Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Redevelopment Agency - Beach Boulevard - Warner Avenue Offic
Katz Hol fis PRELIMINARY REPORT 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 January, 1987 0898.HNT/5 012687/tmc Katz Hol 1 is TABLE OF CONTENTS PART PAGE INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1 I. REASONS FOR SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA ....................................I-1 II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS EXISTING IN 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-3 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 6. Properties .......................................................................... II-5 a. Lots That Are of Irregular Form, Shape and Size ..................................................................... II-5 b. Inadequate Public Improvements, Facilities and Utilities ...............................................................II-5 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 i -- Katz-Hollis PART PAGE III. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA, INCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF PROJECT AND REASONS FOR INCLUDING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING .......................0........................................ III-1 A. General Financing Methods Available to Agency ....................... III-1 B. Proposed Redevelopment Activities and Estimated Costs ..........III-1 C. Estimated Project Revenues ......................0.................... ........... III-2 1. Tax Increment Revenues ....................................................III-2 2. City and Developer Loans ................................................. III-3 3. Land Sale Proceeds ...........................................................III-3 4. Special Assessment Districts ............................................. III-3 5. Development Fees.................................................................. III-3 D. Proposed Financing Method and Economic Feasibility of the 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. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY INPROJECT AREA ............................................................................. IV-1 V. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY IN PROJECT AREA WILL IMPROVE OR ELIMINATE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN PARTII OF THIS REPORT ...................................................................V-1 MAPS —_..._ Following No. `Pane _ I-1 Super Streets Demonstration Project: Beach Boulevard Corridor Study Area..........................................I-1 I-2 Redevelopment Plan Map....................................................................I-1 TABLES Following No. _ge II-1 Mating Land Use Summary........................................................II-2 ii Katz Hol 1 i s TABLBS (CONTINUED) Folkming No. II-2 Number of Structures.................................................................. II-2 II-3 Types of Businesses ......................................................................II-2 II-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 II-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-11 II-15 Potential Additional Sales Volumes Resulting from Beach Boulevard Improvements.................................................II-11 III-1 Estimated Public Improvements and Facilities Costs...................III-1 III-2 Estimated Project Costs................................................................III-2 III-3 Net Project Costs..........................................................................III-2 III-4 Projected New Development..........................................................III-2 III-5 Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue........................................III-3 III-6 City Five-Year Capital Improvement Program History.................III-5 PHOTOGRAPHS Plates 1 - 26...........................................................................................II-12 iii Katz Hollis PRELDMIAW REPORT ON THE PROPOSED RBDBVELOPMBNT PLAN FOR THE ERIMM4GTON BEACH - BHACH BOULEVARD RBDBVBLOPMBNT PROJECT INTRODUCTION This Preliminary Report ("Preliminary 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 33344.5 of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000 et seg.). Section 33344.5 was added to the Community Redevelopment Law by a 1984 amendment which became effective January 1, 1985. The purpose of this Preliminary Report is to provide the following information to the governmental taxing agencies (the "affected taxing agencies") which levied a property tax on all or any portion of the property located within the boundaries of the Project (the "Project Area") within the last fiscal year: a) The reasons for the selection of the Project Area; b) A description of the physical, social and economic conditions existing in the Project Area (blight conditions); c) A preliminary arressment of the proposed method of financing the redevelopment of the Project Area, including an assessment of the economic feasibility of the Project and the reasons for including a provision for tax increment financing In the proposed Redevelopment Plan; d) A description of the specific project or projects proposed by the Agency in the Project Area; and e) A description of how such project or projects will improve or alleviate the blight conditions described in b) above. The provision of the information contained in this Preliminary Report is to assist the affected taxing agencies, and the Fiscal Review Committee composed of representatives from each of such agencies, should one be established, in determining the fiscal impact of the proposed Project upon such affected taxing agencies. 0M.HNT 012687/tmc/6 KatZHollis PANT I. REASONS FOR SBLBCTION 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, 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 side 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. 1365 that selected the Project Area, established the boundaries and adopted the Preliminary Plan. The selection of the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment 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 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. (I-1) w ti ✓� � . q.bt Hwy \ 9� \ ° QM• a MI. i-ft p /•OJ Y OF h {eai W u. • V! ( , ! > d •• •• negmo6 118111121111 loons Nor; goal was all. ttt m Z J Z 3 •• a an I see Sasso .-11 I.1 ..... ... ... ./...1.1 �' O W 'OF z3CO I f I j C7 °Da w Z to > em u, s = Q ac W � i Mj 'GIrvi s , {I •Inaruwsr�� '�-�—� --- ' _ MNNNNInIn w�•.w.N.n.MAe_A �.r r �MNgpNM �� -molls �• � /NIIIn/111111n �, N r r•��I� Ip1111NIt0/•1 i� r Ip.yj V�NN.nU1/ItltlrN� • - mnuLllurrlNlwt•N Atc In1/ melt � p11�N••MNi S III�uN n/Nwe"MINN nu1NN11NIN1. xxn.Iuuiu//mNna . .� ■ ��INM/N■ ■■■ �.���u_/ pan _ i ■Fii_=:F_3er.�:;:;::.. :MMN Me � - 'ram • -rmnnnu.�.• IIINUIIuu"n r�,�/Nul '�. 'a a`�tlN uu"nN� •11117:7�C-�� off I�u1N Nnn-u.N-C- ■Rt ill/�.1{Ilnlu/ �...�►...-•yj,. _rof sell i`nllll•N ��IINNI�. �� 1pp +"�y�ce�J -t Uu uuou• 0"IN/t/1 1-�1/1�r -�IpHI "� 1_ nor all Ingo -is m smile, ', �ql��I.. 0904418 M•ome. ..— --- --------- SIC AWIIM "NO 2-mv, man P. on.. INS, no MAx R"Mull IM Neill Im 'Is m aa— Ma H a E Lis m is NO z No mzm;Ea- Man !TA too= Kun$mn 22 z v 9 1 z let to] KatzHollis 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. 6. 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. 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 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. (I-2) ' Satz HO N 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. (I-3) Katz Hol 1 is PART II. DESCRIPTION OF PHYSICAL, SOCIAL- AND BCONOIQC _CONDITIONS EXISTING -IN PROJECT AREA Information presented in this Part II of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency's Preliminary Report 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, Brinckerhoff, 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 Preliminary Report. A. Existing Physical Conditions 1. Project Location As described in Part I of this report, and as shown on Map I-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. (II-1) Katz Hol l 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, Qnd 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 Humana 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 unknown. 3. Predominantly Urbanized Area Section 333"10.1 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 land currently vacant 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 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. (II-2) KatzHolfis Table II-1 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project EXISTING LAND USE SUN WARY Percent Land Use�l� 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% WThe 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 parcel are classified according to the land use of the parcel containin4 the use they serve. Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October 1986. 112686 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hollis Table II-2 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project NUMBER OF STRUCTURES Type of _Use Number of Structures Non-Residential v 1) Single-Tenant Buildings: a) Single Structures.............................................149 b) Multiple Structures.......................(.................... 56 2) Multiple Tenant Buildings........................................ 88 Residential ................. . 1) Single Family............................................................ 74 2) Multiple Units........................................................... 36 Vacant.......................................................................... 2 TOTAL .......................................................................405 Source: Katz Hollis field survey, July-October, 1986. 112686 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hollis Table II - 3 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project TYPES OF BUSINESSESM Category of Business Category Category No. Total °io 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 Establishments 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 REAL ESTATE 170 (170) 16.0 CONSTRUCTION 6 (6) 0.5 [continued on next page] 112686 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hol 1 i s Table II - 3 (continued) Category of Business Category Category No. Total °/o PUBLIC (18) 1.7 ................................. Administration and Service 11 Delivery Education 3 Recreation 1 Open Space/Flood Control 3 UNKNOWN 13 (13) 1.2 TOTAL 1�060 1,060 100.00 ----------------- �1>The 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 1 is 4. Properties Included for Planning Purposes Certain properties within the Project Area are not blighted properties. Such properties have been -included: (I) 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 blight 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 recent 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 impression of the community. Vacant properties with poorly maintained site conditions are depicted in Plate 4. b. Defective Design and_Character of Ph.yeical 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 this 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 (II-3) Katz Hol 1 i s Table II - 4 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project BUILDING AND SITE CONDITIONS STRUCTURAL OR SITE CONDITION RATING A....................._..........___._...___..____..___.._B C.._.._.._. TOTAL _......._.. ..............................--- ._ .......... No. % No. % No. % No. % Structures 1 340 83.9 53 13.1 12 3.0 •405 100.0 Sites 1 311 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 KatzHollis Table II - 5 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project STRUCTURAL CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS (Relates to Table II-4) ^^ Cate�or�! 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.hnt/bl Katz Hollis Table II - 6 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project SITE CONDITIONS RATING DEFINITIONS_ (Relates:to Table II-4) Category 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.hnt/bl Katz Hol l i s over a period of time. Some of the deteriorated and dilapidated buildings depicted in Plates 1 through 3 and discussed above were 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 do not have sufficient 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 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 a 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 constructign 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. Muted character buildings often have different but compatible uses. Frequently, however, they have incompatible uses, with all the (II-4) Katz Hof f is 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. a.. Lots that Are of IrMular_._Formt Shape.._and 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. Some lots, although deep, are narrow with little street frontage. (Lots of lose than 100 feet in width are considerated by City Standards to be undevelopable.) 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 *ith the width and traffic volume of Beach Boulevard, these lots are not of sufficient size for development of contemporary or future 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 parcel 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. (II-5) KatZHollis 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. The long range travel forecasts predict continued and consistent increases in traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard. If the program improvements are not made on Beach Boulevard, travel conditions will continue tP 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. The 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" (II-6) Katz Hol l is Table II - 7 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project BEACH BOULEVARD EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY (ROW) WIDTHS FEET OF ROW BEACH BOULEVARD SECTION 158 Pacific Coast Highway to Sunset Drive 1380) Sunset Drive to Atlanta Drive 138 Atlanta Drive to Garfield Avenue 132 Garfield Avenue to Ellis. 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 Katz Hol l is Table II - 8 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE .Existing _(1985) _ (Projected (2006) ._.._.. Intersection Of AM AM PM PM AM AM PM PM Beach Boulevard With: V/C(l) L.O.S.(s) V/C L.O.S. V/C L.O.S. 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 .54 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 F 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 .86 D 1.02 F .97 E 1.13 F Volume/Capacity ratio Level of Service Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quads & Douglas, .Inc., 1985. 112686 0898.hnt/bl XatzHollis through "F" describe "best" to "worst" conditions. 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. 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 0.85; the total accident rate per million vehicle miles (MVM) varies from .69 to 2.36. 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 Humana 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 (II-7) Katz Hol 1 is Table II - 9 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC Existing(1.985j....._ - .Projected(2005) ...__._. _ North- South- North- South- 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 I-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 Table II - 10 -Ka lI HOI I I s Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR URBAN ARTERIAL STREETS Level Averaite 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 361000 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 7,600 Operating speeds are beginning to be restricted somewhat by traffic conditions. C Stable Flow but speeds 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 App. oachint Unstable Flow, increasing 49,500 33,000 22,000 12,600 traffic volumes with tolerable delay and tolerable operating speeds. The driver's freedom to maneuver is diminishing. E Unstable Flow, low operating speeds and 54,000 36,000 24,000 16,000 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 Source: Caltrans, 1985. 0898.hnt/bl Katz Hol l i s 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 MV Exceeding State Average .._. ............................................_...__._._......._._..............................._.... ...........