various kinds of general commercial uses or other uses specified for or permitted within such areas by the General Plan and local codes and ordinances. 2. [Section 404] Co .................................. _ ... . . . ........................... .......... The areas shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for Commercial Office Professional uses may be used for the various types of professional office and other uses specified for or permitted within such areas by the General Plan and local codes and ordinances. 3. [Section 4051 Residential (Low Density) The areas shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for Low Density Residential uses may be used for the various residential and other uses specified for or permitted within such areas by the General Plan and local codes and ordinances. 4. [Section 4061 Residential (Medium. ensity) ... .... ... .....Density The areas shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for Medium Density Residential uses may be used for the various residential and other uses specified for or permitted within such areas by the General Plan and local Codes and ordinances. • 18 Katz Hol I is . d-h . 5. [Section 4071 Residential (Hi;�h D" insi:Ly� 'Cho area shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for High Density Residential uses. ,may be used for the various residential and other uses specified for or permitted within such area® by the General Plan and local codes and ordinances. 6. [Section 4681 Open.Space (Retreat on The areas shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for Open Space Recreation uses shall be used for . the various types of open space, recreation, and other uses specified 161 or permitted within such areas by the General Plan and local nodes and ordinances: 7. [Section 4091 Mixed. Uses (Mixed Develob.iae.rit) The area shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for Mixed Uses (Mixed Development) may be used far the various types of mined development uses and other uses specified for or permitted within such areas by the General Plan and local codem and ordinances+. C. (8ectic�n 4101 Rbserved D. [Section 4ill Other Land Uses 1. [Section 4121 Planned Oommmunity The area shown on the Redevelopment Plan Map for. Planned Community uses may be used for the various types of community . uses and other, uses specified for or permitted within such areas .b`y the' General Plan and local odes and ordinances. 2. [Section 4131 Plibilb. Quasi=Public, Institutional . The area shown on the Redevelopment Plan' Map for Public, Quasi- Public, Institutional uses may be used, for th'e various types, of public, quasi-public., institutional-, non-profit, and other uses specified for or permitted within such areas by the General Plan- and` local' codes` and ordinances. In addition, in any area the Agency is authorized to permit the maintenance, establishment or enlargement of public, quasi-public, institutional, or non-profit uses, including park and' recreational facilities, libraries, educational, fraternal, employee, philanth'ropic,, religious 'and charitable institutions, utilities, railrorid rights''-of=way, and` facilities of other • similar associations or organizations: All such' uses shall conform so far as gxmHiblo to the provisions of this` Plan applicable to the xiseF in the specific 19 h�l�/ ��11011ti arcrl involved. The Agency may impose such other- reagorrable restrictions as nre necessary t•e) p►ote-ct the development And uses in the Tlr•oject Area. 3. 1 Sei:tion 4141 Public Rights of Way Majiw public streets within the Project area are generally described as: 1. Beach Hoidevard between Edinger Avenue and Atlanta Avenue 2. Portioris of the following streets pass through the Pro,jPr_.t .Area, traversing Beach Rou.le.vrrrd: - Edinger Avr,nue Heil Avenue - WarnNr Avenue Slat-el Ak'et►ue Talbot-t. Avenue: Main Street/Ellis Avenge Garfield Avenue Yorktown Avenue Adnms Avr-�nne Inditrnapolis Avenue Atlanl,a Avenue Addil.iorml ptiblic streets, alleys and easements may be cre:ab'-d in the Project. Area as needed for proper use and/or development. Existing strttets and alleys may he abandoned, closed or modified as necessary for proper use and/or development. It is anticipated that Project development may entail vacation and/car realignment, of certain streets, alleys, and other right's-of-wny. Any changes in I ho existing st.re(-.A. Nyout. shall be in accord with t.hr• General Plan, the objectives of this Plan, and the City's design standards, shall be effectuate-id in the manner, prescribed by state and local law, and shall be guided by the following criteria: 1. A balancing of the nveds c)f proposed and potential new dPvelopmerit for Adequate pedestrian and vehicular ac(-ess, vehicular parking, and delivery loading docks with similar• rre'E!dq of existing developments proposed or potentially proposed to remain. Such balancing shall take into von` ider•ation the rights of existing owners and tenants 1111der they par•t.ir.ipation and pt•eferences r•r►les adopted by I.ho Agrericy fnr the Project, and any participation :wn— rement.s executed thereunder; 2. The r•e;quir eiiio its imposed by sul.ch factors as topography, traffic: safest.%• and ne:•sthe•t.ic s; :3. They pot-ontial need t,e, not only the Project Area and new or existing de:velopmorits, but. to also serve rheas 20 Kalzifollis outside Lhe Project. by providing c•.orivenit;nt, efficient vehicubir• raoeeHH and mo vr.n►e.►►t; and 4. The poLential ntiod or desirrr to accomrr►pdate the facilitieK and/or equipment of mass transportation modes. The public rights-of-way may be used for vehicular and/or pedestrian traffic, as well as for public improvements, public and private utilities, and activities typically found in public rights-of-way. In addition, all necessary Easements for- public uses, publir., facilities, and public utilities may be retained, amended or created. E. [Section 4151 Conforming Properties The Agency may, at its sole and absolute discretion, determine that certain real properties; within the Project Area meet the requirements of this Plan, . and the owners of such properties may be permitted to remain ay owners of conforming properties without a pairticipst.it�n aaaroc:mc;r►t. with tht, Agency, provided such owners continr►e to ohtirrate, uHti, a rld n►aaintain the real proportieH within the cif Lhil, I'Iatn. A cer•l.ificate of vonformance to this effect may ht� ismied by the Agenc-y and recorded. An owner of a conforming property maiy hs required by Lhe Agency to enter into a participation agreement with the Agency in the event that such owner desires to (1) construct any additional improvements or substantially alter or modify existing structures on any of the real property described above as conforming; or (2) acquire additional. property within the Project Area. F. [Section 4161 Interim Uses Pending the ultimate development of land by developers and participants, the Agency is authorized to use or permit the use of any land in the Project Area for interim uses riot in conformity with the uses permitted in this Plan. Such interim use shall conform to all applicable City Codes, unless such requirements are waived or a variance granted pursuant to action by the Agency, Planning Commission or other discretionary body. G. (Section 4171 Nonconforming Unen The Agency is authorized to permit an existing use to remain in an exiiit.ing building in good condition, which use does not conform to the provisions of this Plan, provided that sucli use is generally compatible with existing and proposed developments and uses in the Project Area, and abatement of such uses is not required by applicable City codes. The owner of such a property may be required to enter into a participation agreement., to record it coverrant, of restrictions ag.air►st the property, and agree .to the imposition of such reasonable restrictions as may be necessary to protect the development and uses in the Project. Area. The Agency maay aaathorize additions, alterations, repairs or other i tit provctments in the Project Area for uses which do not conform to the proviHiot►m of Lhis Plan where such improvements are within a portion of the Pr oJect where, in t.ht; determination of the Agency, such improvements would 21 Katz ! hill I Is 1w c:ompatiblc with surrounding and Project owes and de-eve:lopmcer►t. and are permitted tinder applicable City codes. H. I Section 4181 General Controls and Limitations All real property in the Project, Area is hereby made subject to the corri.rols and requir•emeni.s of this Plan. No re-al property shall be developed, rehabilitated, or otherwise changed after the date of the adoption of this Plan, except in conformance with the provisions of this Plan. 1, [Section 4191 Construction All. construction in the Project Area shall comply with all applicable state and local. laws in effect at such time. In addition to applicable codes, ordinances, or other, requirements governing development. in the Project, Area, additional specific: performance and development standards may be adopted by the Agency to control and direct redeevelot'Mient, activities, in the Project Areerr, including property rehabilitation standards athipl.fed pursuar►t to Suction 330 hereof, and ohe or more 1)esiign Guideem adopted pursuant to Section 430 h"woof. 2. I.Section 4201 Limitation on the Number of Buildings The approximate number of -buildings in the Project Area shall not exceed the maximum number allowed under the densities permitted under the City's General Plan, as implemented and applied by local codes and ordinances. 3. (Section 4211 Number of Dwelling Units The approximate number of dwelling units in the Project Area shall riot exceed the rnaxisnum number allowed under the densities permitted under, the Cit,y's General Plan, as implemented and applied by local codes and ordinances. 4. [Section 4221 Limitations on Type, Size and Height of Buildings 1•,'xcrpt as yet, forth in other sections of this. Plarr, the type, size, and height of buildings shall be as limited by the applicable federal, state and local statutes, ordinances and regulations. 5. (Section 4231 Open Spaces, Landscaping, Light, Air and Privacy The approximate amount of caper► space to be provided in the Project Are� i is they total of all area which will be in the public: rights-of-way, the public grounds, the space around the buildings, arid all other outdoor areas not. pc•rmitteed to be c o\,ered by buildings. landscaping shall be developed in the Project Area to ineaure optimum use of living plant material. 22 KmOollis • Ira tell green-,, Htirricireni. space ~hall be maintainer] hetwretirt buildings to provide trdo(1uatee light., air. and privracy. ti. 1 Section 4241 signs All Higns shrill (:()nform to f;it.,y r oquiromentn. Design of ,.All 1)r0,po.sod new HignH Hhall h(! cgpNisterit. with rsny 1)eHign Guide adopted by :the: Agency and Hhall be Hu.bmittf-d prior to installation to the Agency and/or City for revit-w and approval F,ursuant to the procedures permitted by this Plan. 7. [Section '4261 Utilities The Agency shall require that all utilities be placed underground whenever physically and economically feasible. R. [Section 4261 Incompatible Uses No use or. structure which by reRsuri of appearance, traffic, smoke, glare, noise, odor, . cm similar factors would be incompatible with the surrounding areas. or structures shall be permitted in any part of the Pro joet. Area. 9. 1 Section, 4271 Non-Discrimination {.And Nun-Segregation • Mere shall be no diycr•imination or segr•ogation. .based upon racer:, ('aloe, creed, acex, mrsrit-n] atr;t.us,. religion, national origin, or- Hricest.ry peermitLed in the tale, lease, sublease, transfer, use., occupancy.., tertu.re, or enjoyment. of property in the Project Area. 10. [Section 4281 Subdivision of Parcels No .1.arc-els in the Project Area, including any parcel retained by a participant., shrill be; corisolidateed, subdivided or re-subdivided without the approval of the appropriate City body, and, if necessary for the purposes of this Plan, the Agency. 11. 1SMction 4.291 Minor Variations The Agency is authorized to Aermit minor variations from the limits, rostrictionrr And co.ntr•uis established by this Plan. In order to permit any such variation, the Agency must determine that: It. The application of certain provisions of the Plan would result. in practical difficulties oil unnecessary hardship_s. inconsistent with the general Frurpose urid intent of the Plan b. There .arc exceptional circuma.tances ur conditions app.licahle V) the pror)nrt.,y or to the, irittended. d.e:volo.pawr,et of the: f,ro.peerty which do nest. apply ge:r►e-ally Lo. uther proE,f;r.tieri_ having_ the stimee startd.ards, restrictions, lurid controls. G.3 Katz110l , 1s C. Pcrmitting a variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the 711'f)a. d. Permitting H variation will not be contrary to the objectives of the Plan. No such variation shall be granted which permits other than a minor departure from the provisions of this Plan. In permitting any such variation, the Agency shall impose such conditions are are necessary to protect. the public health, safety, or- welfare, and to assure compliance with the purposes of the Plan. Any such variation permitted by the Agency hereunder shall not supersecle any other approval required under City ccdc;a arid ordinances. 12. 1 Section 4301 M.-gign Guide Within the limits, rostrictions, and controls established in this Plan, the Agency iH authorized to establish heights of buildings, land coverage, setback requirements, design criteria, . exterior architectural features, traffic circulation, traffic: access, parking and other development and design controls necessary for proper development of both private and public areas within the Project Area. These may be established by the approval of specific developments, by the adoption of general restrictions and controls by resolution of the Agency, or by the adoption of one or more Design Guides pursuant to this - Section. Any such Design Guide adopted by the �. Agency may be more restrictive thrin the Zoning Code. In Addition to Lite requirments of Section 431. below, no new ifil[W wement. shall he constructed and no existing improvement shall be r♦ubstarrtially modified, altered, repaired, or rehabilitated except in iiccordarice with architectural, landscape, and site plans submitted to and unproved i.ri writing by the Agency arid the. Planning Commission unless allowed pur•surant to the procedures of Section 431 hereof. One of the Objectives of thin Plan is to create art attractive and pleasant environment in the Project. Area. Therefore, such plans shall give consideration to good design, open space, and other amenitieK to enhance the aesthetic and Otherwise architectural quality of the Project Area. The Agency and Planning Commission shall not approve any plans that do not comply with this P(Hn. ]3. (Section 4311 Building Permits No permit shall be lsst.led for any work pertaining. to the erection, "ici;l rcirtic�n, ntuvirig, conversion, tilt oration, ur• Addition to any building, Aruc-.Lit re, )r plivirig t.iritil ral)plic::-ation for such permit has been. made by the Ow110c• cr' his agent, arid processed in n manner . consistent with all City i•e)ljr.lii•ri11r'riLY. The A,ir- ,c-;. is authorized hn esf.Hblish permit procedures and 1.11);Wuv7als iii addition tO those set, forth nbove where required for, the • E>c,t }>Ost�a (If' this flan. Wherc, such 71dditiotial procedurt's and approvals are 24 Katz I fol I iti #:titablimhod, H building pr:rmit. Nhyll he issued drily after the applicant. for thn game has been granted all approvals required by the City and the AE<<s w.% at t.hH time of applirat.ion. • ?:i ti• Katz l lol l is V. [Section 5001 METHOD OF FINANCING THE PROJECT A. [Section 5011 General. Description .of the Proposed • F............................ g Method The Agency is authorized to finance this Project with 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 with financial assistance from the City, State of California, the federal government, or any other available source, public or private. The Agency. is also authorized to obtain advances, borrow funds, issue bonds, and create indebtedness in carrying out this Plan. The principal and interest on such Indebtedness may be paid from tax increments or any other funds available to the Agency. Advances and loans for survey and planning and for the operating capital for administration of this Project may be provided by the City until adequate tax increment or other funds are available or sufficiently assured to repay the advances and loans and to permit borrowing adequate working capital from sources other than the City. The City, as it is able, may also supply additional assistance through issuance of bonds, loans and grants and in-kind assistance. The City or any other public agency may expend money to assist the Agency in carrying out this Project. As available, gas tax funds from the state and county may be used for street improvements and public transit facilities. All or a portion of the parking may be installed through a • parking authority or other public or private entities. Tax increment financing, as authorized by Section 502 of this Plan, is intended as a source of financing in combination with other sources of financing that may be available for specific project activities. B. [Section 5021 Ta .Increment Funds All taxes levied upon taxable property within the Project Area each year, by or for the benefit of the State of California, the County of Orange, the City of Huntington Beach, any district or any other public corporation (hereinafter sometimes called "taxing agencies") after the effective date of the ordinance approving this Plan, shall be divided as follows: 1. That portion of the taxes which would be produced by the rate upon which the tax is levied each year by or for each of said taxing agencies upon the total sum of the assessed value of the taxable property in the Project Area as shown upon the assessment roll used in connection with the taxation of such property by such taxing agency, last equalized prior to the effective date of such ordinance, shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid to the respective taxing agencies as taxes by or for said taxing agencies on all other property are paid (for the purpose of allocating taxes levied by or for any taxing agency or agencies which did not include the territory of the Project on the effective date of such ordinance but to which such territory 26 KatzHollis has been annexed or otherwise included after such effective date, the assessment roll of the County of Orange last equalized on the effective date of said ordinance shall be used in determining the assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Project Area on said effective date); and 2. That portion of said levied taxes each year in excess of such amount shall be allocated to and when collected shall be paid into a special fund of the Agency to pay the principal of and interest on bonds, loans, monies advanced to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) incurred by the Agency to finance or refinance, in whole or in part, this Project. Unless and until the total assessed valuation of the taxable property in the Project Area exceeds the total assessed value of the taxable property in the Project Area as shown by the last equalized assessment roll referred to in subdivision (1) hereof, all of the taxes levied and collected upon the taxable property in the Project Area shall be paid into the funds of the respective taxing agencies. When said bonds, loans, advances and indebtedness, if any, and interest thereon, have been paid, all monies thereafter received from taxes upon the taxable property in the Project Area shall be paid to the respective taxing agencies as taxes on all other property are paid. The portion of taxes mentioned in subdivision (2) above is hereby irrevocably pledged for the payment of the principal of and interest. on the advance of.monies, or making of loans, or the incurring of any indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed or otherwise) by the Agency to finance or refinance the Project, in whole or in part. The Agency is authorized to make such pledges as to specific advances, loans and indebtedness as appropriate in .carrying out the Project. The portion of taxes divided_ and allocated to the Agency pursuant to subdivision (2) of this section shall not exceed a cumulative total of $470,380,000, except by amendment of this Plan. Such limitation is exclusive of: (1) any payments to taxing agencies to alleviate financial burden made by the Agency pursuant to Section 33401 of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 316 of this Plan; and 2) any funds required by Section 33334.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 335 of this Plan to be deposited by the Agency in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as a result of such payments to taxing agencies. C. (Section 5031 Agency Bonds The Agency is authorized to issue bonds from time to time, if it deems it appropriate to do so, in order to finance all or any part of the Project. Neither the members of the Agency nor any persons executing the bonds are liable personally on the bonds by reason of their issuance. 27 Kau tiol 1 is The bonds and other obligations of the Agency are not a debt of the City, or the State, nor are any of its political subdivisions liable for them, nor in any event shall the bonds or obligations be payable out of any funde or properties other than those of the Agency; and such bonds and other obligations shall so state on their face. The bonds do not constitute an indebtedness within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction. The amount of bonded • indebtedness to be repaid in whole or part from the allocation of taxes described in subdivisions (2) of Section 502 above which can be outstanding at any one time shall not exceed $147,570,000 in principal amount, except by amendment of this Plan. Such limitation is exclusive of: 1) any payments to be made from such principal amount by the Agency to any taxing agency pursuant to Section 33401 of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 316 of this Plan to alleviate . financial burden; and 2) any funds required by Section 3333.4.2 of the Community Redevelopment Law and Section 335 of this Plan to be deposited by the Agency in a Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund as a result of such payments to taxing agencies. D. [Section 5041 Time Limi ..............._... . _..._............. .... ........_.._..._..._....... _._..._. The Agency shall not establish or incur loans, advances, or indebtedness to finance in whole or in part the Project beyond 35 years from the date of adoption of this Plan. Loans, advances, or indebtedness may be repaid over a period of time beyond said time limit. Such time limitation may be extended only by amendment of this Plan. F. [Section 5051 Other Loans and Grants ....... ..._...._ .....................I.........................._............ Any other loans, grants, guarantees, or financial assistance from the United States, the State of California, or any other public or private source will be utilized if available as appropriate in carrying out the Project. In addition, the Agency may make loans as permitted by law to public or private entities for any of its redevelopment purposes. 28 Katz HU]I l S VI. [Section 6001 ACTIONS OF THN CITY The City shall aid and cooperate with the Agency in carrying out this Plan and shall take all actions necessary to ensure the continued fulfillment of the purposes of this Plan and to prevent the recurrence or spread in the Area of conditions causing blight. Actions by the City may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Institution and completion of proceedings for opening, closing, vacating, widening, or changing the grades of streets, alleys, and other public rights-of-way, and for other necessary modifications of the streets, the street layout, and other public rights-of-way in the Project Area. Such action by the City shall include the requirement of abandonment, removal, and relocation by the public utility companies of their operations in public rights-of-way as appropriate to carry out this Plan, provided that nothing in this Plan shall be construed to require the cost of such abandonment, removal, and relocation be borne b by others than those legally required to ear such costs. 2. Institution and completion of proceedings necessary for changes and improvements in private and publicly-owned public utilities within or affecting the Project Area. 3. Revision of the Zoning Ordinance within the Project Area to permit the land uses and development authorized by this Plan and approved by the Agency. Such revisions may include variances or other entitlements. 4. Imposition wherever necessary (by covenants of restrictions, conditional use permits or other means) of appropriate controls within the limits of this Plan upon parcels in the Project Area to ensure their proper development and use. 5. Provision for administrative enforcement of this Plan by the City after development. 6. Performance of the above actions, and of all other functions and services relating to public health,. safety, and physical development normally rendered in accordance with a schedule which will permit the redevelopment of the Project Area to be commenced and carried to completion without unnecessary delays. 7. Provision of services and facilities and the various officials, offices and departments of the City for the Agency's purposes under this Plan. 8. Provision of financial assistance in accordance with Section 500 of this Plan. • 29 Katz Hol 1 i s 9. 'rhe undertaking and completing of any other proceedings necessary to carry out the Project. The foregoing actions to be taken by the City may involve financial outlays by the City, but do not constitute a commitment to make such outlays. 30 KatzHo11i VII. [Section 7001 SNPORCHMENT ................ The, administration and enforcement of this Plan, including the preparation and execution .of any documents implementing this Plan, shall be performed by the Agency and/or the. City. The provisions of. this Plan-or other documents entered into pursuant to this Plan may also be enforced by court litigation instituted by either the Agency or- the City. Such remedies may include, but are not limited to, specific - performance, .damages, re-entry, injunctions, or any other remedies appropriate to the purposes of this Plan. In addition, any recorded provisions which are expressly for the benefit of owners of property in the Project, Area may be enforced by such owners. 31 KatzlHollis VIII. [Section 800) DURATION OF THIS PLAN 0 Except for the non-discrimination and non-segregation provisions which shall run in perpetuity,. the provisions of this Plan shall be effective. and the provisions of other documents formulated pursuant to this Plan may be made effective, for 35 years from the effective date of adoption of this Plan by the City Council; provided, however, that the Agency may issue bonds and incur obligations pursuant to this Plan which extend beyond the termination date, and in such event, this Plan shall continue in effect for the purpose of repaying such bonds or other obligations until the date of retirement of such bonds or other obligations, as determined by the City Council. i I 32 KatzHollls IX. [Section 9001 PROOSDURR. FOR A1[BNDURNT This Plan may be amended by means of the procedure established in Sections 33450-33458 of the Community Redevelopment Law, or by any other procedure hereafter established by law. 33 z • z M •• • 101111lly-' mm�ii• TIM- -' ,'.wr�1.... maim. _�,��• �A..441.1 urnull ': �� •'�_ • ■ ,■ y i.-24 Oki .fit 11�•__ ' � N.If1..11NY1. 'IM •nflu _- 'Mi-ilmm MINIM •=rr .n•i on ..441 ■ :1111�.111_ _4.11 ;yam • 111 �H •■ram:.,..., - r��. : �� 'I� -ter •. .1 ._� �IVA� 11.1 !L • i.�••" • nb N1I n.�1: • i i • • z • • • • - • • . • . • • i ' • ��, •4••.• A �. • .�■ ••. �� Sys � zz Al ti fell M; ss _ ti 1'Utz 1141� �.�-�•� •\.f..•.M-ut �•. - � �. unnq'�C-�i•iw••i _s 1N (;w 1! •211J�M 1 • �•�I.1•--:C a •.Ir••w�A qMj • . � • {{��77��j11 �t Sri Q�L� E9�F�_� �s.�'.� `•:•T �W kc ✓ � 4 1 ••• • Ate• - • ' S Katz Hol l is . PXHIBIT "B" LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJLCT ARIBA CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT AREA (LEGAL DES IPTION) IN TYPE (:I'I'Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CAI,IFORNIA, AND BEING A .PORTION OF SECTIONS 23, 24, 25, 26, 15 AND 36 IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, AND A PORTION OF SECTIONS 1, 2, 11 AND 12 IN TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SAID SECTIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE. MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT. PAGES 13 AND 14, 1N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF. ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, SAID PORTIONS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, T.6 S. , R. 11 W. , SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER -BEING ALSO THE INTERSECTION OP THE WESTERLY LING OF SAID SECTION 12 AND THE CENTERLINE OF ATLANTA AVENUE; AS SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER AND INTERSECTION ARE SHOWN PER TRACT NO. 4649, RECORDED IN BOOK 162 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 44 THROUGH. 46, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY) THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ATLANTA AVENUE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION " 12, NORTH 89'37'24" EAST 20:00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND EN`li'PLED "MAIN=PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, PROJECT AMENDMENT NO. 1, HUNTINGTON BEACH; CALIFORNIA", PREPARED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DATED SEPTEMBER, 1983; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG 1Yik WESTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, NORTH 06022 '36" WEST 50.00 FEET TO THE. NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; TIIKNCE ALONG THE 'NORTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, NORTH 89037'34" IJAST 469.56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY. L•INE, NORTH 89037'24" EAST 10. 17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH -CHANNEL, AS SAID WESTERLY LINE IS DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED •IN BOOK 8582 AT PAGE 10 OF O ticlAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, 'NORTH 00045'16" WEST 1241.09 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT '67 'OF SAID TRACT 'NO. 4649,. THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE 'OF SAID TRACT NO. 4649, SOUTH 89015 '34" WEST 371.13 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OP 'LOT 71 OF SAID TRACT NU. 4649; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE 'OF BEACH 'BOULEVA'FZD, '180.00 FEET IN 'WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON -SAID TRACT NO. 4649, NORT11 00'48 '69" 'WEST 1194:'O1 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 17 OF SAID TRACT_ •NO. 464"9: THENCE ALONG LAST SAL•D SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH '8'9'15'00" WEST 11.97 FEET TO THE 'BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.0'0 FEET; 'THENCE; SOUTHWESTERLY -ALONG SAID CURVE AND LAST SAd•b SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A 'CENTRAL -ANGLE OF 900.03 '09"., AN ARC DISTANCE OF 4 7.15 FEET' TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY -LINE OF SAI D LOT 17; THENCE ALONG �SAI'D WESTERLY LINE AND THE NOR4'HERL•Y PROLONGATIUN THEREOF, NORTH 00048 '09" WEST 207..40 -FEET TO A 'I'O1NT ON THK CENTERLINE OF I'NDIANAPOL'IS AVENUE, 84.00 'FEET IN WIDTH; 'THENCF. ALONG SAID 'CENTERLINE:, -NORTH 8904'8'40" EAST 127.00 Ph'KT, '1'HE'NCI' I,GAV'PNG LAST S3kib CENTERLINE AND AI;ONG THE WEST1•:1?1,1• 86-0006 `MA'Y -20-, 19`87 'PAGE I OF 15 LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 4649, NORTH 02°12 '45" EAST 357.68 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 22034 '25" EAST 328.83 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE. 26, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 89°48'38" WEST 274.66 Ilif;'P TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 11673, AS SHOWN ON THE . MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 525 OF MISCELLANEOUS. MAPS AT PAGES 45 THROUGH 47, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1I673, NORTH 00°39'39" WEST 1571.80 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 11673; .THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 116731 THE FOLLOW_ ING. COURSES: NORTH 89048'32" EAST 99.97 FEET, SOUTH 00*39 '20" EAST 42.00 FEET, AND NORTH 89'48'32" EAST 317.41 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 11861, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 506 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 21 AND 22, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A NON-TRANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1550.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 87016'01" EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 11861, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03023 '19", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 91.67 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00*39'20" WEST 360.36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ADAMS AVENUE, 125.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 89048 '32" EAST 324.87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 8957, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 371 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 9 THROUGH 13, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00°11 '28" WEST 245.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1027.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21`36'02", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 387.18 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG LAST'SAID WESTERLY LINE AND THE WESTERLY LINE. OF TRACT NO. 89.59, . AS SHOWN ON THE. MAP RECORDED IN BOOK .392 Ur• MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 18 THROUGH 22, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 21024 '34" EAST 692.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 473.U0 FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28°04 '30", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 231. 77 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 427.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 83°20'04" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47017'15", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 352.41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7742, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 459 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 48 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE WESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS 23.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 49°2241" WEST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7742, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 83048 '25", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33.64 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 527.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 46048'54" EAST; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10050'02", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 99.65 . FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 473.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE, CURVE HKARS SOUTH 57038'56" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG 86-0006 MAY 20, 1997 PAGE: 2 OF 15 LAST SAID CURVE AND' SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 11027'33", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94.60 FEET; THENCE RADIAL, TO LAST SAID CURVE, NORTH 46011 '23" EAST 27.00 FEET TO A POINT ON A NON—TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RAUIUS OF. 500.00 FEET, A RADIAL. LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 466II '13" EAST'$. THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CUHVh AND .SA 11) SOUTHWESThRL Y LI NE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1 3°10,41 AN ARC DISTANCE OF 115.00 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID ('UItVh' HEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 33°00'42" EAST; .THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG .LAST SAID CURVE FIND SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56046 '40", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 495.48 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7742, NORTH 00°12'38" WEST 124. 35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF YORK'TOWN AVENUE, 80.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89°47'03" WEST 368.87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 6239, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 226 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 25 AND 26, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 6302, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 229 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPSAT PAGES 43 AND 44, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 6123, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 231 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 4 AND 5, ALL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, 'NORTH 00°38'12" WEST 1987.63 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 6123; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE, NORTH W56 '08" FAST 330.01 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE, NORTH 00°38 '12" WEST 660.02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE. ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 88056 '08" WEST' 523.66 FEET; THENCE. LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 9327, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK .391 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 10.AND 11, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00040'31" WEST 660.50 FEET TO A POINT ON THE • SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 9328, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP .RECORDED 1N. BOOK 397 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 3 AND 4, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89045 '12" WEST 1.91 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 9328; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 9328, NORTH 000_15 '17" WEST 325.35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF CONSTANTINE DRIVE, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE,. NORTH 89044 '43" EAST 18.39 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE' EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 6 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 43, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00*39'43" WEST 165.07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAIL) PARCEL 1, . .SOUTH 8904431" WEST 42.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 75 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 32, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LAST SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 00040'56" WEST 100.08 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 89044 '31" EAST 17.84 FFET; THENCE LEAVING SAID .NORTHERLY . LINE, NORTH 00040'55" WEST 64.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5384, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 396 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 4.3 THROUGH 45, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5384, NORTH 00040 '55" WEST 660. 39 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 5384; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5384, NORTH 8y°43 '50" !':AST 330.U1 FEET '!'O THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 5 +84, SA10 CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF 1'HACT No . 46b3, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 274 OF MlSL'Kl.I.ANh:ollS MAPS AT PAGES 21 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 3 OF 15 SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORT11 89°18'19" EAST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN ALLEY, 20.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 4663; THE'NCIs ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00041 '41" WEST 480.52 • F'liE''l' To AN ANGLE. POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID fS/►S'I'l:IlLY LINE, NORTH 44°18'19" EAST 14. 14 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00041 '41" WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF' SAIL) ALLEY; THENCE. ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE', SOI)TH 89018'19" WEST 30.06 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST G:ORNE'il OF LOT 1 OF SAIU 'TRACT NO. 466:3; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY I,INI•: ANU ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 4663, NORTH U0041 '41" WEST 149.84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ELLIS AVENUE', 60.00 FEET 1N WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89'43 '21" WEST 0.81 FEET;; 'THENCE, LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, NON'I'll 000 16 '39" WEST 169.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°43 '21" WEST 65.25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00016'39" EAST 30.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89043 '21" WNST 312. 14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7512, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 297 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 20 AND 21, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7512, NORTH 00038 '31" WEST 887. 