__.._._ Fatal + Prop. % Fatal + Fatal + Fatal + Location (_) Total Injury Damage Injury Injury Total Injury Total Beach a Pacific Coast Highway 51 16 35 0.31 .32 1.04 Beach a Atlanta 32 18 14 0.56 .68 1.21 Beach 8 Indianapolis 26 12 14 0.46 .55 1.20 Beach a Adams 68 16 52 0.24 .49 2.10 Beach a Utica 29 10 19 0.34 .44 1.30 Beach e Yorktown 63 23 40 0.37 .85 2.35 Beach 8 Garfield 49 15 34 0.31 .46 1.51 Beach B Main/Ellie 105 27 78 0.26 .59 2.31 Beach e Talbert 61 23 38 0.38 .51 1.35 Beach 6 Slater 105 34 71 0.32 .65 2.01 Beach a Warner 100 27 73 0.27 .37 1.40 Beach P Heil 40 16 24 0.40 .27 .69 Beach B Mac Donald 48 20 28 0.42 .37 .90 Beach 0 Stark 93 28 65 0.30 .51 1.71 Beach B 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. (2) 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 . KatzHollis hour will decrease as projected traffic volumes increase. The continued 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 2006. Signal coordination plus intersection widening to improve the west bound 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 southbound includes four through lanes and a dual left turn lane and the (II-8) TAKE 1 6eacA1 - 12 Huntington Redevelopment Agency Huntington beach -beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project BEACH 6OU1.fYARD DEFICIENCIES IDENTIFIED BY 'SUPER STREETS' PROGRAM //�� ```� Capital Costs KatL Vl 1 i V 9olune/Capacity Ratios (order-of New Total Eli ling Est. Year 2005 New R.O.N- Magnitude) Costs Costs Intersection Improvements Needed 9/0 Imp. W/Imp. 9/0 Imp. W/fnp. Requirements$ 1985 I S1.000 1985 S 81,000 1985 1 11,000 Atlanta Avenue Signal Coordination 0.50 0.50 0.61 0.61 10 0 10 Adams Avenue Signal Coordination 0-72 0.72 0.94 0-94 10 0 10 Intersection Widening (New ROM) 0.72 0.65 0.94 0.83 FN-4' 46 14 60 (W6: 3 through plus right) Utica Avenue Signal Coordination 0.55 0.55 0.68 0.60 10 0 to Yorktown Avenue Signal 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 0-82 1.18 1.06 10 0 10 Signal Modification 15 0 15 Bus Turnouts 44 20 14 34 Access Control 2 0 2 Intersection Striping (EB: 4 lanes) 2 0 2 Intersection Widening 101 0 101 (NB a se: 4 through) Intersection Widening (New ROW) 0-91 0.69 1.18 0.91 NF-3' NW-3' S0 21 71 (MB b SR: 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 (NB A SB: 4 through) Bus Turnouts 4S 20 14 34 Signal Modification 0.72 0.73 1-12 0.80 15 0 IS Slater Avenue Signal Coordination 0.81 0.75 0.95 0.87 10 0 10 Intersection Widening 68 0 68 (NB B SR: 4 through) Bus Turnouts 4$ 20 14 34 Warner Avenue Intersection Widening (New NOV) 1.20 0.87 1.49 1.02 NU-12'SE-12' 387 719 1106 (NB i 51: 4 through; MR, SR, El a Nl--2'FN-12' MR dual left and single right) Access Control 3 0 3 Bus Turnouts 44 10 7 17 Heil Avenue Signal Coordination 0.84 0.75 0.97 0.87 10 ` 0 10 Intersection Widening 47 0 47 (WN a 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 1$ 20 14 34 Intersection Widening (New ROW) NW-6'SE-3' 143 32 175 (a A SB: 4 through; S6 dual left) Intersection Widening (New ROW) 1.02 0.79 1-13 0.86 IS-4' 95 77 172 (EB b WB: 3 through) ETI-41MN-3'WS-11' $The designation F.N-4' indicates that a width of four feel is required on the north side of the intersection's east leg. Source: Orange County Transportation Commission, 1986. The length of right-of-may required varies at each intersection, but typically ranges Ire&200 to 300 feet_ $Slight-of-ray required for bus turnouts will vary at each location. KatzHollis 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 ser`?ice 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 Gothand 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 Hol 1 is 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 Build"ings;' See Table II-2) in the Project Area, with an estimated 385 re6:dents. The majority of the housing units are located among, and is 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 Humana 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) KatzHollis Table II - 13 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project HUNTINGTON BEACH AUTO SALBSl_1986 Auto Sales Total Sales lot Quarter $ 58,522,000 i 300,904,000 2nd Quarter 67,469,000 361,904,000 3rd Quarter 66,494,000 336,588,000 4th Quarter 57�548,000 358,851,000 TOTAL: 1250,023 000 $1,348,247,000 [18.6% of City Total] Source: City of Huntington Beach 011587/5 0898.hnt/bl 'Katz-Hollis 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 on futher 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 25 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 the owner's 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. Existence of Inadequate Public Improvements Public Facili- ......._......................................................._... .. _........._........._....... ..........-............. ties.. Omen .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 and 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 increased (II-11) n T Katz Hollis 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 revealed 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-5 breaks down, 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) KatZHollis Table II - 16 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 1,125 405,000 Slater Avenue - Warner Avenue 435 156,600 Warner Avenue - Heil Avenue 1,305 469,800 Heil Avenue - Edinger Avenue 3�375 1,215,000 TOTAL $7,365 $2,651,400 �l> + 360 business (shopping) days per year. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., 1986. 121186 0898.hnt/bl/3 r KatZHollis Table II - 14 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project SUMMARY OF TRAVEL BENEFITS IN 2005 WITH "SUPER STREETS" MAXIMUM IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAMM Daily Annual(2) Vehicle - Hours Saved(3) 2,503 hours 780,936 hours Dollar Value of Time Saved (4) $1.7,521 $5,466,652 . Gasoline Saved 1,252 gallons 390,468 gallons <i) On entire length of Beach Boulevard within city limits of Huntington Beach. UI Based on 312 days equivalent per year. (3) A term expressing the extent of travel time saved; equal to one vehicle traveling one hour. (4) $7.00/hour. Source: Parsons Brinkerhoff quade & Douglas, Inc., March 1986. 121186 0898.hnt/bl/3 DILAPIDATION, DETERIORATION, AGE AND OBSOLESCENCE (Plates 1 • • 41 • ,� �' ?, IVA 17221-17271 Beach Lf s 1. - - _.. - - a•a1� #�`i� "''++<;i* �.� ,� �d .,` J `� - . ..• / ��_Y�. R ,.1'l�Y ���{�'� \ !rti}fit!�:'^ `�_ BOUlevard. Note lack of •e and Poor drainage, also mixed land (commercial •- HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE REDEVELOPMENT ' /Ili- --�: .� �; �•�it+',r� t ... .:�..'�� •i''n• ,ram•,.__ REDEVELOPMENT . . • PROJECT • • l L,. 17052 A Street r, { meµ` i t 17101 B Street T'¢. �CdT►iYiwirA.a. !icil: 17021 B Street HUNTINGTON BEACH- kali lloll ! s BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 3 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT j ��• I b F i:. t; � it c tY� � �i� � 'I•A t%,:\�'•� . :i ' '(.�2� t.i 6:Y�. � ,.� a 4' —+a—•� �/�' '�y�. +N-"tea '�- ♦ ,��i� �..i. �.•< ��;. �._i"�' �.. .7�'i.�r�� r J c ^ �.�- w., \may �,^•�Y ,�. illy,F.Al lz 11:4 A '=,? :.�? w. _ �-fit r�.i'�'.�.,."�t }., �, ,L �.•.�. �•+ �. Apr HUNTINGTON BEACH- BEACH • REDEVELOPMENT . • • PROJECT • • .•.� •`���� �� �� �'~ tip'"• �. f''{ �4i .y ' fir. • 4 S �' ` • `.,' . �'`�'+ ti I,t � e �; _-- 'i' ".. fir. •I� ,,�� - INSUFFICIENT OFF-STREET PARKING ON BEACH BOULEVARD (Plates 6 and 7) West side, south of Glencoe East side, north of RobidoUX •' TO10� {� North of 18351 At 18881 HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 6 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT �t.. .It, •,. t ! � Chrysler Court �. � �, 9 •t�� - �` sue., ..5"•i'' ;b1 BEACHTerry Street INSUFFICIENT PARKING ON BOULEVARD SPILLS • • • • ADJACENT SIDE STREETS BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 7 REDEVELOPMENT . • • PROJECT • • MIXED USES: RESIDENCES IN ` COMMERCIAL AREAS (Plates 8 and 9) 1 i 12047 A Street to the west of Beach Boulevard, north of Warner Avenue. Note lack of sidewalks and street in poor condition. Li II 19351 - 19361 Beach Boulevard HUNTINGTON BEACH- Katz I IOI ' is BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 8 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT i F W�rsl si 1� ail lio.;wh ti<m hw,ml. �:,(mlh ul YUII ( w ] Avomw I I a l I i r 19:306 E (!;ich 130n110vAId I i I I - - i South side of Garfield Avenue, east of Beach Boulevard I I i I HUNTINGTON BEACH- Katz 114)11 is BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 9 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INAPPROPRIATE MIXTURES OF USES F ''l� iunca,>s `�'•ram - al• 7..; 41 •i�lls." - .� f .• .. , Office building with auto repair businesses on both sides (18377 - 18425 Beach Boulevard) I � I - nesidences above store/repair shop at 19322 Beach Boulevard HUNTINGTON BEACH- Kill /. I lol Its BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 10 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT .asp-��� -�•:r'..� �� r T J 1 • L.� �.Y t11 ,r. ,1. e. •.K .5.� i � F .- _ iz IL jj, ` • • i : • LO • . . . • ` I�,mow..- _ r��+I. .-:E .�__ �- -+��. - �-�� ..�• _ $ w t � t • • Westbound lane dies: view west s► 7. �h.•" View east of south side, lack of sidewalks 1 i-�.� ... -mow. •� - �.-_ View west of north side, lack of sidewalks 1 •'i INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH ELLIS AVENUE: INADEQUATE WIDTH, LACK OF SIDEWALKS HUNTINGTON BEACH- Kal/ i lol I is BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 14 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - e s I � . _ .� View east View west __---- View north View south INTERSECTION OF BEACH BOULEVARD WITH TALBERT AVENUE HUNTINGTON BEACH—BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 15 -": � = REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT �- �- zr 4 � _'� :.�- t�� r�I . . piF �� _ 1-, _ ` _ ' _ 17% 1 r ...�.�_ F :.r; ��',��.: y � �. � � _ � �� v � ,'�- � ,. c ^i � � ,� �; rr 7 r +.A i 1 f K�fd_ -. f. • , / • � � • ,�...r �` ,ti:.y. o��: N f r 1 1 1 `�� __ '. } .. _ ��' �� � ?. ".e.' _ rr . ti 7 � ' ' i ._ � _ . . �.:, k' �'': � .: � - Y• ' _ _ � v!" s� - - >-. tt.. .,' =y • • � � � i � i � � � � � � � � � i � : � � � � � � . . � � • r �•�r-' �� a -F_-- � ;'.�I -tea.t .i1r '4�. ^k�- :.}s� - ; �Ir�"7 - _�'"'�'. ;?^ _:,T� � .:.ry��`4- .� '� � •�k: '�1,��• �� � a s- 1 � t../i YSz.. � � f�-t.r'' s •s� r _ t S••J�T. a -�I _ � � - _ .. �- .. � .'r - -••_sue - �1 �� �i' UNIMPROVED OR INADEQUATELY SURFACED ALLEYS Aft- dft Between and B Street, northof PROJECTHUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PLATE LACK OF SIDEWALKS (Plates 21-22) i { js �Y wJ. West side of Beach Boulevard in 18751 block. Note drainage problem. T I .. ' - ._ .�!" T i-.��5 -.,_r. „ •I'Pr. 1'.�i..'d,'. ..F li .t'- "� >.-.'�..' -. - x�i.,��' Yc off► ,11f wl 1. '•" ':!{. , . i� - .. r `t East side of Beach Boulevard, 18052 - 18072 HUNTINGTON BEACH- Katz I ion I is BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 21 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT ! 9l�AO�R 4 :MEL .. :. :* r ;ow * H -fib. �•- W rtf. L !?rrr s ♦ t 47 \h kL�t 1� t1 •• T�+M� 401 r ` r V� ��.y4��r tµ-CST.���•1��i r'i`h �T'�"+!t�M'•K ,_�•j;.��' `L t. VACANT UNDER-UTILIZED PROPERTIES (Plates 23 and 24) Northeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Atlanta View northeast of prop- erty west of Beach Boulevard between Memphis Avenue and ter ,. Knoxville Avenue =X Northeast corner of Florida Qtreet and Knoxville Ave. -. ..... �.•��'L; :_tea..� +�- _ • •' ;•- �' .#:.`ram-""' - r.. HUNTINGTON BEACH- Ka I/ l lol I i s BEACH .BOULEVARD PLATE 23 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I r\j I i; I Beach BOL11CMII d --- --- North of 18352 Beach Boulevard Southwest corner of ' Beach Boulevard and Speer dir HUNTINGTON BEACH- Kai z 11(d I is BEACH BOULEVARD PLATE 24 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT La4 V ' A •1. 51 1y + r a Y E _ ,.•�� j�^�,�P,!.1. ^,�'�'3$'�'�{{t.�.y�-a dam' ' ,� �,r 7 7Y•„y`Y��•tt, •.t,. • • • 1� :• • N _ .• 'yi r •+���_ try s: • r•i �` ■\�+:;�■■■ man tsar move ONES Li FO LEASE R.B.ALLEN -` FOR LEASE b���\ GROUP ' Retail Stores/Offices Office and Industrial Brokers 9oo Q.FT,-Courtesy to Brokers '71425 - 9166' --. • 1 . YN DONOVAN • • AVAILA men eRt E BLE - OFFICE SUITES � - 2.0805 �i VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE ON BEACH BOULEVARD HUNTI Katz Hol I I � REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BOULEVARD PLATE 26 Kautiollis PART III. PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED METHOD OF FINANCING REDEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT AREA, . INCL_UDIN_G ASSESSMENT OF ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY OF �-PROJECT . AND REASONS FOR INCLUDING.TAX INCREMENT FINANCING 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. Propo d Redevelopment Activities.and Estimated 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 streetscaps (III-l j KatzHoliis Table III - 1 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ESTIMATED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND FACILITIES COSTS Portion Proposed for Project.Funding Estimated Total Cost Amount % "Super Street" Improvements, Atlanta to Edinger --Signal Coordination and Modifications $ 130,000 $ 20,000 15.49E --New Signals 92,000 92,000 100.09E --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 66.79E --Bus Turn Outs, Including Right-of-Way _.......... 50.000 29.49E Total Super Street Improvements $ 21731_ $ 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 $ 270,000 100.09E --Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis, east side one-half mile. 48" wide storm drain. 625,000 . 625,000 100.09E --Beach Blvd. between Atlanta and Indianapolis (west side) 48" and 36" wide storm drain. 1,300,000 1,300,000 100.09E --Sanitary sewer - Adams to Yorktown. 2,700 ft. of 12" line 200,500 200,500 100.09E Total Storm Drainage, Sanitary Sewers $__21395,500 $2,395.t 00 100.0% [Continued on following page] 0898.HNT/bl Katz Hold is [Table III - 1, page 21 Portion Proposed for P_rolect Funding Estimated Total Cost Amount % Waterline Improvements --8" water main east and west side of Beach Blvd., complete loops and replace 6" $ 11515,000 $ 11515,000 100.0% --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 $ 1,929,000 $ 1,929�000 100.0% Utility Undergrounding --Entire length Beach Blvd. $ _....4,500,000 $ 3,200,000 71.1% Recreation. and Park Improvements, and Historic Preservation-Bartlett Park $1,242,000 $ 1,242,000 100.0% Landscaping and Streetscape --Median and,frontage road landscaping, Atlanta to Edinger $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 100.0% --Theme signage, street furniture, decorative street lights 1�0001000 $ 11000,000 100.0% Total Landscaping and Streetscape $ 2L000,000 E 2,000,000 100.OX TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS 14,797,500 121063,500 81.5% Source City of Huntington Beach 0898.HNT/bi KatzHollis 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 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 Funding. 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 Vrogram 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 • Katz Hol I is Table III - 2 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS* _. (000's Omitted)..;_._._....._... Proposed Public Improvements and Facilities Projects (See Table III-1) $ 12,064 Site Assembly: - Land Acquisition (107Ac ® $30/sq. ft.) $139,850(i)(3) - Relocation 4,125(s) - Demolition 925(3) - Special Site Preparation 5,8000) ..............._..._... _......_...... Total Site Assembly 150,700 Administration (5 yrs ® $300,000; 5 yrs B $200,000; 5 yrs ® $150,000; 10 yrs @ $100,000) 4,250 Low and Moderate Income Housing (20% of total below) 41,754 Total $208,768 Plus: Contingencies (10% of above total) 20,877 Total $229,645 Plus: Escalation (15% of above total) 34,447 TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTS $264y092 * 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 (2)Katz Hollis (3)Pacific Relocation Consultants KatzHollis Table III - 3 . Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project NET PROJECT COSTS (000's Omitted) Costs to be Net Financed Costs Total Estimated Project Costs (See Table III-2) $264,092 $264,092 Plus: Debt Service on Bond Issue (Interest Only)(') "_._. 322,809 Total $264,092 $586,901 Less: Estimated Land Sale Proceeds(2) <116,523> <116,523> Total Costs to be Financed with Bond Issue $147,569 Round to $147,570 NET PROJECT COSTS (Tax Increment Limit) $470,378 Round to 47� 0,380 ----------------- (14147,570,000 issue; 12% interest, 25-year term (=)107Ac 8 $20/sq. Pt., plus 25%) 0898.hnt/5 katzHoflis Table III - 4 Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project PROJECTED NEW DEVELOPMENT Motel Units 104 units Commercial 575,700 sq.ft. Office 300,000 sq.ft Residential Dwelling Units 507 D.U.s Restaurant/Fast Food 16,400 sq. ft. Auto Dealerships 52,000 sq. ft. Source: Cfty of Huntington Beach 0898.HNT/bl KatzHollis life .of the Project. The scopes and types of these developments are summarized in Table III-4. A projection of- annual estimated tax increment revenues-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 seven 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. City and Developer Loans Currently, Agency administrative costs 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. 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. 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 (III-3) KMz Hol 1 iS u}.al"Iyt Vn 2aCh--G?a h 'Jv,.isCra".: Red vs* ;men t 2a^!c'--mcrt QrUiZLL C aule Ti -J P"JECT70ki rt :`1CF,--wE1TAL TAX REVENUE ?r:rement Gross t3; (41 Fi s:ai Rea: Ct`e^ C,'p- G352 Tax 207 lsi 4t Tar. Year 3rC } `11 F—ppl1! (;; 1:_.__ 242 t145 Revenue Cumulative � ;ae Cu mull t; ti' enu? 1;_ e _'; 4 , 1 et-As. C'�u.a ve 2v_1. Cacu v_ 11PH-F 175-7-3 4y:7J v i n �' Ij 0 �l 2 J E _vrt-J~ 2::7,J7: �C 'r_ .._ 41i�+tr 47"J 6E7 v,• '�C9-9C' :A _ 3L--� vi- ion_:t --.;scD7 c� 77- 1!164 ^s777 r^7z; rcac: t r;q1 -__ i�7;9_: i1: 1 WV i,.. 11i;7 Y1_ . .'C_37 "ss7 :9,»:I:- _ '_ 2,A`? ,'4i i LIZ _. Ai :•9+1 •CC4-9_ 4;:;: Ici ,LCJ ^IYIJ: \v I:IJ�v:' -:,c_ -•r - =c- - 7Ci 1: fe etc (' (7 f1^7t 1FC.-. J r7cos f7 ... if FJ c,1"f S71 l7J1C? 7 J .� ... c_c,:"" _ 'ilc .17 � , 4 3 cu 1 1 _ 1 — d ``':-. : C�7,:_•'± ,fj_ _.-..-. "._7;:1_.. `�`1 �1 2 y�16T. (q? 114, 11 ^i_ �^ q -; -+7- :c tiat,. ;'1_1.; C, cI1 _� may: ;'. ,9 -- :a c 1 Li; A C 1 C - -- 3u.=. 91JJJ 6`:f : i.._y:4R °-y' _.J.-.- 1_ ^: .°4c 'r`,470 71,4 1 s,ca1 `.11417g7 = = _-- 1{ i:C ___ 1 hA?,7�C li -^. P.) 790 !'^ 4:.�,` ri -c01 i, Lyy .. . . .;_. :1_- ,:•vey :J ; L: :1, i1:_ i;uJL: 1•i %4 =16—,4 1:,44 119,:1 5,',_ 4 1yf` ,4r.J r3s°'_ ip"1 'S� ( ',6441 ( t1b5`1 1 lI',G77 811G':4 4-' ca+ dd ^7c r,^ ^�' 51C cc^; r7j, Cr'4 i t A, a+ ,- 7 +r,= 1= - - 177 epq! 17 i,7=i ^- --pi I i '?C0. 