94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 2558, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED. IN BOOK 115 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 47 THROUGH 49, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID. SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89042 '48" WEST 174.60 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OP SAID TRACT NO. 2558; THENCE. ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 1 AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 57 OF' SAID TRACT NO. 2558, NORTH 03020 '41" WEST 292.42 FEET TO A POINT ON THE F:ASTERLY LINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 177.00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 2416, AS SAID BEACH BOULEVARD IS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 84 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 26 THROUGH 28, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 03020'33" WEST 179.46 FEET TO THE; BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING • A RADIUS OF 9889.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG: SAID CURVE: AND LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL, ANGLE OF 02°42'16", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 466. 78 FEET; THENCE.' TANGENT To LAST SAIL) CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAIU EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00'.18' 31" WEST 14.20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF' SAID TRACT NO. 2416; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE,' AND ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89042'37" EAST 1216.27 FEET"'TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 2416, SAIL) CORNER BEING ALSO THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 2699, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 84 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 29 AND 30, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. '2699, NORTH 89°42 '37" EAST 28. 30 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 20 OF 'SAID TRACT NO. 2699; ('HENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAIL) TRACT NO. 2699, NURT'H 00040'11" WEST 659.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF TAI;BERT . AVENUE, 90.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 00040 '11" WEST 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEILY LINE OF SAID TALBERT AVENUE PER PARCEL MAP NO. 79-586, AS SHOWN ON THE-MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 147 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE'S 29 ANU 29, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NOIIT111i K.,'It1.Y LINE, SOUTH 89042'I5" WEST 1269.25 FEET TO AN ANGI,E POI NT 'I'HlSRb''IN; THENCE: NORTH 4 5'28 '54" WEST 28.38 FEET To A POINT ON 'I'lll: EAST'L'RI,Y LINE OF REACH BOULEVARD, 132.00 FEET IN WIDTH; Tlll-:N0-l' AI,ON(; (,AST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00040'03" WEST 596.U8 llsE:'1'; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 89' 16 '19" AAST 969.63 FEET; 'THENCE NORTH 00'40 '42" WEST 649.28 To A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF' NEWMAN STREET, 60.00 FEET 1N WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89029158" WEST 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 4 OF 15 U,88 (•'1iF:'1' 1'U THE UNTERSF.CT,ION 'OF THE CENTE.RLIWES 'OF NEW MAN AVI•,'NI11 AND VAN BURE'N STREE'P PER TRACT NO. 6073, AS SAID INTERSECTION IS 'SHOWN ON THE 'MAP RECORDED IN -BOOK 226 OF :MISChIA,A-NL'UUS MAPS -A'T ;PW(;ES 23 =AND 2;4•,. 'R`ECORDS OF "SAID COUNTY; ;l'II'E'NC6' A•LUNG THE 'GENTERL'lWE 'UP SAID VA-N ;BUREN S'TR'EF.T, NO`RT11 '000 it)'U3" WEST 3.0.`00 'FEET,; THENCE L'EAV--PNG `LEAST 'SA'I'D `CE'NT'FWLTNE AND &LONG 'THE 'NORTHERLY tlfNE OF SA%I'D WEWMAN 'A'V'E'NUE°, 'SO`UTH 8 9 0 2'9 'S'8" �WE'ST 32'9.'89 FEET 'TC) `THE SU'UTHWEST 'CO'RNER OF 'LOT "I TRACT Wr). IT6:03,, -AS SHOWN 'ON 'THE MAP RECO!WOED lW AOOK '5 36 `O'F MISCELI.71'NEOUS FLAPS AT PA•G`ES •4 AND Ss 'RECORDS 'OF -SAT'D `COUNTY; THENCE L'EA'.VING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND A'L`ONG THE IEAS1'ERLY L'1`NE OF 'LOT 20 OF TRACT 'NO. 405; :AS SHOWN ON THE �MA'P RECORDED .IN 'EIUOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 31, 'RECO'ROS OF $Alb COUNTY, SOUTH 0`0°30 '02" EAST 16.00 FEET 'TO THE 'SOUTHEAST `CO'RNEk THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY `LINE AND ALONG T'H'E SOUT►iERL'Y LINE OF SAID LOT 20, SOUTH - 89°29'S8" WEST 60.`0'0 `E`EET; THENCE 'L�h.OiNG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE-, NTH OR 0'0°30'02" WEST '0:1 '0U FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89a29'58" WEST 1.20400 FEET; THENCE SOUTH '0`003J '02" EAST 10.00 FEET TO A POINT ON LAST' SAID 'SOUTHERLY L1'WE OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE ALONG LAST SAil) SOUTHERLY DINE, SOUTH 89°29'S8" WEST 139.42 FEET TO THE, SOUTHWEST ' CORNER OF SAID L"OT 20 THENCE ALONG THE; WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 2b AND 19 OF SAID TRACT NO 405; NOR'1'II 00040'03" WEST 257:46 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 19; THENCE LEAVING ';AID WESTERLY LINE 91ND /14UNc7 THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SA 1 D LOT 19, NORTH 8 9°19'S 7" EAST- 10'.00 F'L•h,"1'- THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE; NORT4 00°40'il3" WEST . 256.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE - NORTHERLY LINE] OF LUT 0 bt' SA 11) TRACT NO. 405; THENCE ALONG• LAST SAID fJOH1'IfERI:Y lslNt'I °rjUTH 89°19'57" WEST 1U.00 FEET TO THE• NORTHWEST CORNER OF SA I!) LnT 17; THENCE. LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG; '!`//I, WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 16 OF SA iD TRACT NO.. 4 6' ; NORTH 00°40 '1)3" WEST 15.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 89019'57" EAST 10.00 FEET; _ THENCE NORTH 0004003" WEST 305c00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89019'0" WEST 10;00 FEET TO A POINT ON T'HC WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 14 OF SAID-TRACT,NO. 405; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 00°4003" WEST 64•;06 FEET To THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAIn WESTCRLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID .LOT 14;• NORT'H 89019 '57" EAST 10.06 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 00a40'03" WEST 128.00 FEET TO A POINT ON TILE NORTHERLY LINE OF Lot13 OF SAID. TRACT NO. 405; THENCE ALO'NG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89019'0" WEST 1000 FEET' TO TILL' NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 12 AND 11 OF SAID TRACT NO: 405 AND ITS NOR1'HERi,Y PROLONGATION, NORTH 00°40 '03" WEST 297;60 FEET TO A POINT ON TILE NORTHERLY LINT' OF .SLATER AVENUE, 60;00 FEET IN WIDTH, THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89631432" WEST 75;02 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7950, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 336 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 11 AND 12; RECORDS bF. SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING LAST' SAID NORTHERLY LINE ANU ALONG LAST SA`iff SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION A'ND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SA`IU TRACT Nv. 7950, NORTH 00°44 '05" WFS'P 640. 25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF IIOLLA`ND DRIVE, 60;.00 FEET IN WIDTH;. TIIENCE ALONG LAST SAID CE'NT'E'RLINE, NORTH 840311' '32' EAST 7:64 FEET`; THENCE,' I,IiAVING SAIID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF PA'RCEC- 3, AS SHOWN UN THE MAP' RECORDED° IN BOOK 36 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE f4, HFXORDS OF SAID (:OUNTY; NO'Rl'H 00'4`4''a� WEST 6'6 0 62 Fh E'P 'PU 'fills NOR•/'HWE'ST CORNER OF SAI D PARCEL 3; THENCE LEA V I NG LA-S r' SAL 0 WE'STVHI.Y LINE AND° ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, N[)Ni'll 890',20 '50" EAST 56. 99 FEET TO; Al h6IN7' UN SO SOUTHERLY LINE uF' I'HACT No . 395.3, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BUUK 140 OF PII::CEI,I,ANF,UUS MAPS AT PAGES 42 AND 43, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; 86-0006 MA'Y 20',, I487 PAGE 5 OF 15 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG. THE SU( viwE.STE,'RLY LINE OF .SAIL) TRACT NO. 3953, NORTH 45038 '37" WEST 42. 49 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE; WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 19'i l,. NORTH U0°44 'U5" WEST 600. 73 FEET To THE NORTHWEST CORNER UI•' LOT I OE' SAID 'TRACT NO. -395), SAID CORNER. REING A POINT ON THE: SDUT'lib"Hl.Y I.INIi OF HLAYI.00K STREET, 60.00 .FEET IN WIDTH; 7-1111Nc;h; ALONG; LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89026 '50" LAST 180.U7 FA'E:I' To THE HhGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,', CONCAVE Sol ITIIWk's711•,'HI,Y, ANU HAVING A RADIUS OF 120.00 FEET; 7'H/,NC P' SOUTHFAST'ERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAIL) SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15001 '14", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 31.46 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT Of REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 14'28'04" EAST; THENCI; SUUT'HEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15*01'14", AN ARC DISTANCE OF•47. 19 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89026'50" EAST 64.08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 00°33 '10" WEST 40.25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NURTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF. SAID TRACT NO. 3953; THF,NCIi LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF "B" STREET PER TRACT' NO. 9586, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 408 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 27 AND 28, RECORDS OF SAID COUNT'Y,. NORTH 00'44 '05" WK.;'1' .544.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 9586, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING; OF A TANGENT CUIrVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET; TIIEN(:IS NORTUFA.STERLY ALONG SAID CURVE. ANU THG NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID -LOT 1, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15e01 '36", AN Alt(: 1)IS7'ANCE OE' 7.87 FEET; TH h'EN1. RADIAL TO LAST' SAIL) CURVE., SOUTH 75'42 '29" EAST 4.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON—TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 75042 '29"WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57°21 '42", AN ARC. DISTANCE OF 26.03 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO LAST. SAID CURVE, NORTH •_ 18020 '47" WEST 4.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON—TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 18"20'47" WEST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15°01 '37", AN ARC OISTANC:E OF 7.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARNER AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING ALSO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1665.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE HEARS SOUTH 03019'10" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03037'33", - AN ARC DISTANCE OF 105.37 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1535.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE-CURVE BEARS SOUTH 06°56'43" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID .CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06°24 '33", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 171. 71 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89027'50" EAST 18. 70 FEE'1TO AN .ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID WARNER AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 00°32 '10" WEST 7.00 FEET TU A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID WARNER AVENUE; 120.00 FEET IN WIDTH, SAID POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 49'14, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 176 JF MISCELLANEUUS MAPS AT PAGE: 22, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NoWNIEHLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF bvARNE.'R AVISNllk, NORTH 89027'50" EAST 372. 15 FEET TO THE; NORTHEAST CORNI•;R SA1I) LOT 6; THENCE 1.IiAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 6 OF 15 00032'10" WEST 60.00. FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID WARNER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH • 89°27'50" EAST 657.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, UF TRACT N.O. 50J0, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN: BOOK 189 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 4I AND 42, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 50.30, NORTH 0,0'32'I U." .WE5'I' 135.29 FEET TO '1'llF: SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5735, AS SHOWN ON T'HI: MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 208.OF MISCE:LLAN.EOUS MAPS Al' PAGES 10 ANU II, RI9CORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID WI.1—STERLY LINT: AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5715 AND THE' SUIIT'111:1 LY I,I N1: OF TRACT NO. 7930, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECURUEO IN IJUUK 311 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 49 AND 50, RECORDS OF SAI1) COUNTY, SOUTH 8y°27'35" WEST 1560.511 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 79.30; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7930, NORTH 00*43 '29" WEST 595. 30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF TERRY URIV!•J,- 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 89027'30" EAST 290.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE. EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 55 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 4, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00043 '29" WEST 650.07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAIU PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 89027130" WEST 384. 13 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN ALL 20.00 FEET IN -WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 3429, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 124 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 1 TIIR00011 4, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE' AND ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH UO°43'13" WEST . 645. 18 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 15.00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURCI) A7' RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, 60.00 FEET IN. WIDTH; THENCE ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL TO ANU 15.00 FEr•:'T SUUTHERLY 'OF SAID CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, SOUTH 89'28'31" WEST 220. 92 FEET' TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF BEACH, BOULEVARD, 132.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLFL LINK AND ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00°43'32" WEST 1335.82 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 25 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 6, .RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND AL ONG -1'HE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 6209, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 236 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 34 AND 35, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89°28 '03" EAST 63`0.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 00°31 '57" WEST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT :UN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN ALLEY, 20.00 FEET IN .WIUTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 6209; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY. LINE OF SAID ALLEY, NORTH 45049'15" -WEST 14.21. FE;ET; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LJ:NE OF SAID ALLEY AND ITS NORTHERLY PRULONGATION, NORTH 00°43132" WEST 435.00 FEET TO A =POI,N7' ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF STARK STREET, .100.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LTNE, . SOUTH -89028103" WEST 2:0.00 FEET :410 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OFiPARCEL "C",- AS SHOWN ON THE MAP :RECORDED IN BOOK 61 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID •CUUNT.Y; THE'NCF, LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE •EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C", •NORTH 00°43'32' WEST 717.39 FE' E;T TU 'THE' NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID •PARCEL "C"; THENCE LEAVING :SAIU E•AST'E'RLY LINK: AND •ALONG THE NORTHERLY. LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C" AND THE NORI'HERbY LINE OF :PARCEL "8" -OF SAID PARCEL -MAP., .THE FOLLOWING; COURSES: NORTH .820.47'•0.2" ,WEST -502.11 iFEET,, 'SOUTH 89°28 '18" WEST 62. 30 -FEET, AND SOUTH 53011 '02" .WEST '50..00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE :EASTERLY LINE OF SAID -BEACH ;BOULEVARD, 1?2..00 1•'KE'T I N WI NT 11; -THENCE ALONG LAS=T SAID -EASTERLY -1,TNE., -NORTH 0004 3 ' 12" W(:ti'1' 100.00 FEET TO A •POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF Ici)INGh']? AVF:NUK; THENCE ALONG -SAID •.CENT'ERLINE, SOUTH .89°28'1.8" 46--0006 BAY :20, 1,98 7 -PAGE 7 OF 15 WEST 102.00 .FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51 OF MISCEI,L.ANF.'OUS MAI'S AT PAGEN I i AND 14, RECOKUS UP' SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING Alta) A POINT oN THA' EAS'1'I:KLY I.[Nli UP THAT (:l•1R,rA IN PARCI•:1" OF I.ANI) I)1-.*.'i ;11111h:1) IN '1'lll: I)l)CIIhIP.'NT HNTITI.l':D "HUNTINGTON Cb.NT'h:R c'()MMIiR(:IAI, O 1:;T'll I(,'T KI•;ONVI•:L,UI'MEN'1' PLAN, HUNTI NG'TON liVACU, CAI,I V0IIN I A PHh:1'AREI) 13Y 711;h, HUNTINGTON Bb'ACH REUKVELOPMI•:NT AGENCY, AS HEVISED NOVEMBER -19, 1984; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF' SLCTI ON 23, T. 5 S. , R. 11 W. , AND LAST SAID EASTERLY LINIi, SOUTH 00'43 '33" EAST 455.24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ALL HIGH STREET, 50.00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 417, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 47, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89016 '28" WEST 180.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 50 OF. SAID TRACT NO. 417, SOUTH 00043 '33" EAST 225. 12 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 69 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 69, SOUTH 89016 '28" WEST 50.00 FEET TD THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 69; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTL•'RLY LINE OF SAID LOT 69, SOUTH 00043 '32" EAST 200.12 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 69; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 69, NORTH 89°16 '28" EAST 50.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 69; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF LOTS 86 AND 105 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, SOUTH 00043 *33 ' EAST 450.24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT I65; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND . ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 105 AND 104 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, SOUTH 89016 '28" WEST 100.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOPS L24 AND 139, SOUTH 00°43 '33" EAST 500.24 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 149 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417; THE,'NCL• LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 149 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, NORTH 89016'28" EAST 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 149; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 149, SOUTH .00°43 '33" EAST 149.56 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 149; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 522, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 49, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 89024 '18" WEST 25.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF BLOCK A OF SAID TRACT. NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 00043 '31" EAST 195.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF BLOCK B OF SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAST SAID LOT 10, NORTH 89024 '28" EAST 115.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAST SAID LOT 10; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAST SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 00043 '31 " EAST 135.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 30 OF BLOCK B OF SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE. OF SAID 1,07' 3U, SOUTH 89°24 '28" WEST 115.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 30; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30, SOU-1-11 00e43 '31 " FAST 195.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT IU OF 13LOCK C OF SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY I,lNh,' 0V LAST SAID LOT 10, NORTH 89024 '28" FAST 115.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE,' OF LAST SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 00'43 '31" EAST 13%. 19 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, 80.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, NORTH 89026 '27" EAST 28.31) FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00033 '33" EAST 40.01) FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID HEIL AVENIH ; '1'Hh,'NCK ALONG .SAID SO:JT'HERLY LINE, SOUTH 89026 '27" WEST 79.27 h'KET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT NO. 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 8 OF 15 3,b21, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 129 OF M7SCELLANI;OUS MAPS AT PAGE'S 49 AND 50, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A NUN-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAV• I NG A RADIUS OF 205.0.0.0 FEET, A RADIAL L 6NE TO SAID POINT HEARti NOIYI'If 28O06'14" WEST; TlfENCR LEAVING SAID SOU7'HERI.Y LINI; AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAIL) SOUTHEASTERLY LINE; THRO GH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF • 1701.2'45% AN ARC D[STA'NCE'.OF: 61`5.85 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 45018'59" WEST 271.81 FEET;, THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE_ OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO 7334, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 285 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 1 AND 1, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89926'18" EAST 341.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF VIEWPOINT LANE, 60.' 00 FEET IN WIDTH, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 3'3.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE . TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 00033 '42" WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 104011 '590'; AN ARC DISTANCE OF 60.01 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID VIEWPOINT LANE, SOUTH 14N 5 '41" EAST 50.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE; CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 50.00 FEET; THENCE So UTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14001 '50", . AN ARC DISTANCE OF 12.24 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00'43 '38" EAST 627.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 OF SAID TRACT. 90. 7334; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00042'40" EAST 29.91 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF .TERRY. DRIVE, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 10179, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 434 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 26 AND 27, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89026'40" EAST 359.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 10179; THENCE• LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID EASTERLY. LI.NE, SOUTH 00943 '23" .EAST 329.21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT Or NO. 10179; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 10179, SOUTH 89026 '15" WEST 329.00 FEET TO.A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID VIEWPOINT LANE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89016'31" WEST 30.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID VIEWPOINT LANE; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE,. SOUTH 00043'29" EAST 95.97 PEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 40.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13043'09", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 9.58 FEET;' THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALUNG SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 12059'40" WEST 50.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 58.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST .SA'ID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'1651 ", AN.- ARC DISTANCE OF 91.6.7 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL LINE: TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 12042'49" WEST; THENCE LEAVING SAID CURVE AND- SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00a33'12" EAST 1.85 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY_ LINE OF DAMASK' DRIVE; 60.00 FEET IN W I DTli-, AS SHOWN: ON THE MAP RECORDED IN' BOOK 38 OF 9A+RC2EL MATS All' PAGE 15, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH, 00•°31 12" KAS'T 7.5.UU FEET TO A POINT ON THE. NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO). 9671, AS SHOWN ON THE M&P RECORDED' IN BOOK 4'72 OF M,IS(!Kl,LANI;OUS MAPS AT PAGES 5 AND- 6, RECORDS OF SA=I.,D COUNTY; THENCE ALONG; THE NORTHERLY, EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINES, OF SAID, TRACT' NO', 9671, THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH' 8.9016 '5U," EAST 345-20 FEET,. SOUTH. 00043'•1.6'• EAST 144.24 FEET,. SOUTH .89.027`04" WEST 150.04: FEET,. SOUTH 00"43'0.7" EAST 244.01 86=0006 MAY 20 199zt PAGE 9' OF 1-5 FEET, SOUTH 89026'50" WEST 274.84 FEET, AND SOUTH 00°42 '45" EAST 215.03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 60.00 FEET NORTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE CENTERLINE OF WARNER AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING A POINT UN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "OAKVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJI;XT AREA, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA", PREPARED BY THE HUNTING'TON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; THENCE. ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89026 '43" EAST 645.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD PER THE DOCUMENT ABOVE DESCRIBED; THENCE ALONG SAID DESCRIBED CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00044 '05" EAST 996.53 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK F OF TRACT NO. 436, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 28, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINES AND ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89°26'09" WEST 283.42 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINES AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 00°44 '05" EAST 287.93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 5 OF BLOCK F OF SAID TRACT NO. 436; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89026'09" WEST 20.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00044-05" EAST 95.98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 436; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89026'09" WEST 62.58 FEET; THENCE, LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINES, SOUTH 00044 '05" EAST 320. 71 FEET TO THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 8916, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 369 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 23 AND 24, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 00°43 '17', EAST 339. 75 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5057, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED 1N BOOK 182 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 6 AND 7, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5057 AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00°43 '56" EAST 700.26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY • LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 36 OF PARCEL'.MAPS AT PAGE 36, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ALSO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SLATER AVENUE, 80.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89029'22" EAST 48.06, FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND .ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 00040'03" EAST 620.81 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SPEER AVENUE, 55.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00029 '58" EAST 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY.LINE OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 411, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 26, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY. LINE, NORTH 89030'02" EAST 19.05 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY "LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SOUTH 00028'58" EAST 280.40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG. THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SOUTH 89030 '02" WEST 132.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT. 17 OF SAID TRACT NO. 411, SOUTH 00029'58" EAST 35.5.33 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF NEWMAN . STREET, 50..00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 125 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 10 AND 11, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00029'18" EAST 25.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID NEWMAN STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTIIE•RLY LINE, NORTH 89*30-42" EAST 127.05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 10 OF 15 SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 125 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 10 . AND 11, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH. 00040'03" EAST 188.99 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 89°30'42" WEST 100.00 FEET; THENCE 00040 '03" EAST 184.01 FEET TO A POINT ON TIIF. NORTHERLY LINE OF RONALD ROAD, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG . SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89°30'42" EAST 50.08.. FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 17 OF TRACT NO. 3478, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 141 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 31 AND 32, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00029'18" EAST 216.84 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, SOUTH 44°22'35" WEST 14.18 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, SOUTH 890L4 *27" WEST 19.43 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00045'33" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY ANGLE POINT IN THAT CERTAIN ALLEY, 10.00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 5322, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 199 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 24 AND 25, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY, SOUTH 45°43 '10" EAST 14. 13 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY, SOUTH 00040'47" EAST 340.09 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY, SOUTH 44°19'13" WEST 14.14 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00040'47" EAST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 11 OF SAID TRACT N0. .5322; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89°19.'13" EAST 20.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5322 AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00040'47'' $AST 1_I0.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TALBERT AVENUE, 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89014 '27" WEST 190.09 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA", PREPARED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS DATED SEPTEMBER, 1981, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND 10.00 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE EAST LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK C OF TRACT NO. 172, AS SHOWN. ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 22, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 00`38'31" EAST 300.00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 273.00 FEET; . THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15033 '49", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 74. 16 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 327.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS SOUTH 73047'40" WEST; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE .AND SAID EASTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15033 '49", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 88.83 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 32.00 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE WEST LINE OF LOT 82 IN BLOCK C. OF SAID TRACT NO. 172; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST : SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00038'31" EAST 248. 37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 148 OF SAID BLOCK C; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY HOUNOARY OF SAID TRACT NO. 172 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE. OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89015 '48" WEST 162.31 FEET To THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 8197, AS SHOWN ON THE SNAP RKCORVEU IN n(JOK 452 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 42 THROUGH 48, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND AND ALONG 'IYIK EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 8197 AND ITS SOUTHERLY 8.6-0006 MAY 2.0, 19.87 PAGE 11 OF 15 PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00039'55" EAST 659.55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF TAYLOR DRIVE, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, . AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOUK 14 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 8, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00038'51 " EAST 494.96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE' OF PA14CEL MAP NO. 79-555, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECOROki) IN BOOK 118 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 29 AND .10, RECORDS OF' SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89°17'18" EAST 311 .00 FEET TO Till,; NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. . 79-555; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, SOUTH 00038'51" EAST 395.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO. 3; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL NO. 3, SOUTH 89018'58" WEST 311.00 FEET TO A POINT. ON THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 8183, AS .SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 329 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 46 AND 47, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00038'51" EAST 99. 10 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 8183; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 8183, NORTH 89018'58" EAST 311.46 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 8183; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT . NO. 8183, SOUTH 00038'31" EAST 329.90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ELLIS AVENUE, 62.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00040'03" EAST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID ELLIS AVENUE PER TRACT NO. 7, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE, 8, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89019'57" WEST 96.06 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00640 '03" EAST 20.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID ELLIS AVENUE, 82.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89019 '57" WEST 25.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00040'03" EAST 106.65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45°42'48" EAST 102.67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MAIN STREET, 126.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 44017'12" WEST 415.68 FEET TO A . POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF FLORIDA'STREET, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00039'44" EAST 269.34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 12 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 598, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 44, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89a20106" EAST 199.86 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 14 OF SAID TRACT NO. 598; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 14, NORTH 00°40'57" .WEST 120.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 14 THROUGH 17, INCLUSIVE, OF SAID TRACT NO. 598, NORTH 89020'06" EAST 160.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2 IN BLOCK H OF SAID TRACT NO. 7; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 2, 19, 209 21, 22, 23, AND 25 IN BLOCK H OF SAID TRACT NO. 7, SOUTH 00 40'57" EAST 1928.34 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 43 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 19, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89021 '19"- WEST 300.51 Fh''ET; THENC h, LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 0 0°38 '4 1" EAST 50. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID GARFIELD AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 12 OF 15 ,r LINE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP,RECORDED IN BOOK 97 OF PARCEL';MAPS AT PAGES 14 AND 15, RECORDS 'OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00°39`42" EAST 65.9. 92 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAST SAID BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3007 OF MAP OF F,AST.3IDE VILLA TRACT, AS SHOWN_.ON 7'tIF MAP RE:COHUED IN BOOK 4 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 65,' RBCOROS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89°21 '28" EAST. 300.25 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3007; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 3007 AND 2907 OF SAID MAP.OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00°38'12" EAST 689. 93 FEET TU A POINT' ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF CLAY STREET, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 837, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 25 .-OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 27, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY;. THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89°21 '38" EAST 125.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 25 IN BLOCK A OF SAID TRACT NO. 837; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 25 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK A AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 25 AND 8 IN BLOCK B OF SAID TRACT NO. 837, SOUTH 00038'12" EAST - 599.94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WILLIAMS STREET, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH, -AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 837; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89*21 *47" WEST 100.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 9 OF BLOCK 8 OF SAID TRACT NO. 837; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00°38 '12" EAST 60.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID WILLIAMS STREET; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89°21 '47" EAST 1.00 FEET;THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00038'12" EAST 299.97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOT 2608 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 2608 AND 2607 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 89°21 '52" WEST 126.09 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 85 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 35, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAST SAID PARCEL MAP AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00039'18" EAST 29-9. 96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89021 '57" WEST 200.01 FEET TO.THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2507 OF SAID EAST . SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2407 OF SAID EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00039'54" EAST J60.05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2407; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2407 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 109 0£ PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 9 AND 10, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89021 '23" EAST 299.98 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2308 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND; ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 2308 AND 2208 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00039'54" EAST, 660.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2208; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2208, NORTH 89°20'15" EAST 15O.AU FEET TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY CORNER, AS . SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 43 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 18, RECORDS OF SAID.COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LAST SAID PARCEL MAP, SOUTH 00*39'54" EAST 299.98 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST BOUNDARY CORNER OF LAST SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE LEAVING LAST- SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE; SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 2108 AND 2107 OF SAID MAP OP EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 89019'41" WEST 330.