11;1 - - 2,,. -_±A 11 -:y _ 1►4^,ia_ !,:4 171:._ i`c �''. (';4= ! L 1 .t4,1'.. 1 Z7= T'_ 44 14- *7 1 777 4'r 19 L-q 174 E72 (' OT'l; (34 ��41 ,e ^. 1Ta ,`. 2-;-i•_1^ 1<' �y._ : i D" li -1 1ct 1 c p')' rTC 11 ! 11 C71 lc :cC .. _ •ai•:1- 4t:IL ', .'Iu. .:,.... a`:fErr i4,LII 1..._ a.,S .C•1u_: ?:._-'� ? 261 Su o. 2? 22 73 562 (4,54B1 (43 712 19 '91 174 94 9 24242A!7-+„ 2,4!^ ^ca 47 a:- =14 -^c (49R2s (4^ 5D51 19 53:� 1?437 2A4-1 _ P'= 4/,vry f 1,B9 2,v;=v,_ 1 7b ,'bb J wpi' JJ NvJ: a,1.r_- 01•5,417cc , 2 coc.1 rl••c_ V ,7cv^J,-)VG 47,J P: 1, r-_ Ycr. v,74? ^r-,cc :c ♦ v,b4o.1 c-=c.4 r. ,A.'A1':_ 7 ,�4 7c7 7`, op -�7 pn1 tcq'; .,5 c n; �c 77q ^c^ 74t r11 ,rr. . f:7. y!?v. 1�,�:• ( ;JGv: rt,: LJ_1t.. 3,1`cicf. 4 ,Ln` - -.- - ='i° ,�.: .2,470 -701.71 (E;494) ;7=,^5i; r�,97b 29 12i. 4°)a 17;� dY <-_c. -c` 'Ji -QA s4 ?9.� a9� 063 l5 459% (70 n'3; E34 31L r,c, 2510_2 - TR7 1`Z _ - C O' - -!! '7 C OL 7y 9C Z C �,b4E,.- 4E ,454,:1-b a7,27;+ 4.•:,3s•� ;,,4 41 ( 4,;4 ,;'b 451267 ^�•�_=1 qr.7 7T1 4P 6_5 :_ 3111r1,3`' _9,91: 472,?4: (i M2 1 (94,449'' 31f9?'' r77,745 + r1 ,` =,. _..1-r_ 4,17610, 4c,a:� 11___y_1 :,9YY,L:_ 4., z1 .4,97 1c,546:' !:C11r,°%5. V. u 4 •s _1 ---------- ---------- ---------- T. 5 a;,s7e iln`s°9°' 411,98'. KatzHollis Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Footnotes to Projection of Incremental Tax Revenue (Table III-6) 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 r4cords were not available for incorporation in the base year valuation total. Real Pro_p_erty values (i.e. land and improvements) reflect anticipated . .... .. value added as 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 or 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. 0898.HNT/bl Katz Hollis development fees of 25 cents/sq.ft. and $1.50/sq.ft., respectively, which per AB 2926 effective 1/l/87 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, including an assumed full 20 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 $470,380,000. 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 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 (III-4) Katz Hollis 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, required, and funded amounts for each of the ten categories within the City's 5-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 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. 1. 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: 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. (III-5) Katz Hol 1 i s 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. (III-6) 6 Katz liol l is Table III-6 26-Jan-87 Huntington Reach RedeveloP+ent Agency Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopaent Pro ect CITY FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM HISTO Y (-------1984/85-- -) (-------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 $5,223,000 $5,223,000 $3,612,000 $5,075,000 $4,772,800 $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 0 265,000 510,000 0 165,000 540,000 0 PARK AQ. 6 DEV. 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,640,000 1,858,600 4,291,431 4,2913431 2,560,000 2,803,000 2,803,000 COMMUNITY SERVICES 492,900 492,900 0 224,800 359,500 0 1,350,000 1,496,000 0 POLICE PROTECTION 903,822 903,822 0 147,000 398,006 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 099Ohnt.wks4 010687/tic Katz Hol 1 is PART IV. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY IN PROJECTRE AA As described more fully in a previous 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 provision 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 streetscape projects. Details of the proposed program of activities, estimated Agency costs, and proposed financing methods are set forth in Part III of this Preliminary Report. P (IV-1) Katz Hollis PART V. DESCRIPTION OF HOW PROJECTS PROPOSED BY AGENCY IN PROJECT ARBA WILL IMPROVE OR ALLEVIATE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN PART.II OF THIS REPORT 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 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 the economic maladjustment, depreciated values and impaired investments. The public improvements and facilities listed in Table III-I will correct the deficiencies in traffic circulation, storm drainage, sanitary sewers, waterlines, utilities above ground and poor landscaping, signage and street furniture. The 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. (V-1) 1 Katz Hol I is DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550 This Preliminary Report on 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, which Agreement provides for services involving preparation of certain reports and documents and the coordination of fiscal review analyses and related activities. Total compensation under the Agreement is not to exceed Fifty- Five Thousand Dollars ($53,000), including out-of-pocket expenses. .r w , 0 s i.: i L FINAL EIR 81 -1 . Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue 4 Office. Commercial Complex City of Hunt,n ton Beach September 198 HUNTINGTr, BEACH PLANNING DEPT. ! S E P 3 1981 pbr P. 0: Box 190 Hur�i�t��. BeacF L .48 I '� t i • w it FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 81-1 for CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD-WARNER AVENUE COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPLEX Prepared for: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Contact Person: James Barnes Telephone: (714) 536-5554 d.: Prepared by: �- PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 18012 Sky Park Circle Irvine, California 92714 Telephone: (714) 641-8820 September 1981 .. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Title Page No. List of Exhibits List of Tables 1 .0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 3 .0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3-1 _ 3.1 LAND USE 3-1 3.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS 3-3 3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 3-7 3A TRANSPORTATION./CIRCULATION 3-13 3.5 AIR QUALITY 3-16 3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3-19 3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3-20 '- 3.8 AESTHETICS 3-24 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4-1 4.1 LAND USE 4-1 4.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS 4-5 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 4-8 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 4-12 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4-22 4.6 ACOUSTIC -ENVIRONMENT 4-29 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4-31 4.8 AESTHETICS 4-42 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5-1 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6-1 7.0. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE. MA NTENAN E AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7-1 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES 8-1 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 9-1 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 10-1 11 .0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 11-1 APPENDICES (UNDER SEPERATE COVER AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT) LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Title Following Page No. • 2-1 Site Vicinity 2-1 2-2 Site Plan 2-3 3-1 Onsite and Surrounding Land Use 3-1 3-2 General Plan and Zoning 3-3 3-3 Site Photo Index 3-24 3-4 Site Photographs 3-24 4-1 Building Shadows 4-3 4-2 Traffic Distribution and Intersection Capacity Utilization 4-13 4-3 Noise Contours 4-18 4-4. Maximum Noise Contours 4-18 4-5 Architectural. Rendering 4-42 ,.. LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page-No. 3-1 Growth Projections for CAA 33 and RSA 38 3-8 3-2 Growth Projections for Huntington Beach 3-8 3-3 Persons Per Total Dwelling Units 3-8 -- 3-4 Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment, Orange County 1978-1981 3-11 375 Orange County Labor Supply 1980-1981 3-12 3-6 Employment Projection for Huntington. Beach 3-12 3-7 Income Levels in 1980 3-13 3-8 Existing Fire-Fighting Facilities 3-2.0 4-1 Forecast Direct Employment Opportunities 4-8 4-2 Forecast Annual Wage Profile 4-9 4-3 Ten-Year Summary Comparison of the Proposed - Office Complex 4-11 4-4 Project Trip Generation 4-14 -` 4-5 Peak Parking Demand 4-16 4-6 Projected.Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions - Commercial Emissions 4-24 4-7 Regional Emission Inventory Comparison 4-25 4-8 Maximum Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Intersection 4-26 4-9 Noise Levels. 4-30 4-10 Projected Water Consumption 4-32 4-11 Wastewater Generation Rate 4-33 4-12 Natural Gas Demands at Ultimate Development of Proposed Land Uses 4-35 4-13 Electrical Demands at Ultimate Development of Proposed Land Uses 4-36 :�. 1 .0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 .1 INTRODUCTION In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , this draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the development of a proposed multistory business commercial center of approximately 562,208 square feet, located in the City of Huntington Beach. Specifically, this EIR addresses the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the development of twin 16-story towers, two restaurants, a five-and-one-half level parking structure ( 1 ,814 stalls) , plus additional provision for surface parking (79 stalls) , a four-plex theater and a helistop. w The City of Huntington Beach is the Lead Agency responsible fo.r prepara- tion of environmental doc.umentati on in compliance ,with CEQA, and will also have, responsibility for approval of the- project. Environmental consulta- tion .has been provided by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. The EIR process requires the preparation of an objective "full disclosure" document designed to inform agency decision-makers and the general public Of the direct and indirect environmental effects of a proposed action; to provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts; and, to provide alternatives to the proposed project. The envi- ronmental analysis contained in this document addresses each of these primary EIR, objectives. A Draft Initial Study ( see Appendix Al ) prepared by the City of Huntington Beach determined that the following areas required . a detailed discussion of impacts and mitigations: - Land Use Relevant Planning Programs Socioeconomics Transportation/Circulation Air Quality Acoustic Environment Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. ._ 1-1 Below is provided a brief discussion of the topical issues concerning the proposed project, which either have been found not to have a significant effect on the environment or for which mitigation measures have been set • forth that would avoid potentially significant effects. In conformance with CEQA guidelines, topics which have been found not to have a signifi- cant effect on the environment are authorized to discuss briefly, the basis upon which such determinations were made. Landform/Topography ' The site does not contain any unique landform features. Due to the relatively flat and urbanized nature of the study area, significant environmental effects are not anticipated. Geology/Soils The study area is geotechnically feasible to accommodate development. No hazards of landslides, tsunami , land subsidence or earthquake faults are located on the site. The study area is primarily rated as a Risk I area or "normal risk - minor problems" by the Geotechnical — Land Use Capability Map,l with a small portion classified as Risk II ("provisional risk minor to moderate problems") . This map is intended to be a general guide for planning purposes, rating land in the city from Risk IV to Risk I as geotechnical problems decrease, based on the following considerations: fault rupture, peat deposits, liquefaction potential , beach erosion and tsunami hazard. A report on a foundation investigation of the study area was prepared in April of 1981 by LeRoy Crandall and Associates.2 Most borings onsite encountered shallow fill soils, with moderately firm to firm natural soils of clay, silt, silty sand, and sand. These soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed development. Driven friction piling in conjunction with specific recommendations by the geotechnical consultant for formation design, grading, floor slab and paving support, would establish conditions under which development of the ,study area is feasible. The findings of the geotechnical consultant are included as Appendix C of this report. Copies of the report are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Hydrology No water bodies occur onsite. Development of the study area will not alter absorption rates, drainage patterns or the amount of surface runoff. Additionally, no alteration to the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters is anticipated through project implementation. l Huntington Beach Planning Department, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates, February TT7T. 2 LeRoy Crandall and Associates, Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed Mola Off ice Complex, Beach ou evar an Warner Avenue, Huntin ton__'9_each, California, for the Mo a Development Cor oration, Apri . 1-2 Archaeological/Historical According to the City of Huntington Beach Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory _prepared by Archaeological Research. Incorporated (1973) , there are no historical , archaeological or paleontological sites located in the study area. Therefore, development of the study area will not result in an alteration to any known significant archaeologi- cal or historical site, structure, object or building and no impacts are anticipated. Biological Resources Dr. Eric Hansen, PBR biologist, conducted a site survey in April 1981 to confirm the absence of significant biological resources on the site. The findings are contained in Appendix B.1 Due to the urbanized nature of the study area no significant adverse impacts are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed project. No officially recognized rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal species were observed, have been reported, or are expected to occur in the study site. W The proposed Beach-Warner office commercial complex is located within an area of the city which has been the subject of considerable study. . In such circumstances, the State EIR Guidelines encourage "incorporation by reference" (section 15.149) , in which previously prepared information (where still accurate) is incorporated by reference into current studies and not printed anew in each successive EIR. To incorporate by reference, it is required that the EIR clearly state the location where all C referenced documents are available for public review. The information contained in such documents must be current and adequate in content. The current project evaluation is well suited to the use of incorporation by-reference. Three documents have been prepared over the past two-year period which provide valuable information relevant to the current projection. These documents, along with a brief synopsis of their scope, are identified below. All reports are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. ] . A Traffic Report on the Proposed Beach and Warner Professional Plaza, prepay for the e Mora Development corporation, Uctober �987._—Tf"e scope of the traffic report by PBQ&D focuses on five topic areas: trip generation, existing level of service, trip distribution, trip assignment analysis and .impacts, parking, and mitigation measures. • 1 Copies, of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. .- 1-3 This report forms the basis for the traffic analysis as prepared for �- this EIR, by Greer and Associates, discussed in Section 3.4 (TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION) . 2. Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3. adopted December 1980. This EIR, prepared by the Huntington Beac Department of Development Services, analyzes five land use amendment requests in the City of Huntington Beach. One of the amendments was a request to place the study area plus 70+ additional acres in a Multi-Story Node. This EIR provides historical background and existing conditions - formation for the, study area. 3. Report of Foundation Investigation Pro�ossed�Mola Office Complex, Beach Soulevard and Warner Avenue, Huntingtonbeach, Galitornia, for the Mo a Development Corporation_, prepared by LeRoy Crandall and Associates, prig 1961 . Mis report presents the results. of a foundation investigation at the site of the proposed development. The -- investigation was authorized to determine the static characteristics of the soils beneath the site for design purposes, liquefaction potential and to provide recommendations for foundation design and floor slab support. The scope of this investigation does not include geologic and seismic studies or detailed site response studies. Corrosion studies (performed by M.J. Schiff and Associates) were submitted under separate cover. 1 .2 SUMMARY The. following discussion provides a brief but concise distillation of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, touching on only those issues which are considered to be of special significance. The reader is referred to other sections of the EIR for more detailed informa- tion which supports the major findings offered below. The development of approximately 562,208 square feet of office/commercial floor area represents a significant intensification of urban development _ within the study area. This development also represents a commitment to the continued growth and development of the 80-acre multistory node (centered at Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue) , one of the six so designated nodes in the City of Huntington Beach. Inasmuch as the study area has already been developed for urban uses, the impacts on the natural environment ( i .e. , topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and cultural resources) are expected to be minimal . Impacts to the urban environment, however, have been determined as more significant. 