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00039'54" EAST 210.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°19'41" EAST 180.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE IVE'ST'ERLY LINE OF LOT 2008 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 0003.9'54" EAST 1'iO.00 FRET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2008; THENCE .86-0006 M&Y 20, 1987 PAGE 13 OF 15 LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT NO. 1916, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 56 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89019 '06" EAST 150.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY CORNER OF SAID TRACT' NO. 1916; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1916, SOUTH 00°39'54" EAST 286.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY CORNER OF 'SAID TRACT NO. 1916; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1916, SOUTH 89018 '32" WEST .150.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 1908 OF SAID EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 1907, 1807 AND 1707 OF SAID EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00°39'54" EAST 508.99 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED MARCH 2, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 83-092262 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID DEED, SOUTH 89°17'24" WEST 40.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID DEED, SOUTH 00a3954" EAST 145.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF ADAMS AVENUE, 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89017'24•" WEST 290.03 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00042'36" EAST 50.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ADAMS AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1L6 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 40, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00038'30" EAST 209.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL, NORTH 89017'24" EAST 460.06 FEET TO THE.' SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL .1, NORTH OU039'39" WEST 10.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 59 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 38, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY • LINE. AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, NORTH 89017'24" EAST 150.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 2; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF TRACT' NO. 10226, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 433 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 20 AND 21, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00°39'39" EAST 1066.25 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90001 '27", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 39.28 FEET TO.A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MEMPHIS AVENUE, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89021 '18" WEST 614.98 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00038'12" EAST 30.01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE; OF SAID MEMPHIS AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF FLORIDA STREET, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER MAP OF VISTA DEL MAR TRACT, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 36, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00039'39" EAST 691.32 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF KNOXVILLE STREET, . AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF VISTA DEL MAR TRACT; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89020 '21 " EAST 515.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 115 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 35 AND 36, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING :SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL I, AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00039,'39" EAST 269. 98 F'KET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF JOLIET AVENUE, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 14 OF 15 N9020'21" WEST 185.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF GEORGIA STREET, 60.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00°39'39" EAST 389.87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE, 70.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89021 '49" EAST 310.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 138.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 21 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 24 AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCELS 1 AND 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 48 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 31, BOTH RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00048'09" EAST 2629. 77 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ATLANTA AVENUE, 105.00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 89°47'24" EAST 50.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 508.86 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. r` LAND _6 ZQ Lam/ < UflL LAWRENCE L. TRUMAN, L.S. 5346 T9 �< DATE v ex S tt•31-t+�z. LS 5346 # F 0f CALIF�� 86-0006 MAY 20, 1987 PAGE 15 OF 15 • KatzHollis EXHIBIT "C" z.. PROPOSED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITINS PROJECTS "Super Street" Improvementup Atlanta to Edinger --Signal Coordination:and Modifications --New Signals --Access Controls --Parking Restrictions .--Restriping Travel Lanes and Intersections --Intersection Widening, Including New Right-of-Way --Bus Turn Outs, Including Right,of-Way Storm_.Drainage and...Sanitary. Sewers --South, of Aldrich. Stark to Sher. 2,200 ft. of 24" and 18" storm drain --Beach Blvd. . between Atlanta and Indianapolis east side. .one-half mile. 48" wide storm drain Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and indianapolid (went side*) 48" and 36" wide storm drain -=Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown. 2,700 ft. of 12" line • Waterline Improvements --8" water main east and west aide of Beach Blvd., complete loops and replace 6" . --20" casing steel, boring and jacking for 12" water main, crossing every 1/2 mile. ' Locations: Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Ellis-Main, Garfield, Yorktown, Indianapolis, Atlanta. 200' length per crossing. Utility Undergrounding --Entire length Beach Blvd. Recreation and Park Improvements, and Historic Preservation-Bartlett Park Landscaping and Streetacape_...... ..... --Median and frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger --Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights NOTE: This listing of projects is set forth for planning purposes, and shall not be deemed as a limitation on the Agency's authority to implement the Redevelopment Plan. Katz Hollis DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550 This Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is prepared pursuant to an Agreement for Consulting Services by and between the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc., dated October 14, 1986, and amended April 6, 1987, which Agreement provides for services involving preparation of certain reports and documents (including . a Project EIR) and the coordination of fiscal review analyses and related activities. Total compensation under the Agreement is not to exceed Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($65,000), including out-of-pocket expenses. ,�. 7 I' �� ,/ i i e Katz Hollis EXHIBIT A RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Adopted by: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Date: Resolution No: 010887/i 0989.hnt/b] Katz Hol l is TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE' I. [Section 1001 PURPOSE AND INTENT.............................................. I II. [Section 2001 DEFINITIONS.............................................................1 III. [Section 3001 TYPES OF PARTICIPATION........................................2 IV. [Section 4001 PREFERENCES TO EXISTING OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS WITHIN PROJECT AREA........2 V. [Section 5001 CONFORMING PROPERTIES ........................................4 VI. [Section '600] PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES...................................5 A. [Section 601] Notice and Statement of Interest......................5 B. [Section 6021 Participation Agreements...................................5 1. [Section 6031 General........................................................5 2. [Section 6041 Contents......................................................6 VII. [Section 7001 ENFORCEMENT...........................................................6 • VIII. [Section 8001 AMENDMENT OF RULES.............................................6 "Statement of Interest in Participating" Form Katz Hollis EXHIBIT A RULES GOVERNING PARTICIPATION AND PREFERENCES BY PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-= BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ............................_................._................__..........._....._...................................:................._........_...__.._.........._........_..._._...,_._..__.........................................._..........._...._.............. I. [Section 1001 PURPOSE AND INTENT These rules are adopted to implement the provisions `of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project regarding participation and the exercise of preferences by property owners, business occupants and others within the Project. These rules set forth the procedures governing such preferences and participation. The . California Community Redevelopment Law (Health. and Safety Code. Section 33000 et seq.) requires the adoption of these rules by the Agency to permit participation in the redevelopment of the Project Area .by owners of real property and persons engaged in business within the boundaries of the Project Area to .the maximum extent feasible consistent with the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan. II. [Section 2001 DEFINITIONS As used herein, the following definitions apply: (1) "Redevelopment Plan" means the .Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, as adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. (2) "Project Area" means the project area described in Section 200 of the Redevelopment Plan and shown on Exhibit "A", Redevelopment Plan Map, attached thereto. (3) "Agency" means the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. (4) "Owner" means any person, persons, corporation, association, partnership, or other entity holding fee title to or a long term lease of real property in the Project Area on the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council, for so long .as it holds such title or .lease. (5) "Long Term Lease" means a lease of real property with . a term of twenty (20) years or more, with at least five. (5) .years remaining on such term. (6) "Business Occupants" means persons engaged' in business within the Project Area on the date of adoption of the 'Redevelopment Plan by the City Council. Katz Hol 1 is i(7) "Other OwnFsr•s means tiny person, persorrr;, c,or•pur•,►Lic,n, s:isoCiatiOn, partnership, or other entity who purchase or othc,r•wirie acquire tide to or a long .term lease of real property in the Project, Area subsequent. to the date of adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council. (8) "Other Business Occupants" means persons engaged in business within the Project Area subsequent to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan by the City Council who were not engaged in business in the Project Area on the date of adoption of. the Redevelopment Plan. (9) "Participation Agreement" means an agreement entered into by an Owner, Other Owner, Business Occupant, Other Business Occupant or others with the Agency in accordance with the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan and these rules. III. [Section 3001 TYPES OF PARTICIPATION Participation may involve existing Owners and Other Owners and, if they acquire property within the Project Area, participation may involve existing Business Occupants, Other- Business Occupants, and others. Participation includes remaining in substantially the same location either by retaining all or portions of the property, or by retaining all .or portions of the property and purchasing adjacent property from the Agency or joining with another person or entity for the development of the owner's property and, if appropriate, other property. An Owner or Other Owner who participates in the same location may be required to rehabilitate or demolish all or part of his/her existing buildings, or the Agency may acquire the buildings only and then remove or demolish the. buildings. Participation also includes the Agency buying land and improvements at fair market value from existing Owners and . Other Owners and offering other parcels for purchase by such Owners and Other Owners, or offering an opportunity for such owner or other owner to develop property jointly with other person_ s or entities. IV. [Section 4001 PREFERENCES TO EXISTING OWNERS AND BUSINESS OCCUPANTS WITHIN PROJECT AREA Participation is desired in the rehabilitation and. redevelopment of the Project, Area by as many existing Owners and Business Occupants as practicable. The Agency shall extend preferences to existing Owners and Business Occupants to continue in or, if the Agency acquires the land of an existing property Owner or the land on which an existing Business Occupant is located, to re-enter the Project Area if any such Owner or Business Occupant meets the requirements prescribed in the Redevelopment Plan and in these rules. Subject to these rules, existing Owners of real property in the Project Area shall be extended a reasonable preference to participate in redevelopment, of their_ properties by rehabilitation, by retention of improvements, by new development, by retaining all or a portion of their properties, by acquiring adjacent properties from the Agency, by participating with developer(s) in the redevelopment of all or a portion of their properties or by other suitable means; provided, however, that such -2- Katz Hol 1 is AD . development r si e will r►ot im air the objectives of the d pment, will be on, s1,.nt with and p Redevelopment Plan as determined by the Agency and is otherwise c:onsisLerit with the guidelines provided by these rules. Subject to. these rules, existing Owners within the Project Area who desire to acquire new property -within the Project Area shall be extended a reasonable preference to acquire and develop substitute properties within the Project Area at such time . as the Agency is able to make available for private development- for such .purpose properties within the Project Area; provided, however, that such development will be con- sistent with and will not impair the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan as determined by the Agency, and `is otherwise consistent with the guidelines provided by these rules. c, Subject to these rules,s existing Business Occupants within the Project Area who desire to continue or• re-enter into -business within the Project. Area :.shall be extended a reasonable preference to acquire and develop substitute locations for such purpose within the Project Area at such times as the Agency is able to make available for private development for such purpose � properties within the Project Area; provided, however, that such development will be consistent with and will not impair the objectives of the Redevelopment Plan as determined by the Agency. Participation opportunities , shall necessarily be subject to and limited- by factors such as the following: (1) The elimination and changing of some land uses; (2) The construction, realignment, abandonment, widening,- opening and/or other alteration or elimination of public rights-of-way; (3) The removal, relocation, and/or installation of public, utilities and public facilities; (4) The ability of participants to .finance the proposed acquisition, . development or rehabilitation in accordance with the Redevelopment. Plan; (5) The ability and experience of participants to undertake and complete the proposed rehabilitation or development; (6) The advisability of 'consolidating parcels in the Project Area where appropriate to maximize productive land units; (7) The construction or exparision of public improvements find facilities, and the necessity- to assemble areas for such; (8) Any change in orientation and character of the Project Area; (9) The necessity to assemble areas for public and/or private 0 development. -3- Katz Hollis (10) The requirements and objectives of the Redevelopment Plan and applicable rules and regulations of the City of Huntington Beach; (11) Any design guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan; ( 12) The feasibility of the participant's proposal; and (13) The need to maximize revenue generation, job creation, shopping opportunities, and to attract beneficial uses. If conflicts develop between the desires of potential participants for particular sites" or, land uses, the Agency is, subject to the preference provisions above, authorized to establish reasonable priorities and preferences among the potential participants and to determine a solution by consideration of such factors as: -length of time in the area; accommodation of as many participants as possible; -ability to perform; -similar land use to similar land use; and conformity with intent and purpose of the Redevelopment Plan and these rules. Participation to the extent feasible shall be available .for two or more persons, firms or institutions to join together in partnerships, corporations, or other joint, entities. Preferences set forth in this Section 40.0 may be given, at the Agency's option, to other Owners and other Business Occupants as well as"to existing Owners and . Business Occupants. V. [Section 5001 CONFORMING PROPERTIES The Project Area is large and contains many parcels of real property. As a result, there is a need to simplify the availability of participation opportunities. Therefore, as an alternative to requiring a Participation Agreement for each property not to be purchased or subject to Agency acquisition by eminent domain, the Agency may, in its sole and absolute discretion, determine that certain real properties within the Project Area presently meet the requirements" of the Redevelopment Plan and the Owners or Other Owners of such properties will be permitted to remain as owners of conforming properties without, a Participation Agreement with the Agency, provided such Owners. or• Other Owners . continue to operate, use, and maintain the real properties within the requirements of the Redevelopment, Plan or of. any design guide approved by the Agency pursuant to .the Redevelopment" Plan. A certificate of. conformance to this effect may be issued by the Agency and recorded. -4- I Satz Hol 0 is In the event that, any of the owners of conforming; properhf.,fi or their tenants desire to (1.) construct any additionsi] improvements or substtcnhhIly altar or modify existing structures on any of the real property described above as conforming, or (2) acquire additional property within the Project Area, then, in such event, such owners of conforming properties may be required by the Agency to enter into a Participation Agreement with the Agency. VI. [Section 6001 PARTICIPATION PROCEDURES A. [Section 6011 Notice and ,Statement or Interest ..............._........__........._............................._..............._...................I_.........__... Before entering into any Participation Agreements, disposition and development agreements, exclusive negotiation agreements; or taking other actions which may involve the acquisition of real property in the Project Area, the Agency shall first notify Owners, Other Owners, Business Occupants, or Other Business Occupants of property which may be acquired and call upon them to submit, Statements of Interest in participating in the proposed development or in otherwise participating in the redevelopment of the Project Area. The Agency shall provide to each Owner, Other Owner, Business Occupant or Other Business Occupant of real property which may be acquired, a form Statement of Interest ,'at, least forty-five (45)' .days prior to considering any of the actions requiring acquisition of real property. Those desiring to submit Statements of Interest, must complete and submit such statements to the Agency within thirty (30) days of receipt. Such statements shall include information requested by the Agency and shall be in the form requested by the Agency. Any Owner, Other Owner, Business Occupant., Other Business Occupant, or others may also submit such a Statement at any time before such notification. The Agency shall consider such Statements as are submitted on time and shall seek to develop reasonable participation for those submitting such Statements whether to stay in place, to move to another location, or to obtain preferences to re-enter the Project Area: The Agency may in its sole discretion determine that a participation, proposal is not feasible or otherwise in the best - interest of the Redevelopment Project or the community, or is otherwise limited by one or more of the criteria set forth in Section "400 hereof. In such event, the Agency shall select a developer- from among prospective participants submitting Statements of Interest and others invited to submit proposals. B. [Section 602] Participation Agreements ........... ..................... ..........._....._....................._..__._. 1. [Section 6031 General Public and private Owners, Other- Owners, Business Occupants or Other Business Occupants wishing to develop or improve their properties within the Project Area may be required, as a condition to Agency approval of such development, to enter into a Participation Agreement with the -5- KatzHollis Agency if the Agency determines it is necessary to impose upon such property any of the standards, restrictions and controls of the Redevelopment Plan or of any design guide adopted by the Agency pursuant to the Redevelopment Plan. 2. [Section 6041 Contents A Participation Agreement shall obligate the Owner, or Other Owner, his/her heirs, and successors and assigns, and/or a Business Occupant or Other Business Occupant to acquire, rehabilitate, develop and use the property in conformance with. the Redevelopment Plan and to be subject to such other provisions and conditions of the 'Redevelopment Plan for the period of time that the Redevelopment Plan is - in force and effect, excepting those provisions related to non-discrimination and non-segregation which shall run in perpetuity. Each Participation Agreement will require the participant to join in the recordation of .such documents as the Agency may require in order to insure the property will be acquired, rehabilitated, developed and used in accord with the Redevelopment Plan'i .and the agreement. Participation Agreements will be effective only if approved by a majority vote of the members of the Agency. VII. [Section 7001 ENFORCEMENT In the event a property is not acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or used in conformance with the Redevelopment Plan, with an Agency determination of conformance, or a Participation Agreement, then the Agency is authorized to (1) purchase the property, (2) purchase any interest in the property sufficient to obtain conformance, or (3) take any other appropriate action sufficient to obtain such conformance. The Agency shall not acquire real property retained or developed under an approved Participation Agreement if the participant fully performs under the .agreement unless such acquisition is a requirement of the approved Participation Agreement. VIII. [Section 8001 AMENDMENT OF RULES The Agency may amend these rules at any regular meeting or duly called special meeting held after their adoption, but only after notice to the Agency members and the public. The . text of the proposed change shall be furnished along with the notice of the meeting. Such notice shall be posted and published or delivered by regular U.S. mail (first class) deposited at least fourteen (14) days before the date of the meeting at which the proposed amendment will be considered. The method of notice is at the discretion of the Agency. No such amendment shall retroactively impair the rights of any parties who have executed Participation Agreements with the Agency in reliance upon these rules as presently constituted. -6- ' � 0�~.�������NN °�� �q��K�m� ���p00�«� � OP I8JTEF.E.S l hereby ospraam my interest in participating in the Redevelopment ' Project and submit the following information: � � � ' l. Name boo� _-___-'___' � _ ......... ' ' 2. B�ooe Address � ... ........-....................._ ........ ... ........ .............................. .............. ... .......... _'� 3. Name of Boeiomom ' _ 4. Address ofBoaioeas____�__________ __. _ __ ______ _____^� � ' 5, My present involvement, in the Project Area is.' ' I now ovvo property in the Project _^_�__ I now lease property in the Project_... � Explain [include statement whether the property (or any portion) is used for residential pnrpumea]:/:..� . ' ' G. I am interested in participating: As a9rmperty Owner .� /�� a �oo�ot ~_ � -'-- -' -'----�- -- � Y. If I participate: I would like to cootioua at the same location ----- '------------'--- ' l would like to change -my prmse�nt� location � I �nmul8 like to uugujrm real property for expansion (indicate approxi- mate requirements) ........................_......... __�_______________ ......������......................................._......... _������....���....... �����............���....... ...................... ��� REMARKS: ' _...................... - ........... -__-- � _ ____--'......_...................- _ _'__-- ___.____-___________-_---__________----__-_- � -- ......... .......__---- ....... ...... .....' ...... - '-....... _.....- ---'-... .... ..........'_ ................_..........'.................. _' � ' -___.... ___ '_-____�--___--_ . _ __..... ..._.......-'....... ........ _____ ........._�-_,........... _-� ` ` l understand that au6odomino of t}dm Statement of Interest form does not obligate me to participate if the Redevelopment Plan is carried out, nor does it indicate an opinion concerning the Project Area within the Huntington Beach - Beach. Boulevard Redevelopment Project. ^ ` ` Signed Date ������� ���������. �........����� ' ' � • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY 'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT a WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has pre- pared a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project which would result in the alloca- tion of taxes from the Project Area to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach for purposes of redevelopment; and Section 33334 .2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) requires that not less than twenty percent ( 20% ) of all taxes so allocated be used by the Agency for the purpose of improving and increasing the community ' s supply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable housing cost, unless certain findings are made; and Section 3.3334 .2 (g) of the Health and Safety Code provides that the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a finding is made by resolution of the Agency and the City Council that such use will be of benefit to the Project. NOW, THEREFORE , the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve that the use of taxes allocated from the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Rede- velopment Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community ' s .supply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable cost outside the Project Area and within the City of Huntington Beach will be of benefit to the Project . 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment' Agency of the City of • Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1987 . Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r Clerk of the Redevelopment Age cy Count Agency Special Agency Counsel REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I TIATED AND APPROVED: City Min! trator De y Director , Rede4elopment 2270L 2 . 9 • �-- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING A SUPPLEMENT TO THE AGENCY ' S REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF THE SUPPLEMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, the ' Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has prepared a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach- Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and Pursuant to Section 33352 of the California Community Rede- velopment law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) the Agency has prepared, and by Resolution No. 144 , adopted June 1 , 1987 , has approved, a Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan; and The Agency has prepared a supplement to the previously approved Report to City Council, incorporating those portions of the previously approved report that were incomplete or partially complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve that : 1 . The Agency hereby approves the Supplement to its Report to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. 2 . Said supplement is hereby submitted to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of • Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day. of , 1987 . Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Clerk of the Redevelopment Agen y Counse Agency S ecial Agency Counsel REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I TIATED AND APPROVED: r City Administrator /07 De y Dir ,ctor , Re a elopment 2272L 2 . 10 RESOLUTION NO. ;• A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RULING ON WRITTEN AND ORAL �-- OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, a Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project has been prepared by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach; and On July 6 , 1987, a duly noticed joint public hearing on the proposed Redevelopment Plan was conducted by the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach; and Any and all persons having any objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan or who deny the existence of blight in the Project Area, or the regularity of the prior proceedings, were given an opportunity to submit written comments prior to the com- mencement of the joint public hearing, or give oral testimony at the joint public hearing, and show cause why the proposed Redevelopment Plan should not be adopted; and The City Council has heard and considered all evidence, both written and oral, presented in support and in opposition to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: 1 . The City Council finds on the basis of the substantial evidence contained within the Report to the City Council submitted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and other substantial evidence in the record that conditions of blight exist within the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Project, and that written and oral evidence in opposition received at the joint public hearing is not persuasive to the contrary. 2 . The City Council and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency have duly complied with all the provisions, requirements, and procedures of Articles 4 and 4 .5 (commencing with Section 33330 ) of Chapter 4 of the California Community Redevelopment Law 1 . relating to the preparation and adoption of the Redevelopment Plan • for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project . 3 . The City Council , a-ccordingly, overrules any and all objections to the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project . PASSED AND ADOPTD by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1987 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City tto n y REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IN IATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator ,�` puty Director , X Redevelopment 2273L 2 . �, 11 �� RESOLUTION NO. • A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project (Project ) ; and A draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State and Agency Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and A duly noticed public hearing was held by the Agency on March 16 , 1987 , at which all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and A final EIR, relating to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project and responding to the concerns raised during the review period and at the public hearing has been prepared pursuant to said statute and guidelines; and The Agency has reviewed and considered the information con- tained in the final EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, and adopted Resolution No. 142 certifying the completeness of the final EIR on May 20 , 1987 . NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve that: 1 . The City Council certifies that the final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 2 . The City Council certifies that the information contained in the final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and considered by the members of the City Council , in accordance with State Guidelines Section 15090 . 1 . 3 . The City Council hereby finds with respect to the signifi- cant environmental effects detailed in the final EIR for the • Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard P 9 Redevelopment Project, in accordance with State Guidelines Section 15091 and 15092 : ( a) That the adverse environmental impacts of the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project set forth in the final EIR, including those raised in comments on ✓the .draft EIR, have been considered and recognized by the City Council . (b) That based on information contained in the final EIR, a public record on file in the offices of the Agency, incorporated herein by this reference, and -information set forth in Attachment "A" (attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference) , the City Council finds that determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Proposed Redevelopment Plan which mitigate and thereby eliminate, substantially lessen, or lessen each of the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the final EIR relating to land use (pp. 58-68 ) ; air quality (pp. 25-39 ) ; and transporta- tion/circulation (pp. 77-99) . - ( c ) That no additional adverse impacts 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 the proposed Project . 4 . The City Council hereby finds and determines that all significant environmental effects identified in the final EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level in that : (a ) All significant environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as determined through the findings set forth in paragraph 3 (b) of this Resolution; ( b) Based upon the final EIR and other documents and information in the record, all remaining, unavoidable significant effects of the proposed Project , as set forth in paragraph 3 (b) of this Resolution, are overridden by the benefits of the Project as described in Section II of Attachment "A," and the City Council 2 . hereby approves and adopts said Section II of said Attachment "A" . • as a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed Project; and ( c ) Based upon the final EIR, the documents in the record and upon Attachment "A, " specific economic, social or other con- siderations' make infeasible other project alternatives identified in said final EIR. 5 . The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of Determination with respect to the final EIR, and all other actions taken in furtherance thereof be filed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1987 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 7 ^ City Clerk City At rney C, REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED: W . City Administrator /� e ty Director, ►' a evelopment 2277L 3 . • ATTACHMENT "A" SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Introduction The final Environment Impact Report ("EIR") for the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project identifies three potentially significant adverse environmental impacts from the implementation of the proposed Redevelopment Plan. These impact areas include: land use; air quality; and transportation/circulation. Also identified in the final EIR are impacts which are potentially adverse, but which can be reduced to less than significant levels by mitigation measures included in the final EIR. Each of these mitigation measures. is discussed at length in the EIR. The significant adverse environmental effects which cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided are summarized below. I. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE ENTIRELY MITIGATED OR AVOIDED • A. Land Use (EIR pp. 58 - 68) 1. Environmental Impacts The proposed Project is expected to encourage the development of new commercial retail and office uses along with residential uses on vacant sites and sites now occupied by low intensity and dilapidated commercial, office and residential uses. The land use changes as a result of the proposed Project are, in general, considered to be beneficial impacts. The Project is expected to result in more efficient use of available land for more intensive development, and to result in the elimination of unattractive, poorly maintained structures and land uses which prevent the further improvement of the area. The land use change to a higher and better use is a key element to the proposed Redevelopment Project. Impacts discussed throughout the EIR are the direct and indirect environmental impacts of these changes in land use. Over the Project lifetime, the Project is expected to result in the removal or upgrading of a number of visually unattractive land uses. In addition, new structures will be constructed to higher standards of construction, energy conservation, and fire projection. The level of maintenance in the Project Area is expected to be improved as investment in • the area increases. • Development of vacant parcels in the Project Area would result in the irreversible commitment of these sites to urban uses. High quality development of land uses and increases in intensity in the Project Area are expected to result in some secondary impacts on land uses in other areas of the City. These indirect impacts are discussed under population effects in Section 3.11 (pp. 70-73) and housing impacts in Section 3.12 (pp. 74-76) of the final EIR. 2. Mitigation Measures Changes in land use to a higher and. better use are a key element of the proposed Project. The entire final EIR deals with the impacts of this change in land use, and mitigation measures which are intended to deal with the direct and indirect effects of this change. The City's zoning ordinance contains development standards for the development of individual parcels for office and commercial uses. These development standards are intended to reduce impacts of development on adjacent parcels to insignificant levels. Compliance with the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the City's design review of major development projects are expected to reduce impacts of development on adjacent land uses. In addition, the Agency may exercise additional control over development through adoption of a design guide for the proposed Project • Area, parts of the proposed Project Area or specific development parcels. B. Air_Quality (EIR pp. 25-39) , 1. Environmental Impacts (a) PrRjeect. Emissions: The proposed Project would result in increased levels of primary pollutant emissions and concentrations than the no Project case. In general, any development in the South Coast Air Basin would result in higher levels of air pollution than would be the ' case without such development. Project air pollution emissions come from three principal sources: on-site combustion of natural gas for space heating, water heating and cooking; local and regional emissions from vehicles traveling to and from the Project site; and combustion of fuels at power plants to produce electrical power used on the Project site. (b) Carbon Monoxide Concentrations: Continued" development of more efficient internal combustion engines and street improvements to improve traffic flow and decrease idling time would result in incremental decreases in carbon monoxide concentrations, in spite of increased volume, compared to existing • conditions. However, . these levels are still above State standards and the impact is considered significant. Page 2 . (c) Construction Emissions: .. ......................._.....__.........._..... Construction emissions include emissions from motor vehicles used during construction, and emissions of dust and particulates resulting from Project construction. Because the Project would be developed over many years, grading at any given time is not expected to be sufficient to result in unusually high emissions of dust, and this effect is not considered significant. On a regional scale, the proposed Project in conjunction with other redevelopment Projects in the area would result in increased primary pollutant emissions and concentrations. 