1-4 The two most potentially significant impacts posed by the project are the Sprojected demand increase on local transportation and circulation systems; and perhaps more importantly, the compatibility between the proposed 16-story twin towers and adjacent residential uses to the study area. Development of the project would significantly alter the visual character- istics of the study area. In place of, and surrounding one-, two-, and three-story buildings, will be the twin 16-story towers and a 5-1/2-level parking structure. The towers will rise 232 feet in height, while the parking structure will rise 35 feet above ground. The architectural style of the twin towers and proposed park=like landscaping concept both will serve to soften the transition from residential land uses to commercial and office uses. -- However, potential significant impacts will occur to surrounding land uses as a result of, implementation of the proposed project. These impacts include the following: Increased vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the study area, particularly during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. (Section 4.4) Incremental increases in air emissions and noise. (Sections 4.5 and 4.6) Periodic increased noise level due to the heliport. (Section 4.4) An increased demand for public services and utilities. (Section 4.7) �-4 Change in the visual milieu, from a weedy, overgrown lot to a landscaped, high-rise office commercial use. (Section 4.8) Building shadows, new lighting, possible glare and possible disruption of local antennae reception. (Section 4.8) Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (see sections noted above) will reduce most of the impacts to a. level of insignificance. Upon project buildout, the business commercial complex is estimated to cre- ate 2,152 long-term employment opportunities. Since at least a portion of this employment may be drawn from outside the local labor market an incre- mental increase in demand for housing (particularly within the affordable range) can be expected in Huntington Beach and surrounding cities. 1-5 The proposed expansion, upon completion, is projected to generate an additional 9,800 vehicle trips per day to the roadways surrounding the site. The project traffic report analyzed three local intersections identified by the City traffic engineer as those most likely to be — impacted by the traffic increases. The Beach-Warner intersection will drop from Level of Service E to Level of Service F, while the Beach- Edinger intersection will drop from an Level of Service C to Level of Service D. The level of service for the Warner-Magnolia intersection remains the same. However, with full improvement of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, the level of service will. rise to almost D. (The Beach- Edinger level of service drop is not significant as the drop was in response to 60 additional vehicles.) While the proposed project is not expected to impact levels of service significantly at the intersections studied, the project-related traffic will " add to the cumulative impact of potentially decreased levels of service associated with future expanded growth in the multistory. node. Upon project buildout, use of the facilities will add incrementally to the cumulative impacts of decreased air quality (local and regional ) and increased ambient noise levels. The proposed expansion will result in increased demands for public services and utilities. In particular, the project will place an additional incremental demand on regional energy resources, water supply and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. \ O The fiscal impact analysis prepared for the project shows that the proposed project will generate a net surplus of $20,900 over the 10-year period of study. 1-6 i r .• 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The 10+-acre study area is located at the southwest corner of the Beach µ Boulevard-Warner Avenue intersection in the City of Huntington Beach. The -study area contains abandoned Ocean View School District school buildings (a former school site, sold as surplus) . Immediately north of the study area is Warner Avenue with. highway commercial and medium density residential uses adjacent to Warner Avenue; south of the study area is a mix of older, multi- and single-family residential units; southeast of the study area and adjacent to Beach Boulevard is a continuation of the high commercial uses; immediately east of the study area is Beach Boulevard and strip commercial uses adjacent to it; .and west of the study area are older -- single family residential dwellings. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the study area in a local context. 2.2. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a multistory business and commercial center alongside Beach Boulevard, a major functional and visual corridor-1 It. is intended that the center provide two 16-story twin towers (261 ,504 square feet each) , two restaurants (10,000 square -� feet each) , a ' four-plex theater (19,200 square feet) , a 5-1/2-level parking structure to accommodate 1 ,814 parking stalls and 79 outside parking stalls. In addition, a he.listop facility will be constructed atop tower #1 . w It is the purpose of this environmental assessment to determine the natural and urban systems impacts which will occur should the project be implemented. This EIR addresses the eight issues of primary concern: Land Use, Relevant Planning Programs, Socioeconomics, Transportation/Cir- culation, Air Quality, Acoustic Environment, Public Services and Utili- ties, and Aesthetics. In addition, all CEQA-mandated topical issues will 1 City of Huntington Beach, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 , EIR 80-3 , December 1980. 2-1 i 67 �t ! h$dw iy City e I I ! NINISTER L .. — w" s Md e t c.� at 1 4 E INGE I Y t 22 �.,,�I._, . . ... r.. it`' ice:.,,n„•I;n � :4 ' ., OI I ;A ll WARNER ...I AV-_ uE — , ' Oa+xx.6 ........ it _F , +.F..i�tl'I1Aj'y VALI,b a' ......... i E..:.. . ., �I .......... 27 W MU -MNGTON BEAC�i .. L . 7. A ITAIN 1 ALLf 'Y o L. r .. I IL 1 ttyy�� h 31 �c� + r., t -- , ttttM'... t / c O PAC IG �., •=;L� - ~`t COAWT , z ` LU HIGHWAY _4 'VWO(�� 0 0 0 1718 3436 5154 �_4j�13lsC� ��` W Beach-Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development .Corporation EXHIBIT 2-1 be discussed, including unavoidable adverse impacts; the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and - enhancement of long-term productivity; any irreversible environmental changes which will occur if the proposed project is implemented; and the growth-inducing impact of the proposed project. The project sponsor has developed a series of objectives to give direction to the planning and design effort and to provide a means for evaluating design alternatives. To develop a quality multistory use that is both aesthetically pleasing and architecturally notable along a major functional and visual corridor. To create a financial core for the City of Huntington Beach. To provide visual relief and architectural interest to a predominantly strip commercial , garden office corridor. To encourage similar high quality development in the remaining area multistory node. To minimize and mitigate potential environmental impacts. To provide a revenue generator for the City of Huntington Beach. Development guildelines are outlined_ in the City of Huntington Beach -- Zoning Ordinance for highway commercial uses (Chapter 94) , . multistory districts (Chapter 93) and other applicable city codes and regulations. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposes a total of 562,208 gross square feet of building, consisting of the following: Twin-tower buildings of 16 stories and 261 ,504 gross square feet each; Two resturants of 10,000 gross square feet each; One 19,200 square-foot four-plex theater; and _ One helistop atop tower V . - 2-2 In addition, the following support structures are proposed: One 5-1/2-story parking structure with 1 ,814 parking stalls; and 79 outside parking stalls. Exhibit. 2-2, Site Plan, indicates the location and configuration of the ` elements of the project. As shown, tower #1 will be adjacent to Beach Boulevard, north of the property zoned highway commercial on Beach - Boulevard and southeast of tower #2 and restaurant P . Restaurant #2 is located adjacent to tower #1 . Both tower #2 and restaurant #1 are located _ adjacent to Warner Avenue. The 5-1/2-story parking structure is adjacent to the existing medium density residential development. The proposed helistop .will be constructed atop tower #1 . The uses anticipated for the towers include office and professional services such as accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, engineer., optometrist, physician, real estate sales, etc.l The restaurants (dinnerhouses) and movie theater will complete the range of services offered by the development. 2.4 PROJECT PHASING Construction activities are planned to begin in February 1982. The major portion of the project, (with the exception of tower #2) will be _. constructed in Phase I and is expected to have a 12-14 month duration. Completion of the project, therefore, can be expected in early 1983. Phase II will consist of the construction of tower #2, which will begin when tower #1 is fully occupied. 1 City of Huntington Beach, Zoning Code, Article 947, C4 Highway Commercial District. 2-3 _ vJ A,RNER, 34 W; 1 li ... I � � I l i ! I ! I I I I I I � I � !cES✓avN*• '� .--I ... N E"� I :ARKII.IG Ih'RJGTUKE - I �,=1,-v N0.2 IT._. -i lri �; I I - �111 LL II, II ado J, gUl_'JING v% 1)J J_L �I OFMCM TOWER No 2 201.504 oevfA eQ frTA P •�_ - \f-- F TOTAL 52+�D0A RE�UVjeNJ' �C,• IC:OXJ !�'1• YJ-'v'Y1TKuE I.1 !�.. _ l IlE6TAJ;ZANT NL.2. 10.007 6121" 54 L'2�TK.G ;. � . TpTAL zodt2" C'e- cy, 'TJ��4 1-=. Y29.,'R — OTICE 'o"rrJC ,D.1 241,200 reT 5m '��,N-C OFFICE SOWER a:0.2' ea1,200 •.:ET 52 fmTAOC ;, 4 _ I Lg . ,47�r;U �'ET Y7 fcrn/G6 PAR<IVG 4 'T.,GE Tan/E2 Nam+ OC4 -AR I,M0 :MACES OP'!IGE TOwEK NG 2 80h FARICINO 5QAG63 �- •�� QEYAua.WT �:G 1 142 R :iG 5!K-e5 R�7TAURAN'. ..:i.2 ,4� -ARK, G, 5;1-:.E5 TbTAL 1892 WIk I!w. SFACE9 �ec.av-. -g —1 PAIZKIN6 AGtiIEVc� P/`KiC+NG O'R IIG T7RF '+•:_-v.rw I614 5USPAGE 79 SOURCE: ACMA T 1AL IBRS FARC;VG 9(AC�-+ 11 14AI.101CAN}sD YAL' RECkM 0 65 130 195 Beach-Warner Commercial Complex , Mola De velopment Corporation EXHIBIT 2-2 S ti 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ._ 3.1 LAND USE The entire 10-acre study area is a former school site, sold recently as surplus by the Ocean View School District. The site is an .irregular shape with 475 feet fronting on Beach Boulevard, 815 feet on Warner Avenue, 335 +` feet on Ash Street, 425 feet on Sycamore Avenue and 280 feet on Elm Street.l Existing Land Uses Several boarded up structures, formerly school facilities of the Ocean View School District, are located on site. There are two existing, but currently unused, paved parking areas: one accesses onto Warner Avenue and the other accesses onto Beach Boulevard. Little League baseball diamonds - are situated on the western half of the site. The majority of the site is overgrown with weeds. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the existing land uses of the study area. Surrounding Land Uses Land uses adjacent to the study area are mixed (Exhibit 3-1 ) . At the northwest corner of the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue intersection are small individual commercial developments (Honda dealer, Tio Taco, future -- Conroy's florist). The area behind these commercial operations, and fronting Warner Avenue comprises a new 129-unit condominium project, Mill Stream condominiums. The northeast corner of the intersection is occupied by an older shopping complex, service station and liquor store. Behind this development are older single family homes along with a Southern California Edison substation. The southeast corner is occupied by a car wash fronting Beach Boulevard while the property behind it is residential , consisting of a mix of old and new single-family homes and new apartment complexes. Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element 80-2 , EIR 80-3, December, 1980. 3-1 /IIIIIf1/1111/ //1///////111//I/ ■� � � • - • • - - ■iiiii: 111111�11111111111111111 111111111�'llll �IIN111111111111 • • . • ::::�IIi A.11 1f111111/111/111 111 :� � _ ��11111:��IIIiwNIN1111111111111111 ...:::'1111:11NIa1111111111111111111 LI IIIIIIi1i�111i VINIi�1111111111111111 �.� ti • • i::::i�1111i:I�Ii�11111i�11111111/1111 - �- • , II11/11104111C 1110111111111f ,IIIIIII6,4111116 111111►4 N � • IIt1111111"1111 ,1"111111� C' • 41 A/11111/11�111/ 11/IA11� � • �gill nsite a d urr unding - . . pbr 1 t Immediately south of the site is a 14,700 .square-foot office complex. . Land uses along the surrounding residential streets (Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street, Elm Street and Cypress Avenue) consist of a mix of older single- family units and newer multi-family units; the only exception occurs at the corner of Warner and Sycamore where a dental office is located. An older single-family abandoned structure is located on Cypress Avenue. 3-2' 0 3.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS The following section of this EIR describes the relationship between the proposed project and the relevant planning programs of the City of - Huntington Beach. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Elements cited below have been found to be relevant to the proposed Beach-Warner Commercial Office Complex. The Scenic Highways Element and Housing Elements are not discussed, .as they do not apply to the proposed project. Land. Use Elementl and Zoning2 The Land Use Element provides a generalized picture of anticipated physi- cal development as well as criteria for making land use decisions. The Phase II Land Use Element, along with the other General Plan Elements of the City of Huntington Beach, looks into the future to 1990. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the study area as General Commer- cial in a Multi-Story Node (Exhibit 3-2) . Approved in December 1980, General Plan Amendment 80-2 proposed inclusion of the 10-acre study area within an 80-acre Multi-Story Node, centered at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard, while retaining the existing C-4 base zoning. The intent of the General Commercial designation is to provide land areas for the development of: convenience and neighborhood commercial developments; community shopping centers; regional shopping centers; highway-related commercial uses; and office professional uses. The study area is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial District) with a I Multi-Story (MS) Suffix classification (Exhibit 3-2) . 1 Huntington Beach General Plan, Land Use Element, December 1976. 2 Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, Division 9, July 6, 1965. 3-3 -I RI r C 4 RI RI -� I C2Mecp�-- . i l � ) iPR1ty r i :• -_'_:';J1 i C4 �ulI ki kI ` R1 { 1RI R1 I 1 l_ Jul . - I- ( C4 1 P16-V I R 1 y� _._ .__ _ r R N r `6 i. .' R2I °m r,41 ' CF-E i. _ I - ---.-7-`-- I 1 \2 II I Q-8,V,f-k' '10: R 2 f ) ' 1 -- — '—---WARNER —- ,e�' �_� Y . _ ., . _ AVENUE _. . .. I `II R2 3 R5 F2 � FIR DR vl AMSTERDAM R2 srcT-- C4+• R2 R2N N ..cr. Ir R2 „ R ! - - RI a A LOCK W 'I r`L col ZDR.� R I RI UH J J R 1 a .. I c F-R A 0 11� — ; .o R I o MARSEILLE I �' ` z R 1 I� P[C o DR ¢ z + a - w y R 2 R 2 I, R 1 m Y r 1{M I p — �� 7 To CF—E R3 1 ---- ��o C0 I `. R I _JI cI , (Cc:K VIEW 5:'.... -1 'I MAN LL DR KIs u I 1 I r MESLAND------ ------- .a M ( III` N —!`'. ,l I ' R3 R 3DR 'I R_I I� - C�L4!II I I `C4 3 I R-I R —l •�H?I_LANO - DR' r� 3 . RIR3 RI ; PDI I —. R I RI , Ri C4 3IR R5 IQI;0 R3 Jr LEGEND A NU __NOTE: General Plan Desig iInII .a tion is General Commercial R 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMMUNITY FACILITIES (RECREATIONAL) Multi—Story Node. YR2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE CF— + COMMUNITY FACILITIES (EDUCATIONAL) R3 LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C4 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL tR:5�_jOFFICE PROFESSIONAL M 1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 0 520 1040 1560 0.1C Ci�C H I, 1� ���� i=ill a� L " Zz/ rd,R W � v M Beach-WarnerCommercial Complex Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 3-2 t Y It is the purpose of the multistory suffix to establish areas wherein the • building height limit may be exceeded. Furthermore, the .MS suffix designation requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) prior to development. The goal of the multistory suffix zoning classification is to . allow and regulate multistory development in .a manner consistent with the General Plan and policies of the City.l The C-4 district is generally intended for land and structures to provide. hotels, motels, churches, and professional services, with convenient access along heavily traveled highway frontage. In addition, all uses permitted in a C-2 district (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) are allowed uses in the C-4 district, subject to approval of a use permit. A C-2 zone allows. theater and restaurant uses. Open Space and Conservation Element2 - This element focuses on the preservation of open space and the conservation of resources within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. Issues, goals, objectives and policies are outlined to provide basic guiding principles for future growth in open .