2. Mitigation_Measures: ......... Although the Project itself is not expected to contribute significantly to regional pollution levels, the total of projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin in the next 10 to 20 years has the potential to adversely affect air quality. Measures to reduce air pollution emissions in the region may be adopted as part of the Air Quality Management Plan. Some of these measures cannot be assured at this time because they depend on regional policies and other actions which are outside the. jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach. Measures that will reduce the number and length of single occupancy vehicle :trips will reduce air pollution emissions. The following mitigation measures are included in the final EIR: Improvement of existing streets and parkways. where only partial improvements exist to the extent redevelopment funds are available and private development takes place in the Project Area. This mitigation measure will reduce dust emissions from unpaved and unimproved streets and sidewalks in the Project Area. . Improvement of traffic flow through improvement of existing streets in the Project Area to higher standards to the extent redevelopment funds are made available from the proposed Project for such improvements. Street improvements included in the Super Streets Demonstration Project approved by Huntington Beach will be implemented in the Project. Some of these improvements include . restriping, intersection widening, bus turnouts and signal modification at selected intersections. Transportation System Management (TSM) measures to reduce tripmaking,. including: • Page 3 • - Features to encourage walking s and the use of bicycle which may include marked bicycle lanes, shorter walking distances from loading and unloading zones to shops, outdoor eating facilities, and covered shelters for loading and unloading. These measures will be implemented by the developer with design review by the City; - Transit use incentives; Continued service by the Orange County Transit District, although this is beyond the control of the City. The Transit District currently has . 46 stops along Beach Boulevard within the Project Area. - Initiating employee need surveys for child care facilities; - Instigate the alteration of the normal daily truck delivery routes to avoid congestion at peak hours; -. Other measures which may be possible to in-corporate on a development-by-development basis. • The Master Plan of Countywide Bikeways depicts two regional Class II (on road, striped lane) bikeways crossing Beach Boulevard in the Project Area. These bikeways are established along Garfield Avenue and Slater Avenue. In addition, local Class II bikeways are established along Yorktown, Talbert, and Heil Avenues at Beach Boulevard. Signing and striping plans with adequate provisions for bicycle travel through these intersections should be provided. These measures are aimed at reducing traffic congestion and air pollution by encouraging the use of bicycles as an alternative mode of transportation. Not all of these .mitigation measures may be applicable because the nature of private development that will take place in the Project Area is not known at this time, and specific mitigation measures cannot be identified. However, these mitigation measures should be considered by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and private developers. C. Tran portation/Circulation: 1. Bnvironmental Impacts: Determining the traffic impact of the Project on Beach Boulevard and the contributing arterials included compiling existing Orange County Transportation Commission (OCTC) data, identifying the number of trips generated by this Project, distributing these trips on the local street • network, and comparing the resulting traffic volumes with OCTC projections in the Super Streets EIR. The existing situation within the Project Area Page 4 • includes Level of Service F conditions for some intersections during peak hours. Mitigation measures included in the "Super Streets" program, and to a lesser extent the Project, would not completely alleviate this problem. Therefore, any additional traffic generated in this area is considered to have a significant impact. In addition to Project-related trips, continued population growth in the region, increasing employment opportunities, and increased development all would result in additional sources of trip production- attraction and would increase the volume of traffic along Beach Boulevard. This continued increase in vehicular volume, some of which would be a result of the proposed Project, would result in continued degradation in the Level of Service (LOS) at major intersections along the Project length unless compensating improvements in capacity are made. The major arterials north of Ellis Avenue, except Talbert Avenue, are currently_ operating at LOS D or worse during the afternoon peak hour. By Year 2005, it is projected that all of the major intersections, except Atlanta Avenue, Yorktown Avenue, and Garfield Avenue, would all be operating at LOS E or F without the improvements identified in the "Super Streets" report., This is considered a significant impact on the road system. (a) Trip Distribution: • The direction drivers come from and go to is a function of the overall pattern of development in the surrounding urban areas. The Project Area consists predominantly of commercial areas that create trip attractions. Trips to and from the retail areas are projected to be primarily shopping trips by the residents of the surrounding area within approximately three miles. Office trips include a substantially larger proportion of employee trips from greater distances. For purposes of developing a trip distribution model, the Project Area was divided into three distinct, separate zones. Zone 1 includes Edinger south to the mid-block of Talbert and Ellis between Gothard Street and Newland; Zone 2 includes mid-block of Yorktown and Adams between Gothard and Newland; and Zone 3 includes Yorktown and Adams south to mid-block of Atlanta and Hamilton between Main and Newland. The distribution model assumes that trips occurring within each zone along the arterial network have three options. First, trips would occur internally without using Beach Boulevard and would remain within that zone. Second, trips would occur internally, remain within the zone and use Beach Boulevard (assumed to be 15% of trips generated in that block). And third, trips would extend beyond the zone in all directions utilizing Beach Boulevard or the major arterials, or both. Page .5 • (b) Trip Generation: The proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 73% more trips within the Project Area compared to existing conditions. This would result in increased volumes along Beach Boulevard and major arterials over existing conditions and would contribute a significant portion of OCTC future projections. Impacts of the proposed Project on the circulation network are expected to be fewer than the GPA alternative. The proposed Project is estimated to generate 14,654 fewer trips per day compared to the GPA alternative. Not all of the trips generated within each zone are expected to use Beach Boulevard as the primary north-south corridor. Some vehicles are expected to use Gothard Street on the west and Newland on the east, along with other minor collector streets to avoid the congestion along Beach Boulevard during the peak hours. Zone generated traffic, based on current General Plan buildout, falls within the high range of current OCTC projections for Zone 1 and Zone 2. However, estimated volumes in. Zone 3 exceed current-OCTC projections for that segment of Beach.Boulevard. In Zones 1 and 2, Project traffic volumes are within OCTC projections, and the assumptions of the Super Streets Project EIR may be approximately used for these intersections. In Zone 3, with the exception of Adams Avenue, which is projected to have a V/C ratio of 0.94 in year • 2005 with Project improvements, the remaining intersections have relatively low V/C ratio (0.61-0.72) projections. The estimated increase in traffic volumes would result in the further lowering of the levels of service at those intersections, even with the proposed improvements. The Project Area accounts for approximately 12% of the total area of all three zones and approximately 26% of total trip generation. This higher trip generation is due to the predominance of non-residential uses with higher trip generation rates compared to residential uses. Projected volume/capacity ratios with and without Project improvements for existing and Year 2005 conditions, including both short and long term staging, were compared in the final EIR. Degradation in the level of service is expected along all intersections, even with the implementation of Project related improvements. However, Project improvements would significantly lower volume/capacity ratios at some intersections and would help alleviate some congestion. (c) Parkinit and Access: "Super Streets" improvements include on-street parking restrictions on Beach Boulevard north of the Ellis/Main intersection. These parking restrictions will reduce available on-street parking for businesses fronting on Beach Boulevard and may result in loss of business for older areas which were not designed to current standards of off-street parking. Driveway elimination or consolidation may also create problems in such areas.. • Page 6 • Redevelopment action can mitigate such impacts by aiding businesses in responding to these needed transportation improvements with programs for shared off-street parking and alternate site access. (d) Seasonal Traffic Variation: Beach Boulevard provides direct access . from the freeway to Huntington Beach State Park. Traffic volumes along some portions of Beach Boulevard are expected to increase during the summer months compared to the rest of the year. The most recent traffic counts available during the month of July were taken by Caltrans in 1980 and 1983. Higher seasonal variation in traffic volumes is more evident along the southern portion of Beach Boulevard and would have a greater impact in the area compared to the northern portion where daily traffic volumes are already at high levels. The degree of impact as a result of seasonal fluctuations is expected .to diminish as. a function of distance from the Beach. (e) Accidents: The Statewide average for total accidents on a six-lane arterial in an urban area is 4.1 accidents per million vehicle miles. The Statewide average for fatal plus injury . accidents for the same roadway configuration in an urban area is 1.6 accidents per million vehicle miles. The rates reported along Beach Boulevard are significantly .higher than the Statewide .averages. (f) Maintenance: Increased traffic volumes, especially truck-related traffic from increased commercial development, would be expected to contribute additional wear on the road surface. However; mitigation measures aimed at improving traffic flow, including intersection widening, would result in a general improvement of the existing road surface and this impact is not considered significant. 2. Mi ' anon Measures: The Orange County Transportation Commission's Super Streets report (March, 1986), identifies a wide range of improvement options for intersections and mid-block sections along Beach Boulevard. The options range from low cost improvements such as signal coordination, restriping to provide additional lanes and signal modifications to selected capital intensive improvements such as intersection grade separations. Mitigtation measures discussed in the final EIR will be limited to those identified as being a part of the proposed Project and identified by the Redevelopment Agency for Project funding. Page 7 • The primary objective of these mitigation _measures is to identify specific improvements needed to provide reasonable capacity for the existing and projected (Year 2005) traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. Following is a brief summary of each proposed intersection and mid-block modifications for the Project Area. . Signal Coordination: Improved traffic signal coordination for traffic along Beach Boulevard at each intersection in the Project Area. . Signal Modification: Where the existing or projected intersection level of service analysis indicated that additional signal phasing might be required to accommodate turning volumes, the necessary signal modifications would be installed. . Bus Turnouts: Where OCTD bus routes presently stop at an arterial street intersection with existing or projected heavy traffic volumes,. bus turnouts on Beach Boulevard are included if no such turnouts already exist. . Access Control: Several locations indicate that turning movement restrictions or median closures might improve intersection operation. • . Intersection Widening With New Right-of-Way: Where the intersection level of service analyses indicate that intersection widening would improve the level of service, but the existing right-of-way does not appear to be sufficient to accommodate such widening, additional right-of-way would be required. . Restriping With Parking Restrictions: This measure is included in areas of existing or projected heavy peak period traffic volumes, where additional travel lanes could be provided by imposing peak period parking restrictions. Tables 23 and 24 contained in the final EIR identify the specific mitigation measures included in the proposed Project and their locations. These measures would help reduce impacts on traffic caused by the proposed Project. However, these mitigation measures alone are not expected to relieve the existing congestion problems and the impact on traffic . would still be considered significant. Funding for these improvements would be paid, in part, by the Redevelopment Agency. The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has identified an additional mitigation measure outside of the Project Area aimed at relieving traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. This would include the extension of Gothard Street to connect with Hoover to the north of the I-405 • Freeway. This would provide additional north-south travel opportunities. Page 8 i This information is included in the City of Huntington Beach, Gothard Street Extension .Draft""Report, August, 1986. Onsite parking requirements for individual projects will be determined by the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance and Development Code to reduce . the potential impact along side streets and Beach Boulevard. All new construction will be required to provide sufficient parking on-site. For those established businesses with insufficient on-site parking, a program of shared parking with neighboring businesses could be established that utilized available parking spaces during off business hours. Potential mitigation for summer traffic volume increases include the installation of signs along the freeway at major arterials other than Beach Boulevard indicating beach access. This measure may reduce beach generated traffic on Beach Boulevard. However, transferring additional traffic to other nearby arterials may result in additional impacts on these areas. The Beach Boulevard/Warner Avenue Grade Separation project was studied in the Super Streets report as a potential mitigation measure. This measure was not included by the City of Huntington Beach in the addopted Super Streets Program. This mitigation measure is not included in the proposed Project because of its high cost (estimated at $3.8 million in the Super Streets draft EIR) and the description of the local area with increased right-of-way required. However, this mitigation measure remains . available for the future if development projections are realized and traffic impacts cannot be distributed to other arterials in the network. II. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project may have significant effects on the environment as discussed hereinabove. Thus, the Agency has balanced the benefits. of the proposed Redevelopment Plan against the unavoidable significant effects identified in the final EIR and set forth in the preceding sections of this document and makes the following findings about the beneficial impacts which will result from implementation of the Project. The Agency has adopted mitigation measures proposed in .the final EIR, but to some extent unavoidable significant effects will occur. It is important to highlight the following points: (a) The Project is consistent with the current General Plan, except in two areas where General Plan amendments have been requested, and is expected to result in more efficient use of available land and to result in the elemination of unattractive, dilapidated, and poorly maintained structures and land uses which prevent further improvement of the area; (b) The Project is specifically intended to provide for orderly growth in Huntington Beach insofar as mitigation measures are included in the City's development Ordinances to insure that development occurs in the method and at the proper time that it can be accommodated; (c) Huntington Beach is part of a large urbanized region, thus, the project's role in promoting growth in this • region is relatively small in a regional context; (d) additional jobs are Page 9 • anticipated to be provided in Huntington Beach as a result of the Project thereby improving the economic base to the benefit of the entire City. Implementation of the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the City's and Agency's objectives of controlling the continued deterioration of the existing business environment, encouraging the elimination and prevention of blight, and ensuring the economic viability of commercial businesses in the Project Area. The proposed Project will upgrade and stabilize the physical and economic environment while providing construction jobs, creating new employment opportunities, attracting employers and promoting community participation of owners, tenants and consumers in the revitalization of their property holdings and community. The proposed Project will improve the utilization of property within the Project Area and public safety. The proposed Project will contribute to an aesthetic environment and a greater sense of pride. Impacts identified as significant from Redevelopment Plan implementation are generally associated with normal growth, progress and prosperity. The proposed Project will provide to the City annual increased revenues from sources such as, but not limited to, property taxes; commercial property rental taxes; telephone taxes; telephone equipment rental taxes; electric franchise taxes; natural gas franchise taxes; sales taxes; retail business taxes; retail property rental taxes; and liquor and cigarette taxes. • The Agency finds that the beneficial social and economic effects of the proposed actions, as described above and as described in the final EIR and in the Agency's Report to the City Council on the proposed Redevelopment Plan, override the unavoidable significant effects of the Project and justify approval of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project as proposed. • Page 10 12 • RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FINDING THAT THE USE OF TAXES ALLOCATED FROM THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPROVING AND INCREASING THE COMMUNITY 'S SUPPLY OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME HOUSING OUTSIDE THE PROJECT AREA WILL BE OF BENEFIT TO THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency has pre- pared a proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project which would result in the alloca- tion of taxes from the Project Area to the Huntington Beach Rede- velopment Agency for purposes of redevelopment; and Section 33334 .2 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 , et seq. ) requires that not less than twenty percent ( 20% ) of all taxes so allocated be used by the Agency for the purpose of improving and increasing the community ' s supply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable housing cost, unless certain findings are made; and Section 33334 .2 (g ) of the Health and Safety Code provides that the Agency may use such funds outside the Project Area if a finding is made by resolution of the Agency and City Council that such use will be of benefit to the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby find and resolve that the use of taxes allocated from the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project for the purpose of improving and increasing the community' s supply of low and moderate income housing available at affordable cost outside the Project Area and within the City of Huntington Beach will be of benefit to the Project . 1 . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of • Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1987 . Mayor ATTEST! APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED: z:0 City Ad i istrator Deputy Director , Redevelopment 2274L 2 . • 13 i ORDINANCE NO. • AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE '- REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH- BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has received from the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach ( the "Agency" ) the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, a copy of which is on file at the office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, and at the office of the Agency at the same address, together with the Report of the Agency including the reasons for the selection of the Project Area, a description of the physical, social and economic conditions existing in the Pro- ject Area, the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, a plan for the relocation of families and persons who may be temporarily or permanently displaced from housing facilities in the Project Area, an analysis of the Preliminary Plan, the report and recommendations of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, a Project Area Committee record, an environmental impact report on the Redevelopment Plan, 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 Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has submitted to the City Council its report and recommendations con- cerning the Redevelopment Plan and its certification that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach; and The Agency, on March 16 , 1987 , held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "EIR" ) , pre- pared in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 , et seq. ) , the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ( 14 Cal .Adm. Code Section 15000 , et se.j. ) and environmental procedures adopted by the Agency pursuant thereto; and the Draft EIR was 1 , thereafter revised and supplemented to incorporate comments received and responses thereto, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared by the Agency; and The Agency has certified the adequacy of the Final Environ- mental Impact Report, submitted pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21151 and Health and Safety Code Section 33352 , and has determined that the redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to the Redevelopment plan will have significant effects on the environment based upon the impacts identified in Resolution No . 142 adopted by the Agency on May 20 , 1987 , making certain findings regarding the environmental impacts of the proposed actions with respect to the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project . The Agency has adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations indicating the positive aspects in support of implementing the Redevelopment Project as adopted by Agency Resolution No. 142 on May 20 , 1987 ; and The City Council and the Agency held a joint public hearing on July 6 , 1987 , on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan in the City Council Chambers, City Hall , 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California; and A notice of said hearing was duly and regularly published in the Daily Pilot , a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Huntington Beach , once a week for five successive weeks prior to the date of said hearing, and a copy of said notices and affidavits of publication are on file with the City Clerk and the Agency; and Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by certified mail with return receipt requested to the last known address of each assessee as shown on the last equalized assessment roll of the County of Orange for each parcel of land in the Project Area; and Each assessee in the Project Area was sent a separate state- ment, attached to the notice of tha joint public hearing, that his or her property may be subject to acquisition by purchase or con- demnation under the provisisions of the Redevelopment Plan; and 2 . Copies of the notice of joint public hearing were mailed by • cer `' "Pied mail with return receipt requested to the governing body of each taxing agency which receives taxes from property in the Project Area; and The City Council has considered the report and recommendation of the Planning Commission, the report and recommendation of the Project Area Committee, the report of the Agency, the Redevelopment Plan and its economic feasibility, and the Environmental Impact Report, has provided an opportunity for all persons to be heard, and has received and considered all evidence and testimony pre- sented for or against any and all aspects of the Redevelopment Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the purpose and intent of the City Council F vifh respect to the Project Area is to accomplish the following: 1 . The elimination and prevention.. of the spread of blight and deterioration`:;and the conservation, rehabilitation and redevelopment.._ of the Project Area in accord with the General Plan, specific plans, the Redevelopment Plan and local codes and ordinances. 2 . The elimination or amelioration of certain environmental deficiencies, including substandard vehicular circulation systems and other similar public improvements, facilities and utilities deficiencies adversely affecting. the Project Area. 3 . The achievement of an environment reflecting a high level of concern for architectural, landscape and urban design and land use principles appropriate for attainment of the objectives of this Redevelopment Plan. 4 . The enhancement of a major, region-serving thoroughfare to provide a quality design identity and smooth, safe circu- lation. 5 . The replanning, redesign, assembly and reparcelization and development of undeveloped/vacant areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized. 6 . The encouragement of investment by the private sector in the development and redevelopment of the Project Area by eliminating impediments to such development and redevelop- ment . 3 . 7 . The provision for increased sales, business license, hotel occupancy and other fees, taxes and revenues to. the city. k. • 8 . The expansion of the community ' s supply of housing, P Y PP Y g. including opportunities for low- and moderate-income households. 9 . The establishment and implementation of performance criteria to assure high standards for site design, environmental quality and other design elements which provide unity and integrity to the entire Project. 10 . The promotion and creation of new local employment opportunities. 11 . The encouragement of uniform and consistent land use patterns.: 12 . The provision of. a pedestrian and vehicular circulation system which is coordinated with land uses and densities and adequate to accommodate projected traffic volumes. 13 . To encourage the cooperation and participation of resi- dents, business owners, public agencies and community organizations in the development and redevelopment of the area. 14 . The encouragement of the development of a commercial environment which positively relates to adjacent land uses and to upgrade and stabilize existing commercial uses. 15 . The facilitation of the undergrounding of unsightly over- head utility lines. 16 . The provision of adequate off-street parking to serve current and future uses within the Project Area. SECTION 2 . The City Council hereby finds and determines, based on substantial evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, the Agency's Report to the City Council on the Proposed Rede- velopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelop- ment Project, and all documents referenced therein, and evidence and testimony received at the joint public hearing on adoption of the Redevelopment Plan held on July 6, 1987 , that: (a ) The Project Area is a blighted area, the redevelopment of which is necessary to effectuate the public purposes declared in the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000, et seq. ) . This finding is based on the following conditions which characterize the Project Area: 4 . ( 1 ) The existence of buildings and structures used or • intended to be used for living, commercial, industrial or other t...� purposes which are unfit or unsafe to occupy for such purposes due to deterioration and dilapidation, age and obsolescence, mixed character of buildings, and defective design and character or physical construction; and ( 2 ) The existence of properties which suffer from deterioration and disuse because of: inadequate public improve- ments, facilities and utilities, which cannot be remedied by private or governmental action without redevelopment, particularly deficiencies in the transportation circulation system and in infrastructure utilities, and the existence of parcels that are of irregular form, shape or size for proper development; and ( 3 ) A prevalence of depreciated values, impaired invest- ments, and economic maladjustment. It is further found and determined that such conditions are causing and will increasingly cause a reduction and lack of proper utilization of the area to such an extent that it constitutes a serious physical, social and economic burden on the city which cannot reasonably be expected to be reversed or alleviated by private enterprise acting alone, requiring redevelopment in the interest of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the city and the state. This finding is based on the fact that governmental action available to the city without redevelopment . would be insufficient to cause any significant correction of the blighting conditions, and that the nature and costs of the public improvements and facilities and other actions required to correct the blighting conditions are beyond the capacity of the city and cannot be undertaken or borne by private enterprise, acting alone or in concert with available governmental action. (b) The Project Area is an urbanized area. This finding is based upon the fact that not less than eighty percent (80% ) of the privately owned property in the Project Area has been or is 7 developed for urban uses, as demonstrated by the Agency 's Report to City Council. In addition, as demonstrated by the Agency's Report to City Council, the Project Area is part of an area developed for urban uses, such as residential and quasi-public. 5 . ( c) The Redevelopment Plan will redevelop the Project Area in • conformity with the Community Redevelopment Law and in the inter- ests of the public peace, health, safety and welfare. This finding is based upon the fact that the purposes of the Community Redeve- lopment Law would be attained by the Project: by the elimination of areas suffering from economic dislocation or disuse; by the re- planning, redesign and/or redevelopment of areas which are stagnant or improperly utilized, and which could not be accomplished by pri- vate enterprise acting alone without public participation and assistance; by protecting and promoting sound development and redevelopment of blighted areas and general welfare of the citizens of the city by remedying such injurious conditions through the employment of appropriate means; and through the installation of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and utilities in areas which are currently inadequately served with regard to such improvements, facilities, and utilities. (d) The adoption and carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan is economically sound and feasible. This finding is based on the fact that under the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency will be authorized to seek and utilize a variety of potential financing resources, including tax increments; that the nature and timing of public redevelopment assistance will depend on the amount and availability of such financing resources, including tax increments, generated by new investment in the Project Area; that under the Redevelopment Plan no public redevelopment activity can be undertaken unless the Agency can demonstrate that it has adequate revenue to finance the activity; and that the financing plan included within the Agency' s Report to) the City Council demonstrates that sufficient financial resources will be available to carry out the Project. (e) The Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. This finding is based on the finding of the Planning Commission that the Redevelopment Plan conforms to the General Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. ( f ) The carrying out of the Redevelopment Plan will promote the. public peace, health, safety and welfare of the City of Huntington Beach and will effectuate the purposes and policy of the 6 . Community Redevelopment Law. This finding is based on the fact • that 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, social and physical conditions of the Project Area, and by increasing employment opportunities within the city. ( g) The condemnation of real property, as provided for in the Redevelopment Plan, is necessary to the execution of the Redevelop- ment Plan, and adequate provisions have been made for the payment for property to be acquired as provi.ded by law. This finding is .based upon the need to ensure that the provisions of the Redevelop- ment Plan will be carried out and to prevent the recurrence of blight, and the fact that no property will be acquired until adequate funds are available to pay full compensation therefor . (h) The Agency has a feasible method and plan for the reloca- tion of families and persons who might be displaced, temporarily or permanently, from housing facilities in the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that the Redevelopment Plan pro- vides for relocation assistance according to law and the fact that such assistance, including relocation payments, constitutes a feasible method for relocation. ( i ) There are, or are being provided, within the Project Area or within other areas not generally less desirable with 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 available to such displaced families and persons and reasonably accessible to their places of employment . This. finding is based upon the fact that no person or family will be required to move from any dwelling unit until suitable replacement housing is -available for occupancy, and that such housing must meet the standards established in state law and regulations. ( j ) Inclusion of any lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare is necessary for the effective redevelopment of the entire area of 7 . 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 Redeve- lopment Law without other substantial justification for its inclu- sion . This finding is based upon the fact that the boundaries of the Project Area were chosen as a unified and consistent whole to include lands that were underutilized because of blighting influences, or that were affected by the existence of blighting influences, and those land uses which significantly contribute to the conditions of blight, and whose inclusion is necessary to either accomplish the objectives and benefits of the Redevelopment Plan or because of the need to impose uniform requirements over a contiguous geographically defined area. Such properties will share in the benefits of the project. ( 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. This finding is based upon the existence of blighting influences, including the lack of adequate public improvements and facilities, and the inability of individual developers to economically remove these blighting influences without substantial public assistance. ( 1 ) The effect of tax increment financing will not cause a significant financial burden or detriment to any taxing agency deriving revenues from the Project Area. This finding is based upon the fact that all that were affected taxing agencies were consulted with or had the opportunity to be consulted regarding the fiscal effects of the Redevelopment Plan, either through the fiscal review committee established for the project, or through separate consultations . Five such agencies identified adverse fiscal effects . These effects will be alleviated by provisions contained within agreements with such agencies entered into pursuant to Section 33401 of the Community Redevelopment Law. SECTION 3 . The City Council is satisfied that permanent housing facilities will be available within three (3 ) years from the time residential occupants of the Project Area, if any, are 8 . displaced, and that pending the development of such facilities, there will be available to any such displaced residential occupants temporary housing facilities at rents comparable to those in the City of Huntington Beach at the time of their displacement. No persons or families of low and moderate income shall be displaced from residences unless and until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy by such displaced persons or families at rents comparable to those at the time of their dis- placement . Such housing units shall be suitable to the needs of such displaced persons or families and must be decent, safe, sanitary and otherwise standard dwellings . The Agency shall not displace any such persons or families until such housing units are available and ready for occupancy. SECTION 4 . Written objections to the Redevelopment Plan filed with the City Clerk before the hour set for hearing and all written and oral objections presented to the City Council at the hearing, having been considered, are hereby overruled. SECTION 5 . That certain document entitled "Final Environmental Impact Report for Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, " a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and in the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated into this ordinance by reference and made a part hereof. All activities undertaken by the Agency and/or the City of Huntington Beach pursuant to or in implementa- tion of the Redevelopment Plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures set forth in the said Final Environ- mental Impact Report, and the Agency shall undertake such addi- tional environmental reviews as necessary at the time of imple- mentation of such activities . SECTION 6 . That certain document entitled "Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, " the map contained therein, and such other reports as are incor- porated therein by reference, a copy of which is on file in the office of the Agency and the office of the City Clerk, having been duly reviewed and considered, is hereby incorporated in this ordinance by reference and made -a part hereof, and as so 9 . incorporated is hereby designated, approved, and adopted as the • official "Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project . " SECTION 7 . In order to implement and facilitate the effectua- tion of the Redevelopment Plan hereby approved, the City Council hereby ( a) pledges its cooperation in helping to carry out the Redevelopment Plan; (b) requests the various officials, depart- ments, boards, and agencies of the city having administrative responsibilities in the Project Area likewise to cooperate to such end and. to exercise their respective functions and powers in a manner consistent with redevelopment of the Project Area; (c) stands ready to consider and take appropriate action upon proposals and measures designed to effectuate the Redevelopment Plan; and (d ) declares its intention to undertake and complete any proceeding necessary to be carried out by the city under the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 8 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to send a certi- fied copy of this ordinance to the Agency, whereupon the Agency is vested with the responsibility for carrying out the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 9 . 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 redevelopment of the Project Area have been instituted under the Community Development Law. SECTION 10 . The Development Services Department 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 11 . The City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a copy of the description and statement recorded by the City Clerk pursuant to Section 9 of this ordinance, a copy of this ordinance, and a map indicating the boundaries of the Project Area, to the Auditor/Controller and Assessor of the County of Orange, to the 10 . governing body of each of the taxing agencies which receives taxes from property in the Project Area, and to the State Board of • Equalization, within thirty ( 30 ) days following the adoption of the Redevelopment Plan. SECTION 12 . 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 the City 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. SECTION 13 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30 ) days after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof. held on the day of , 1987 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk - City A/gt&ehey REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrat D p ty Director, R velopment 2278L 11 .