-space and conservation resource areas. No scenic corridor, recreation area, resource preserve, neighborhood park, water area, resource production, or planned open spaced development, as designated by this Element, are within the study area. Noise El ement3 - The Noise Element of the City' s General Plan focuses on �- noise sources in Huntington Beach in the interest of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The study area is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise contour due to transportation noise generated from Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. These figures are within the optimum noise levels for an Office-Professional Land Use, which is 75 CNEL. 1 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Multi-Story/High-Rise Study, May 1973-October 1974. 2 Open Space and Conservation Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December . 3 City of Huntington Beach, Noise Element, Huntington Beach General -� Plan, December 1976. 3-4 r t The majority of the site is shown to lie outside the 70 CNEL noise. contour from existing surrounding roadways (as shown on the 1990 Ground Transporta- tion Noise Exposure Contours Map) . Circulation Elementl - The Circulation Element focuses on the City' s arterial streets and .highways, public transportation modes and services, water transportation, and air transportation. Circulation issues are discussed, goals and objectives are established, and a course of action is set. The City Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways shows both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue as major- arterials with a street capacity of 45,000 vehicles daily. Seismic - Safety Element2 - This Element represents a comprehensive effort _. by the City of Huntington Beach to reduce loss of life, injury, and damage to property resulting from natural and man-induced diasters. The Element sets forth goals, policies and objectives in order to prevent or mitigate the impact of hazards on community well-being. Additionally, the City Safety Element maps hazard potential with regard to geotechnical , flood and seismic considerations. The project site is characterized on these maps in the following manner: 1 . Geotechnic.al - The study area is shown as a Risk I area., which is characterized as relatively low geotechnical risk. Classification is based on the following considerations: fault rupture, noise, peat deposits, liquefaction potential , beach erosion, and tsunami hazard. 2. Flood - A major portion of the study area enters the expanse desig- nated as "special flood hazard areas" by the Safety Element, as a result of the Santa Ana River. 3. Seismic - The study area is not indicated in the Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone. Other Relevant Planning Programs 0 Southern California Association of Governments Growth Forecast Policy The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develops a 1 City of Huntington Beach, Circulation Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976. :- 2 City of tington Beach, Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976. 3-5 ti Growth Forecast Policy every two to four years as part of its Development Guide Program. Growth forecasts are made at the levels of counties, cities and regional statistical areas. Among the policies that influence the forecasts are 1) encouraginf growth on a regional scale to occur in a balanced manner within existing urban areas and in currently unurbanized areas; 2) encouraging growth on a subregional scale to take place in a concentrated, compact form; 3) balancing commercial , industrial , and -- t employment growth with the population of each subregion; and 4) preserving the region' s natural resources and phase development according to an area's ability to accommodate growth. The study area is located in Region- al Statistical Area (RSA) 38. Refer 'to Section 3.3, SOCIOECONOMICS, for a more detailed discussion of growth projections relevant to the study area. 3-6 r r .3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS Population and Dwelling Unit Projections The study area, located in the City of Huntington Beach, is contained in three different analysis areas: . 1 ) U.S. Census Tract 994.02, 2) Orange County Community Analysis Area (CAA) 33, and 3 ) SCAG Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 38. Census Tract 994.02, in central Huntington Beach, consists primarily of residential areas, parks and schools. In July 1.980, C.T. 994.02 had a population of 5,228, representing. 3.1% of the total city population of 170,505,1 and in January 1979, C.T. 994.02 had 1 ,694 dwelling units.2 Growth projections forecast by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are made at the RSA level ; County projections are made at the CAA level . SCAG and County projections are consistent with one another, the only difference is that a CAA analyzes one portion of an RSA. CAA 33 is one of seven CAAs which comprise RSA 38. Table 3-1 summarizes the population and dwel l'i ng unit projections for CAA 33, RSA 38, and the County as a whole. As indicated in Table 3-1 , CAA 33 and RSA 38 have a relatively lower growth rate than that of the County overall . Citywide growth projections are provided in Table 3-2. It should be noted that the annual growth rate for dwelling units is about double that of the annual growth rate for population. This is attributed to the anticipated demographic trend of declining household size. The many causes of this (i .e. , increased divorces, children moving away from home at an earlier age, senior citizens eschewing a room with their young to stay in a retirement community, etc.) creates a demand for additional homes to accommodate the same population. 1 "1980 Census Population Counts, County of Orange" , April 1981 . 2 Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center, "Report on the State of the County 1979-1980" April 1980. 3-7 t T . Table 3-1 GROWTH PROJECTIONSI FOR CAA 33 AND RSA 38 Population 1980-1989 i Simple Annual 1980 1982 1984 1989 Growth Rate CAA 33 69,656 71 ,975 71 ,995 . 74,315 .7% RSA 38 321 ,245 328,188 334,051 345,051 .8% J County Total 1 ,936,600 2,027,000 2,114,900 2,323,000 2.2% Dwelling Units CAA 33 23,050 24,144 25,002 26,737 1.8% RSA 38. 118,000 1232000 128,000 139,100 2.0% County Total 724,000 166,400 809,500 917,300 3.0% Table 3-2 GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH2 1981-1988 Simple 1981 1983 1988 Annual Growth Rate Population 1.73,662 181 ,230 194,147 1 .7% Dwelling Units 66,962, 60,731 80,223 2.8% The declining household density for RSA 38 is depicted by SCAG in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 PERSONS PER TOTAL DWELLING UNIT1 197.6 1980 1990 2000 RSA 38 2.83 2.65 2.43 2.42 County 2.76 2.64 2.45 2.46 1 SCAG, SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Policy, January 1979. City of Huntington Beach, Housing Element, November 1979. 3-8 t T„ There are signs, however, that ' the declining household size trend is reversing. It is expected that average household sizes will undergo a sharp increase as families and households are motivated to share their living quarters and living expenses, largely due to the high cost of housing and a scarcity in rental units. Housing Trends Over the last decade housing costs have increased to the point of becoming - a critical factor in the County's future growth. In 1971 , the median sales prices of a new home in the County overall was $31 ,000; in 1980, in the City of Huntington Beach, new condominiums were averaging $120,000 in sales price, and single family detached units were averaging $163,000 in sales price.l High housing costs, combined with a marked residual demand for housing in the affordable range, have greatly restricted the housing market for most moderate and lower income families (those earning $25,000 per annum and less) . Most hard hit are first-home buyers who, lacking equity from previous home ownership, can neither meet prevailing down payment require- S __ ments nor qualify for the outstanding mortgage values. Among. the responses to these changing trends has been an increase in the T proportion of personal income spent on housing. Until recently, the rule of thumb for homebuyers was that mortgage debt should not exceed 2.5 times annual household income and for renters, affordable rent was general- ly held to be 25% or less of personal income. Because of inflation, these _ objectives generally can no longer be met (particularly for first-time buyers) . Many banks now approve mortgage values at three times annual income; and renters are more often accepted on a 30% of monthly income basis. Equally important, guidelines for affordable housing often employ the .higher ratios in recognition of the fact that the cost of shelter has - increased, perhaps on a permanent basis. 1 First American Title Company, Residential Sales Survey, Orange County, Single Family Detached and Condominium ancPlanned Unit Developments, 1980. - 3-9 a n a t �• Huntington Beach Housing Element - The Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan attempts to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. In specific terms, the Element. inventories the issues which are central to the preparation of a Housing Element; identifies housing needs and problems; establishes goals and policies to guide City ~ officials in daily decision making; and sets forth an action program. Specific problems identified in Huntington Beach include: 1 . Twenty-five percent of all families in Huntington Beach are spending ti more than accepted norms for the housing. 2. Housing costs are increasing about twice as .fast as incomes and will continue to rise rapidly unless means are found to reduce costs. 3. The majority of new housing is designed to meet the needs of families with incomes above the median income level . 4. There is an immediate shortage of approximately. 5,500 housing units for low income families. 5. Huntington Beach faces large-scale renovation and replacement of housing units in the future unless adequate home maintenance . is _ • conducted. 6. New and used housing is not generally being provided for low income families. Employment Trends - Unemployment in Orange County, as shown in Table 3-4, dropped between 1978-1979 from 4.9 to 4.1 . Projected unemployment rates for 1980 and 1981 show an increase at 5.8 and 6.0. These rates are below the California average of 7.0 and 7.1 for 1980 and 1981 , respectively. Orange County supports a diverse economic base, including manufacturing, construction, finance, agriculture, real' estate, services and trade. The two largest occupational groups anticipated in the county for 1985 are 1 ) professional , technical and kindred occupations and 2) clerical workers at 19.24 and 17.7901 , respectively; the two smallest occupational groups for 1985 are farm workers at 0.6ro and, laborers at 3.3%. a 3-10 - r t Table 3-4 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT ORANGE COUNTY 1978-19811 • Item 1978 1979 1980 1981 Civilian Labor Force 1 ,006,600 1 ,063,400 1 ,123,000 1 ,115,800 Employment 953,700 1 ,019,300 1 ,058,000 1 ,048,800 _. Unemployment 48,900 44,100 65,000 67,000 Unemployment rate (p) 4.9 4.1 5.8 6.0 Table 3-5 presents the current labor supply in relationship to the demand for the various occupations in the County. Table 3-5 indicates that there is .a large demand for labor in the technical-related occupations which the current labor supply in Orange County is not fulfilling. Table 3-5 ORANGE COUNTY LABOR SUPPLY 1980-1981 Occupation Surplus Deficit Professional and Technical Engineers, Draftsmen, Technicians, Programmers X • Accountants X Clerical and Sales Secretary, Clerk-Typist, Bookkeeper II X Cashiers, Checker, Clerks, Receptionists-Sales X Waiters, Waitresses, Cooks, Security Guard X Teller, Bookkeeper I X Industrial _. Set-up Operators, Maintenance Mechanic X Electronics Assembler, Welder X Elec.trical .Appliances Servicers, Service Station Attendant X Truck Driver-Heavy, Automobile Body Repair X Truck Driver-Light X Sheet Metal Worker, Automobile Mechanic X 1 EDD, Annual Planning Information 1980-1981 , May 1980. 2 EDD, Annua P anning Information, Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA, - l980-T78T Tay1980. 3-11 e � --• Table 3-6 EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH # of # of # of # of Average Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Yearly a Yearly Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Change Change Wage-1977 1978 1979 1980 1985 '79-85 '79-85 Total-Orange County $11 ,780 757,400 811 ,800 838,600 967,000 155.,200 25,680 Total Hunt unavail . 36,454 39,072 40,341 45,870 6,798 1 ,133 Beach Agri- $ 7,857 1 ,136 1 ,218 1 ,258 1 ,160 -58 -10 culture Mining $21 ,151 350 375 387 299. -76 -13 Construction $16,608 764 818 825 952 +134 +22 ,rlanufacturing $14,100 8,698 9,323 9,631 11 ,317 +1 ,994 +332 Trade $ 8,802 11 ,026 11 ,818 12,208 14,301 +2,483 +414 Transportation/ Public Utilities $15,074 1 ,357 1 ,455 1 ,503 1 ,733 +278 +46 Financial/ Insurance/ 'Real Estate $11 ,977 1 ,650 1 ,768 1 ,827 2,138 +370 +62 Services $10,461 5,434 5,824 6,016 7,167 +1 ,343 +224 Government $11 ,900 6,039 6,473 6,686. 6,803 +330 +55 Wage Profile - Based on average wages the income levels for 1980 are shown in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 INCOME LEVELS IN 19802 % of Total Average Annual Occupation Employees 2 Income Range 3,4. Professionals 19.7 $18,500-22,000 Managers 12.2 15,700-20,100 Sales 10.6 11 ,400-16;600 Clerical 17.3 9,300-11 ,800 Drafts 12.0 14,400-18,100 . Operatives 11 .5 12,900-17,300 Service Workers 12.3 11 ,400-16,500 `- Laborers 3.4 10,500-12,600 1 City of Huntington Beach, Housing Element, November 1979. .2 Information for this table was erive from the State of California, Employment Development Department, Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation, 1980-1985, September and Orange County --• mp oyment eve opment Department, Labor Supply and Demand Orange Count , April/June 1980; Orange County Development Department, Wage and salary Study Orange County, May 1979. 3 Rounded to nearest 4 Means that one-quarter of employees earn less; one-quarter earn more. 3-12 3.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Greer and Company completed a traffic analysis for the proposed • development in May 1981 . The traffic report has been summarized below and — is . attached as Appendix G1 to this EIR. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the existing circulation of the study area. Existing Street System While other major streets provide several alternative routes to the site, only Beach Boulevard and garner Avenue provide direct and convenient - .access to the San Diego Freeway (see Exhibit 2-1 , Site Vicinity) . This freeway access is significant to the project since the majority of the _ office complex tenants and employees will likely reside sufficiently far enough from the site to make freeway use convenient, it not necessary. Beach Boulevard. Beach Boulevard (S.R. 39) in the study area is a six-lane arterial street with a raised median that provides for side-street cross traffic and entry onto the roadway, _ and protected left-turn pockets. Beach Boulevard is not currently fully improved with - curbs and gutters adjacent to the project site; however, it consistently maintains three through lanes of traffic in each direction. In the north- bound Beach Boulevard approach to Warner Avenue the curb lane is designated as a right-turn-only lane. There is no comparable right-turn- only lane southbound. Warner Avenue. Westerly of Beach Boulevard to Golden West Street, Warner Avenue is a four-lane arterial with two lanes in each direction. Several short sections of Warner Avenue within the study area are fully improved .with the curb setback to the ultimate location due, in part, to street improvements by recent non-contiguous development. Easterly of Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue is widened to its full' width and improved with a concrete barrier median.. 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of -- Huntington Beach Planning Department. • 3-13 Ash Street, Sycamore Street, Elm Street and Cypress Street. These local streets in an older residential area are adjacent to the westerly and southwesterly side of the proposed development site. None of the streets is currently constructed . to modern residential street standards; roadways are .generally narrow, lack curb, gutter and sidewalk and are generally u uncontr.olIed. The land _uses fronting on these streets are varied residential , being small and older single-family residences, duplexes, and multifamily structures on a small scale. Ash Street is controlled by a stop sign at Warner Avenue. Intersection analyses were conducted for. the three designed study inter- sections: Beach Boulevard at Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, and Warner Avenue at Magnolia Street. The analyses indicate that one intersection, Beach and Edinger, is currently operating at a Level of - Service (LOS) "C", an acceptable level of operation. However the re- maining two intersections are currently operating in the lower ranges of -- LOS "E" having just exceeded the Level "D" cutoff value of 1 ,450 by values of 1 ,4.70 for Warner at Magnolia and 1.,500 for Beach at Warner. The opera- tion of the Beach/Warner and Warner/Magnolia intersections have reached generally unacceptable levels, of congestion and delay under existing tr,af.f.ic volumes and geometric conditions. Even before project traffic is added to. the intersections for analysis, these. two intersections are indicated as having reached the limiting capacity of the intersection and in need• of physical and/or operational improvements to improve their current level of operation. Air Tra.n.sportati.on The purpose of this discussion is to identify the regulatory agencies and site conditions relating to approval of a helistopl facility. The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for making an airspace evaluation (Form 7480-1 ) . The County Airport Land Use Commission reviews and takes action on the approval while the City Council is, responsible for approval of the helistop facility. The state Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics licenses the heliport through a Heliport Permit after review and consideration of the FAA and local agency actions. 3-14 t , As noted in Section 3.1 , the study area is in a urbanized setting, surrounded by residential and commercial uses. Aside of utility lines, there are no prominent structural or topographic obstructions. Wind direction is onshore, from the southwest. During the morning hours the winds are light and variable. By late morning the winds are well _ developed with wind speeds generally within the 3 to 10 mph range. 3-15 3.5 AIR QUALITY The general air quality of the South Coast Air Basin, in which the project site is located, is determined both by the primary pollutants added .daily to the air mass and by the secondary pollutants already present. Secon- dary pollutants, specifically oxidants (ozone) , represent the major air quality problem basinwide. The air quality of the project site is deter- mined by the primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the specific meteorological factors which influ- ence the site. �- Climate And Meteorology Air quality in the vicinity of the study area benefits from the site' s topographic orientation and localized meteorological conditions arising from the area' s proximity to the coastline. Winds with .5-10 mph veloci- ties flow offshore during the nighttime hours and are replaced by onshore �• breezes of the same magnitude by 10 a.m. Summer. months usually include a northwesterly and southeasterly flow pattern superimposed upon the daily sea breeze. The climate in the vicinity of the project site is of the Mediterranean type (mild summers and winters) with mean winter temperatures ranging from 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Freezing temperature occur infrequently along the coast. Ocean influence dominates ambient wind and temperature conditions . at the site. Exposure to Major Point Sources The ambient air quality of an area is partially determined by its exposure to major sources of air pollutants such as freeways, power plants, or indusstrial sources. Stationary sources and mobile sources within a site as well as in the general vicinity can also contribute to local pollutant concentrations. Major point sources are defined as those sources from which a minimum of 100 tons per year of primary and secondary air pollu- tants are generated. 3-16 The Southern California Edison fossil fuel power plant in Huntington Beach is a major point source of air pollution, located approximately 5 miles southeast of the site. The plant emits the following: 4,151 tons/year of • nitrogen oxides, 4,944 tons/year of sulfur oxides, 341 .tons/year of carbon monoxide, 667 tons/year of particulates, and 255 tons/year of organic gases. The project site is also exposed to primary air pollutants emitted by traffic on Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Ambient Air Quality — Ambient air -quality is described in terms relative to compliance with state and federal standards which have been adoped to protect public health with a margin of safety (see Appendix F1 ) . ' In addition to ambient standards, California has adoped episode criteria for oxidant, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. Air pollution levels exceeding the episode criteria represent short-term exposures at which public health is actually threatened. Ambient air quality is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management District at a series of stations established throughout the South Coast _ Air Basin. The two stations closest to the study area are located in Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa, both inland of the site.2 Although the air quality data .is incomplete and the 1980 data is not yet available, known trends in ambient air quality are summarized below. Sulfur dioxide levels have not exceeded state standards at the two stations, but all other major pollutant levels have. Of all the pollutants, suspended and lead particulates exceed the state standards most often and by the widest margin, followed by oxidants. In 1978, episode levels for oxidant were reached on three (3) days at Costa Mesa and five (5) days at Los Alamitos. Sulfur Dioxide - State and Federal sulfur dioxide standards- were not exceeded at either station during 1975-1979. 1 Copies of the Appendix are available at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 2 For security reasons, the AQMD requests that the air monitoring , stations be located generally. 3-17 L -. Carbon Monoxide - Only the Costa Mesa station monitored CO levels. Between 1975-1979 the state standard of 40 ppm for a one-hour averaging period was exceeded 24 of. the days monitored. The federal standard was not exceeded. Nitrogen Dioxide - Nitrogen dioxide standards were exceeded less than to of the sampling periods during 1975-1979 at the Costa Mesa station. The highest measurement exceeded the state standard by one and one-half times. The federal standard was also exceeded. Nitrogen dioxide levels were not monitored at Los Alamitos. Oxidants - Oxidant is one of the most serious air pollution problems in the area. A significant but unknown proportion of local oxidants can be traced to intrusion from other parts of the South Coast Air Basin. The state oxidant standard was exceeded 16% of the days monitored at the Los Alamitos station, while at Costa Mesa the state standard was exceeded 8% of the days monitored. Both stations also exceeded the federal standards. _• Suspended Particulates - The Costa Mesa station met the federal primary standard for suspended particulates, but exceeded the California standard 38% of the sampling periods. The Los Alamitos station failed to meet both - the state and federal standards. The highest reading was three (3) times greater than the state standard of 100 ug/3. Lead Particulates - Lead is introduced into the air through motor vehicle - emissions. Increasing technology is expected to reduce airborne lead particulates in the future. During the 1975-1979 period, the Costa Mesa station exceeded the state standard 34% of the sampling periods, while Los Alamitos exceeded the standard 35% of the time. The highest levels recorded were approximately four times greater than the state standard. 3-18 3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT w The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use. compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) . — CNEL is a 24-hour, time weighted annual average noise level . A weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighted refers to the fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is — penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime ( 10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect a person' s sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. The City of Huntington Beach Noise Element of the General Plan identifies - compatibility of land uses and CNEL noise levels. Noise levels of less than 75 CNEL are considered compatible with office-professional uses while noise levels of less than 60 CNEL are considered compatible with residential and institutional uses. a The study area is exposed to an acoustic environment typical of highly urbanized areas. Surrounding land uses and motor vehicles utilizing - Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard impact the site acoustically. Using the Federal Highway Administration noise modell the existing traffic volumes on Warner Avenue produce a 72.41 CNEL .contour fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Traffic volumes, on. Beach Boulevard produce an almost identical noise contour, a 75.01 CNEL, fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Both measurements were based on existing traffic volumes (29,000 average daily trips on Warner Avenue 53,000 average daily trips on Beach Boulevard) . l U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration-, FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model , FHWA-RD-77-108 December T - - 3-19 s � "• 3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Each of the applicable public services and utilities listed below has been contacted and asked to provide input as to the potential impacts of this project on service operations. Agency responses are included in this report as Appendix H on file with the City of Huntington Beach, and are summarized individually below. 3.7.1 Environmental Conditions Fire Servicel The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department provides fire and rescue protection to the study area . in conjunction with the cities of Fountain Valley, Westminster and Seal Beach. The existing facilities serving the project vicinity are depicted in the following table. Table 3-8 EXISTING FIRE-FIGHTING FACILITIES Facility Equipment Manpower Murdy Station 1 snorkel truck 9 on duty Near Gothard, 1 engine company less than 1/2-mile 1 paramedic unit from the project -� Gothard Station 2 engine companies 1 battalion chief Near. Talbert and and 7 on duty Gothard, less than 2-1/2 miles from the project - Both stations represent a better than average response time to the site. A response time of three and one-half minutes would be expected. Additional men and equipment, if needed, would come from Fountain Valley I and Huntington Beach Heil Station. Response from those additional 1 See Correspondence, Appendix H . Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 3=20 facilities -would be approximately two to three minutes later and net approximately eleven additional men. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) , a bureau which establishes insurance - rates for residential , commercial and industrial areas, has designated a classification of III for the study area. ISO classifications range from 0 ( low risk) to X (high risk) depending on the. type and construction of the building, the adequacy of the water distribution system, the installa- tion of fire hydrants and the number of fire stations serving the area. In case of emergencies, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department would - utilize Seals Ambulance Service and the victim would be transported to Huntington Intercommunity Hospital , which is 1-1/2 miles south . of the project site. If the injury or illness required the services of a trauma center, transportation would be to the Fountain Valley .Hospital approxi- mately three miles to the east. Police Servicel The Huntington Beach Police Department operates from a central police 9 P P facility located at Main street and Yorktown Avenue, approximately three miles north of the project site. Police units are deployed from in-field _ patrol areas. Emergency response time throughout the city is 3-4 minutes or less. At the present time there are 193 sworn officers allotted to the Hunting- ton Beach Police Department with 134 assigned to the Uniform Division. There are 45 police vehicles and three helicopters currently in service. The proposed development is located within Reporting District 272; bordered by Warner to the north, Slater to the south, Beach Boulevard to the east, and the railroad tracks to .the west. In calendar year 1980 there were 1 ,424 calls for service within the district, with 1 ,064 of the total calls being primarily traffic-related incidences. 1 See Correspondence, Appendix H. Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 3-21 t ` The police department has a current objective of providing approximately .1 .15 officers per 1 ,000 persons. . Water Service The study area is within the service area of the City of Huntington Beach. Existing water distribution mains surround the study area. There is an existing 21-inch county feeder main along Warner Avenue.. However, there is presently only one eight-inch main off the feeder to service the area - of concern and a portion of Beach Boulevard. The whole area is- in need of general upgrading and is presently adequate for domestic. use only.l Wastewater Service The study area is serviced by the City of Huntington Beach in conjunction with Orange County Sanitation Districts #11 . Wastewater generated by the ~ study area is transported and serviced by an. existing 69-inch county main located along "Warner Avenue.2 �i Solid .Waste Generation _ Solid waste generated within the study area is collected by the Rainbow Disposal Company, a private company under contract to the city.3 Solid waste generated in the area is taken to the County transfer station in the City of Huntington Beach, where it is then transported to the Class II Coyote Canyon landfill . Coyote Canyon will have sufficient capacity until 1983, at which time the approved Bee Canyon landfill site (located .in the Santa Ana Mountains north of E1 Toro Marine Base) will be brought into use. , 1 Ibid. 2 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element. 80-2 , EIR 80-3 , December 1980. 3 Telephone transmittal with Don Kaiser, Division Engineer, City of Huntington Beach, May 12, 1981 . 3-22 Telephone Service General Telephone Company provides service to the study area. Presently, existing aerial facilities border the study area on Beach Boulevard and - -Warner Avenue. Energy - Natural gas will be provided to the site by the Southern California Gas . Company. An existing 6-inch main is located beneath Warner Avenue and a 4-inch main extends on Beach Boulevard. Additionally, 2-inch mains extend in Sycamore Street, Ash Street, Elm Street and Cypress Street bordering the study area. Two mains enter the study area: one 3/4 inches, the other 1/2-inch. At one time the pipes provided service to the former school - facilities. Electrical service to the study area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company. Presently, an overhead 12kv electrical line _ runs along Warner Avenue with a break-off into the study ar.ea.1 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980.' 3-23 r �=• 3.8 - AESTHETICS The study area is located in a highly urbanized environment where most of r. the surrounding area has been developed for strip commercial and residen- tial uses. Due to the , presently developed nature of the study area and the lack of open space within and surrounding the site, a discussion of natural conditions would not be relevant. Therefore, an assessment or analysis of the aesthetic quality of the area must focus upon the built or man-made environment of the surrounding land uses and the proposed project, focusing on the visual compatability between the various land uses within and surrounding the study area. The analysis of the existing aesthetic conditions has been organized to include a discussion of the study area and a discussion of surrounding land uses. Photographs depicting the site are provided in Exhibits 3-3 and 3-4. Study Area 6..� Located at the southwest corner of the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue inter- section in the City of Huntington Beach, the 10-acre study area contains abandoned Ocean View School District facilities (baseball diamonds, boarded up school buildings, paved parking areas, etc.) . The site has the appearance of a weed-invaded, vacant lot that presents a contrast to the developed commercial uses along Beach Boulevard. ., Surrounding Land Uses 'The predominant, surrounding commercial land use is characteristic of strip, garden office (no higher than 3 stories) commercial . The trans- ition between the commercial and residential uses along Beach Boulevard is abrupt, with minimal landscaping for screening. The residential . uses immediately adjacent to the site (south and west) are deteriorated and unkempt, a direct contrast to the new condominium development, north of the study area and adjacent to Warner Avenue. Vegetation surrounding the study area consists of limited landscaped areas, the planting of trees, shrubbery and groundcover within parking lots, landscaped residential yards and apartment courtyards. 3-24 IIIIIr11111111 11111111/11111111 ■e � � 111111111 fill 1�11111111111111111 ■m r11111111 fill 1111111111111111 �IIIIIII frl ' :m II/IH111/1/111111111 11111i11r1�1111H111/iil/Illtlll111111 .� 111111111If1if111/11t11tit11tt111it1t1 111111 111 111 1N1111111111/11111111 111110 rltililltl�flt�H1 ililiti1if11f111ifi �� i11111111t11111 1 1/11111111111 • 111111111111111 111111111111 �� �_ Illllllllltilll 11111111 �� � � . loll . 44"PI 111111Iff11111t t11t1111 f1111111111111� 11/11�1� �� • o ndex - i � ! U • S. 1A , ..:: �•�r- � i '� I�p 's''•—�r .�•: ,� �%1`S? ._� :.f•��::;:•��, _sit `� �c-�.:: - gi- »ti Q To _ :1• - a - y F n �e } a r. 1 •� 2 3 I t _ _ r Beach-Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 3-4 F w immediately adjacent to the site (south and west) are deteriorated and unkempt, a direct contrast to the new condominium development, north of the study area and adjacent to Warner Avenue. Vegetation surrounding the study area consists of limited landscaped areas, the planting of trees, shrubbery and groundcover 'within parking lots, -landscaped residential yards and apartment courtyards. r J 0-n Lti . — i 3-25 ' 4 r 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 LAND USE Environmental Impacts The proposed project would remove existing abandoned Ocean .View School District school buildings and replace them with twin 16-story towers, 232 w feet in height, a parking structure, 35 feet in height, two restaurants, and a four-plex theater. The 'visual quality of the site will be altered from that of a weedy lot with abandoned structures to an urban form that will establish high visibility and definition to the skyline from _.. surrounding areas. The proposed development will alter the aesthetic quality of the site from that of its present state. (Refer to Section 3.8 AESTHETICS for a detailed description) . Short-term and long-term impacts will be created by .the proposed project. Short-Term Impacts i w- Short-term impacts relate primarily to construction activities: Temporary disruption of pedestrian circulation; Temporary disruption of- vehicular traffic during road , improvements; Elevated air pollutant levels from increased dust and construction vehicle- exhaust; Noise impacts from demolition of the existing buildings, and the transportation of materials and equipment to and from the site; :r and Public safety impacts due to interest in the construction site. Each of these impacts is discussed in the relevant section of this EIR. The project is considered to be consistent with, and complementary to, the primary commercial/retail orientation characteristics of Beach Boulevard. The project will increase utilization of the study area with the increased 4-1 1 ! ' o intensity and diversity of urban land uses. Such increased utilization will result in a variety of impacts which are discussed in individual sections of this report. In particular, the reader is referred to the following report sections for further detail : _ 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Long-Term Impacts Long-term impacts relate to the completed and occupied project. The impacts will be typical of those presently resulting from the urban nature r of the surrounding land uses; . however, the intensities will be incrementally increased. . Principal impacts relate to: Incremental increases in vehicular traffic and resultant increases in air .emissions and noise (Section 4.4); Periodic increases in the noise level du- to the heliport (Section 4.4); Building shadows cast by the towers; Blockage of the prevailing breezes by the towers; Antennae interruption by the towers and possibly during the landing and takeoff of the helicopter; Public safety at night for patrons of the theater and restaurants; and Building security in .general . Again, the air, noise and traffic impacts are thoroughly discussed in the sections noted. The proposed development will create its greatest level of impact during morning and evening rush-hour periods. These are the times when existing impacts to traffic, noise and air quality are the greatest. The project will , therefore, intensify existing conditions during peak use periods. The impacts of the proposed four-plex theater I 4-2 and restaurants, generated during afternoons (matinees) and evening hours r (especially on the weekends) , will also contribute incrementally to heighr.,ened,,„.fioise and pollution levels, but are not anticipated to be significant. Residents of the surrounding community will experience greater traffic volumes on arterial roadways, decreasing vehicular accessibility. _ As shown in Exhibit 4-1 , the shadows cast by the towers will generally fall east onto Beach Boulevard and north and northwest onto. Warner Avenue. Of the four days illustrated, June 22, March 22, September 22 and December 22, at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. , the longest shadow is December 22, usually the shortest day of the year. Uses impacted_ by the building shadows are the commercial along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. w Since prevailing breezes are from the southwest, some wind blockage will occur; however, it is a localized effect and the towers are spaced at least 40 feet apart and diagonally opposite each other allowing wind flow between towers. The height of the towers as .well as the helicopter operation may affect antennae reception in the surrounding residential areas. Public :safety impacts relate to patrons during the evening hours at the theater and restaurants. As well , the change in land use will increase the number of persons in the neighborhood who do not necessarily live there. Surrounding residential uses bordering Ash Street, Sycamore Street, Elm w Street and Cypress Avenue , will be the most susceptible to potential impacts. from the proposed development. Adequate setbacks, use of land- scaping, etc., is suggested to mitigate partially the incongruence between that of the ,proposed development and residential uses. Furthermore, a majority of the residential development surrounding the study area is zoned by the City as "R2 District." This district, in addition to providing for areas of medium density and multiple family residential - developments, is intended as a transition area between residential and non-residential uses. r 4-3 I DEC.22 1°cM - rITT 41 ., .. ' I I ,• _ I, MF4LNt Sept.22 ..Tj f, r .... _ _ HNC 12 ar 2 01 JUIM 22 9AM PM 49' - 12 NOCwI w V./O'M. M-AI-Z 9AM#SPM 35'V/5-j'H 12 NON V5'V/SH - M SCP�T44'V.M 4 5PAN 35,V/5 12.NOo1J 55'V/eH - Dac.22 9AM43Pan to V14%b'H _ - 12NOON !beV/o'H w 162110' y SOURCE: ACMA • - uMd"flg shQ155)(dows Beach-Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 4-1 r c t I ` A change in the visual milieu can also be expected upon implementation of the project (refer to Section 4.8, AESTHETICS for a detailed discussion) . _ The proposed 16-story twin towers will be highly visible from much of the surrounding land area providing relief from the strip commercial character of Beach Boulevard and perhaps provide impetus for the upgrading of the surrounding area. Beneficial impacts to surrounding land uses include the potential for additional economic stimulation resulting from an increased number of businesses and employees in the vicinity (see Section 4.3, SOCIOECONOMICS) . .- 4.1 .2 Mitigation Measures �- Mitigation measures designed to reduce the level of impacts on the proposed development are contained in relevant sections throughout this report. Specifically, a number of mitigation measures are contained in . Secti_on 4_.4 (TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION) and 4.5 (AIR QUALITY). which, when applied, will work to. maintain an adequate level of traffic flow and ease traffic congestion in and around the study area. The mass of the towers is an unavoidable adverse impact, visually; how- ever, with proper landscaping, a responsive public relations program and .. the following measures, the impacts can be partially mitigated: 1 . Avoid as much as possible a.m. and p.m. peak hours during road improvements and construction equipment and materials transport. 2. Light the parking structure and buildings properly for building and public safety. 3. Use feasible means to mitigate' antennae disruption as much as possible. 4. Notify future tenants of the restaurant and theater that they are surrounded by residential development. r 5. Secure the` site during the construction period so that unauthor- ized personnel cannot enter the premises. .... 6. Apply these same measures during construction of tower #2. 4-4 4.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS 4.2.1 Environmental Impacts Land Use Element and Zoning - The proposed project is consistent with the general plan designation for general commercial uses in a multistory node and the zoning of C-4 (Highway Commercial District) . The multistory (MS) suffix will facilitate the development of the proposed twin 16-story tow- ers. However, approval of a 'conditional use permit (CUP) is required by the MS suffix when exceeding the base zoning' s maximum height (35 feet as indicated in the C-4 zoning district) . Although approval of a use permit �- to allow C-2 zone uses (restaurant and theater) in a C-4 district is usually required, the CUP in . this instance will cover all three actions. The site plan has been designed and engineered in accordance with all . the setback standards noted both in the C-4 and MS suffix zoning classifica- tions. Open Space and Conservation Element - The project conforms with policies and plans set forth in the Open Space Element. The project will not impact any trailway, corridors or parks. Noise Element - The major source of noise in the study area is that which r'n results from traffic on the bordering g streets of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The Noise Element indicates consistency of General Commer- cial uses up to .an 80 CNEL and up to a 75 CNEL for office-professional _. uses. Therefore, the proposed project is considered an appropriate use within these noise level areas and significant impacts are not antici- pated. (Refer to Section 4.6, ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT, for a more detailed description of the environmental impacts). Circulation Element - Impacts are not anticipated to this Element as road- way. designations are not proposed to be changed. However,' street access and intersection improvements to Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue have been recommended in the traffic report prepared in conjunction with this project. The reader is referred to Section 4.4 for a discussion concerning impacts and mitigation measures to Transportation/Circulation and the traffic report prepared by Greer & Company contained in Appendix E. Copies of the traffic report area available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. — 4-5 • Seismic-Safety Element - Development of the site will increase surface runoff to the site. Present surface flow is accommodated by an existing 48-inch line along Warner Avenue. The system' will be adequate for the applicant' s ultimate development proposal .l Other Relevant Planning Programs - SCAG-Growth Forecast The proposed project will not directly create permanent population growth since residential uses are not proposed. However, the project will create substantial demand for employment which will., in part, be drawn from outside the local market. Inasmuch as estimated employment is within SCAG employment projections for RSA 38, this impact is not considered .adverse. y- 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures W Land Use 'Element and Zoning Ordinance - Approval of the project will require a conditional use permit for the development. Open Space Element - No mitigation measures are proposed. Noise. -Element - If subsequently determined necessary, noise attenuation measures will be implemented according to City of Huntington Beach ,r guidelines. (Refer to Section 4.6 for a detailed discussion of relevant mitigation measures) . W Circulation Element - No mitigation measures are proposed other than those improvements which are recommended in Section 4.4.2 (TRANSPORTATION/CIR- `" CULATION) which, if implemented, will improve vehicular circulation in the , vicinity of the project site. w Seismic Safety Element - 1 . All structures will be designed in accordance with City of Huntington Beach building codes to ensure safety in the event of an earthquake. 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 4-6 2. A properly designed storm drain system will reduce the potential. impacts of increased onsitp runoff volumes. 3. The Crandall foundation report findings will be incorporated in- to project design, however, the scope of the investigation did not include geologic and seismic studies or detailed site response studies. Detailed geotechnical seismic studies and site response studies should be conducted concurrent with development of pre- liminary design layouts and grading plans. Other Relevant Planning Programs Southern California Association of Governments Growth Forecast Policy Since the proposed project is consistent with projects supplied in the SCAG employment forecast. No mitigation measures are proposed. 4-7 4_.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.3.1 Environmental Impacts The proposed project does not incorporate residential units. As a result, direct impacts will be limited to employment -and revenues resulting from the businesses and services provided. Impacts on Employment and Income The project will create demand for new goods and services (i .e., furnish- ings, equipment, maintenance, etc. ) ; the project will also induce growth as the wages spent by new employees create job opportunities, and in turn additional monies are generated. This latter effect, known as the economic multiplier, is the basic fuel of growth. Direct employment opportunities to be created by the project _include initial construction activity, and subsequent full-time employees of the office/commercial complex. Table 4-1 provides a summary of 'the anticipated labor opportunities. Table 4-1 - FORECAST DIRECT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES Short-Term Construction Labor: 732 732 man-years over two years (i .e., 244-366 men/year) Long-Term Office/Commercial Complex: 2,152 Officel - 2,092 Restaurants2 - 60 Estimates of potential annual salaries for future employees of .the propos- ed project, both short-term and long-term, are delineated in Table 4-2. 1 Assumes 523,008 square feet and 4 employees/1 ,000 square feet. •. 2 Assumes 20,000 square feet and 3 employees/1 ,000 square feet. 4-8 t s Table 4-2 FORECAST ANNUAL WAGE PROFILE Short-Term Construction Income: 732 man-years at 17,634 per man per year divided by two years = 6,355,224 per yearl Long-Term Employment: Managers/Professional/Technical : $18,000-22,000 Restaurant Support Staff: $6,968 As, indicated, the project will generate 732 man-years of construction work and 2,152 full-time new employment opportunities thereafter. The steady -- increase in professional , managers, clerical employment2 suggests these positions will be filled by a combination of employees drawn from the - local labor pool as well as new residents drawn from other labor markets. Projected Housing Opportunities Housing affordability is based primarily on household income, and previous equity. gains. For future employees of the office/commercial. complex, neither factor can be projected directly. However, due to secondary -� household employment, household income averages higher than personal income. . Recent sources indicate spousal employment upwards of 45%, with _ secondary incomes averaging 25% of primary income.3 The Environmental Management Agency has indicated that as of April 1981 the median household income level in Orange County was $25,000.4 This is substantially higher ($18,032) than the estimated $6,968 personal income of future restaurant employees, and $3,000-$7,000 higher than that 1 Orange County Progress Report 1979-80, Vol . 16. 2 EDO, Annual Planning Information 1980-1981 , indicates that all three of these occupations are expected to expand in 1981 . 3 Architectural Record, "Housing and Community Design for Changing ami y Needs c o er 1979. 4 EMA, Housing Affordability Table, April 1981 . • 4-9 :J r of the professional related occupations. For purposes of this analysis, iit is assumed that the majority of future household incomes will be equivalent to 80% or less of the countywide median ($20,000). Current rules of thumb for housing affordability use a 3.0 multiplier to annual, household income- as the basis for determining .mortgage eligibility; for rental units, 30% of monthly income is normally employed. Assuming a median income of $20,000, future employees will seek housing within a cost range _of no more than $60,000 (purchase) and $555/month (rental ) . These values are comparatively low in relation to housing costs within the Orange County market. Housing costs have been increasing at a steady rate -- for the last decade, and the current median listing price for a single family dwelling is $113,000; homes under $90,000 are becoming increasingly di.fficult to find.l Despite the overall high cost of housing, however, there is considerable variation in housing costs on a local level . As mentioned previously new condominiums and single family detached dwellings in Huntington Beach are averaging $120,000 to $163,000 in. sales price; however, resale housing is considerably lower, ranging from $69,543 to $119,672 with an average of $95,150.2 Since Huntington Beach offers a proportionally greater number of affordable housing opportunities, the impact of the project will be somewhat lessened to the extent that new employees drawn from outside locations must seek new housing. Cost/Revenues ` As part of the environmental documentation completed for Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, which included the proposed project, a cost/revenue analysis was completed. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4-3. 1 Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center, 1979-1980 Report on the State of the County, April 1980. 2 City of Hu ngton Beach, Housing Element, November 1979. 4-10 + v Table 4-3 TEN-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE COMPLEXI (In thousand dollars) Cash Flow Basis Commercial (office) Revenue 1 ,046.6 �- Cost 1 ,025.7 Revenue/Cost 20.9 Revenue/Cost 1 .02 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures The potential lack of affordable housing represents the only significant adverse impact. Mitigation measures designed to offset this problem have been addressed with increasing emphasis at both the state and local levels. Y The State Housing Element Guidelines require each city and county to prepare . a Housing Element which identifies housing deficiencies (existing and projected) and also outlines methods whereby .such deficiencies are and will be addressed. The five policy areas include preservation of housing and neighborhoods, standards and .plans for adequate housing sites, ade- quate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, preservation of affordable housing, and provision of accessible housing. The City of Huntington -Beach has recently adopted a Housing Element which outlines a number of existing programs and programs which are in the -- process of being implemented with the purpose of achieving those policies set. up by the state. As the City is actively pursuing ways and means to provide affordable housing within its jurisdiction, no other mitigation measures are offered. 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, adopted December 1980. 4-11 C t . ». 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULAT-ION Impact analysis of the circulation system is based on the determination of project-generated traffic, its distribution on the surrounding street network and the resulting intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analy- sis. For this project, the City of Huntington Beach traffic engineering staff identified three signalized intersections for analysis: Beach 4Y Boulevard at Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, and Warner Avenue at Magnolia Street. Air transportation impact analysis was directed at an. acoustic analysis. of the helicopter. 4.4.1 Environmental Impacts Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation rates assembled by the Institute of Transportation • Engineers, Caltrans, Orange County EMA, Greer & Company, and others were used to develop projections for the total number of future trips . to be generated by the proposed project uses. Table 4-4 indicates the trip generation rates, and trips generated by land use. The proposed project would generate 91,800 daily weekday trips. Table 4-4 PROJECT TRIP GENERATIONI Generation Rate Trips -r Floor Area P.M. Peakour P .M.- Peac our Use in sq. ft. Daily In , Out 7757 Daily In Out Total General. Office. 523,008 12.3 . 0.27 1 .36 1 .63 6,435 140 710 850 Restaurants 20,000 56.3 2.77 1 .69 4,46 1 ,125 55 35 90 Theater 1 ,748 seats - - - - 2,240 - - (2) Total 9,800 195 745 940 1 - Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Greer & Co., Engineers • and Planners (2) The theater use period is, assumed to occur later than the typical 4 - 6 p.m. peak period and therefore not coincidental with the project p.m. peak hour used in the intersection analyses. 4-12 0 Exhibit 4-2 identifies the estimated distribution pattern of project-gen- erated traffic. Beach Boulevard north of Warner Avenue and Warner Avenue east of Beach Boulevard will receive major portions of the project-genera- ted traffic, 30% . (2,940 ADT) and 35% (3,430 ADT) , respectively. This will occur .pr.imarily because of the study area' s proximity and traffic orienta- tion to the San . Diego Freeway. In addition, proposed site access favors �- .the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue orientation. In general , project-generated traffic will be split 50-50 for distribution on Beach and Warner; both will carry approximately 4,900 trips per day as a result of the project. Exhibit 4-2. also indicates the estimated distri- bution of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic to site access points. As shown, the Ash Street access points will be the most heavily used, 65% of -r the project-generated traffic in the a.m. peak hour and 50% in the p.m. peak hour. This estimate of site access , is predicated on physical constraints such as the barrier median in Beach Boulevard and a future barrier median in Warner Avenue, in accordance with City street design r standards. Intersection Analyses The project traffic was assigned to the three study intersections in accordance with the estimated distribution patterns: Beach Boulevard at Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, and Warner Avenue at Magnolia Street. Assigned project traffic and total . traffic (existing plus project traffic) is presented in Exhibit 6 and Table 4 in Appendix D 9 for each of the study intersection approaches.) Exhibit 4-2 indicates the level of service for the most immediate of the three intersections, Beach Boulevard .at Warner Avenue. As shown, the intersection presently operates at Level of Service E and will drop to Level of Service F in the p.m. peak hour with the existing plus project-generated traffic. P.M. peak period traffic assigned to the three study intersections has the most severe impact on the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue intersection. This intersection, being immediately adjacent to the proposed development, 1 All critical movements analysis worksheets are contained within Appendix D of the Traffic Report. Copies are available for review at i the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-13 rr • • r r • • • • - kvjloi 11111111111111111111111111111111 �� ■ ■ 11111111111111111111111111111111 ■�_ ■ � 11111111/ 1111111111111111111111 11111111 1111111111111111111111 111 /111111111lIIIHH1111111111111111111 am ■ 111111111t11111N111111111111111111111 ■_ � � IIIIIIIIIIIIti IIM1111111111111111111 _ am 01111111111 111111l1111111�11111111111111111111111 am MM if1t11111fI111f If11t1111flflli H_ 111111111111111 111111111111 WON 111s am_ i _ 11111111111l111 1l111 " M . Iflllllllllllll 11111111 .111111111111�� leg it r � ■■■■■■■■ t: ■ Traffic Distribution and Intersection Ca pac• it Utilization Y - :1 Lei• - 6 . . a ; • receives the majority of the generate vehicle trips. Level of Service F is characterized as force flow or congestion at the intersection. r Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Level of Service (LOS) drops from C (existing) to D (existing plus project) . However, the actual change in r LOS is less severe than this implies since the increase in critical lane volumes is only 60 vehicles. Warner Avenue and .Magnolia Street has an increase of only 40 vehicles to the critical lane volumes and therefore will not create a significant impact at this intersection (LOS E in existing and LOS E in existing plus project conditions) . The post-project analysis for Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, reflects the existing lane configurations at this intersection. The existing street width condition on Warner Avenue adjacent to the project site is not at ultimate design. Therefore, by installing the ultimate street section on Warner Avenue and installing minor improvements to Beach �. Boulevard, the intersection overall capacity can be increased (see Section 4.4.2,_ Mitigation. Measures). w Recommended improvements would reduce the estimated critical lane volumes from .1 ,765 to 1 ,480 using post-project intersection volumes. Level of Service improvement from F to nearly D will result in a. significant improvement in projected intersection operating efficiency and even a r. slight improvement over currently existing conditions. Site Access and Circulation Access to and from the site is from three major points: Beach Boulevard, . Warner Avenue, and Ash Street (directly into the west end of the parking structure) . The two arterial locations are connected. by a four lane internal roadway through the site. This internal roadway provides direct access to the east end of the parking structure. Warner Avenue would be most severely impacted by site-generated traffic and will require improvement adjacent to the site to full City standards. • The Beach Boulevard access location wil-1 be limited to right turns enter- ing and exiting the site. Therefore, the majority 'of generated traffic 4-14 will use Warner Avenue to access the project. Turn lane improvements on the Beach Boulevard approaches to the Beach/Warner intersection will be required along with a separate right turn lane at the Beach Boulevard access location. In .add.ition, street improvements and a traffic signal will be required .for -- Ash Street at Warner Avenue. The Ash Street improvements will involve the relocation of the parking structure access to . provide adequate storage at the intersection. It is anticipated that there will be some vehicular disruption during improvements to Ash Street, Beach Boulevard, and Warner Avenue as well as some disruption due to the •transport of heavy, slow-moving construction equipment. If at all possible, disruption of vehicular traffic on either Beach or Warner . should be avoided during a.m. and . p.m. peak hours. Construction vehicles entering and exiting the site shoul d also avoid a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The proposed project will not create any significant traffic impacts at the other two study intersections, namely Warner Avenue at Magnolia, and Beach Boulevard at Edinger Avenue. The internal circulation system provides good internal movement through the development and direct access to and from the parking structure. r- Consideration could be given to additional roadway space for drop-off zones along the internal roadway to avoid any conflicts with moving and stopped traffic. The right turn lane from the surface parking along Warner Avenue at the access point should be eliminated so that only two exit lanes are provided to Warner. Parking Requirements The total parking figure of 2,612 (see Table 5, Appendix D1 ) required spaces is not representative of actual parking demand conditions during. a - 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. • 4-15 e + - r 0 r , weekday for the proposed development. Maximum parking impact will occur in association with the restaurant lunch schedule beginning at approxi- mately. 11 :30 a.m. The 11 :30 a.m. and noon time period would tend to overlap office employee parking prior to any number of those office employees leaving the site during the traditional lunch break. between noon and 1 p.m. During this time period the theater would not be in use, reducing the parking requirement by 583 parking spaces. The restaurant' s proximity to the two office towers, having a potential for nearly 2,300 employees, will attract walk-in clientele from the offices. It is estimated . that during the lunch period 60 percent of the restaurant patrons will be from the two adjacent 16-story office towers. This 60 r- percent estimate reduces the peak noon period restaurant parking demand from.. 286 spaces to 115 spaces. Parking demand for the two office towers may be less than the code requirements as a result of several factors: office vacancy; employee absence due to illness, vacations or business trips, public transit use, vanpooling and carpooling; and. bicycle and motorcycle use. All of these factors would tend to reduce the actual parking demand generated by the office development approximately 16%. Table 4-5 illustrates the reduction in the number of parking spaces. Table 4-5 PEAK PARKING DEMAND Code Parking Estimated Peak Parking Use Requirement Reduction Demand General Office 2,079 16%(l) 1 ,747 Restaurant 286 60% 115 Theater 500 100% 0 Total. Spaces 2,865 1 ,862 Source: Greer & Company ( l ) Assumptions relative to peak general office parking demand: a. assume 90% average occupancy of buildings b. assume 5% average absence of general building population due to illness, vacation, business trips; and building population of 4.25 persons/1 ,000 S.F. and vehicle occupancy of 1 .2 from ITE Trip _ Generation Report, Second Edition, 1979. c. assume 2% of the general building population utilize public transit, are dropped off, use bicycle or other -means of getting to work without requiring a parking space. 4-16 Therefore, the proposed parking provisions of 1 ,893 parking spaces, while less than parking code requirements, should be adequate to accommodate a SV peak parking demand of 1 ,579 spaces. AIR TRANSPORTATION In April 1981 Vincent Mestre Associates conducted a noise analysis of the proposed heliport to be located atop tower #1 . As applications have not been filed regarding flight paths or airspace clearance, Mestre Associates assumed a most likely approach/departure path. Should the approach/depar- ture path be altered, subsequent to certification of this EIR, modifica- tion of the boundaries of the noise impact zones may be altered. The helistop would be located on the roof of tower #1 , which..is 232 feet high. Mola Development owns a Hughes 500C for business use and it is anticipated that this helicopter will be the primary craft utilizing the helistop. Approximately three trips per day are projected, all occurring between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Hughes 500C requires a single-man crew and can carry four passengers. The helicopter has a single engine, a normal gross weight of 2,550 pounds, and a rotor diameter of 26.3 feet. In general , the Hughes 500C is �- considered a light-weight helicopter designed for executive and utility uses and in comparison to other helicopters it is considered to be very quiet'. Noise levels versus distance to the helicopter, referred to as slant range distance, is provided -in Exhibit 1 , Appendix El . The data was provided by Bob King of Hughes Helicopter. Two sets of data are given: maximum sound levels (Lmax) versus distance, and sound exposure level (SEL) versus distance. The maximum sound level is the loudest instantaneous sound that one would hear as the helicopter flies over. The sound exposure level represents the total , or sum of all the sound that one hears during an overflight. SEL is used in the calculation of CNEL. It should be noted 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department.. 4-17 that the Hughes 500C is considerably louder on approach than on departure. This is due to differences" in speed for approach and departure, direction ality of helicopter noise, and other factors. Approach and Departure Paths. . The approach and departure paths for the helistop are dependent on the wind direction. Since the helicopter operations will occur during the day, the winds during the -daytime are of primary importance. Approaches to the helistop from the northeast and departures to the southwest were assumed for this analysis. This approach/departure alignment allows the helicopter to approach and depart into the wind, which is the preferred operational procedure. It is also a "worst case" alignment since it passes directly over the .nearest residential areas. CNEL Noise Levels CNEL noise . contours were generated for the anticipated helicopter opera- tions associated with the Beach and Warner office complex. The CNEL "noise contours are presented in Exhibit 4-3 for the helistop located on the roof of office towers #1 and #2, respectively. Noise levels generated by helicopter operations will be less than 45 CNEL in surrounding residential areas. The proposed helistop will not be incompatible with the surround- ing residential areas according to the City of Huntington Beach land use./noise guidelines. Noise levels in the residential areas due to the helicopter overflights will be at least 20 dBA less than the . City' s guidelines of 65 CNEL. There is no significant difference in impact between locating the helistop on office tower #1 or #2. The nearby residential areas will experience -- approximately the same noise levels for either of the proposed helistop locations. Maximum Sound Levels The maximum sound levels (Lmax) that will be generated by the helistop operations are presented in Exhibit 4-4. Contours are presented only for 4-18 ( t I f f ( I f f t f I ! f t t [ F OVA,RNER /VE. T77j 40 f 40 1C. •� I .i I i I,, I , i i I 1 !' I ' W _ i :ARKIn1G 6?RUGIUR:E �. �`"�'V�p YO'�" .Jn- -- �• l > In I i --a I I � 'I I i I 1 � I ' i I � � � I � � _ . •••'••••••• � --, _ � J� I V 1 I • -_ly '�J`e' i:- • DUILDING WO.26t1 I• _ > I 5pi R — y' _. r • i �SYCAM02E AVENUE f I • • ' 1. • I • • __ Residential — s •••.;• F LEGENDqM, G I I 1 • CNEL NOISE LEVELS—TOWER f 1 / CNEL NOISE LEVELS—TOWER f2 i• 0 65 130 195 Beach-Warner. Commercial Complex... Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 4-3 1 • 1111111111t11/1111�1111111111111 %� 1 1 Illllltllllllillllllllllllllllll ■� 1 1 IIIIt1111�11111�11111t1111111111 R� � �Irllll�t Illlt IRI/IIIOr111111 ttl ■111111 IIIIIIIIII/II/Illrlllllllll!11 �� � � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMRIIIIIIrlllllll!illl �� � � Ot11t11111111f++IIMIIIIIIIt1111�i11111 �� MIN 11111111111111l11111111111111/illlllll �— � � iflltlfltttlttl Irrl/;Itlllrlll R_ ! � 1/IIIIIIIIIIiII :11111111111 R_ i - 111111111111111 'llllllll� am min 1� milli e� Wilms fir► Maximum Nose Levels D : A r I �- • office tower #1 . (The shape of the contours would be the same if the helistop were located on office tower #2, only centered on office tower#2 rather than #1 .) The data indicate the nearby residential areas will experience maximum sound levels of 75 to 80 dBA. _Outdoors these noise levels will disrupt speech momentarily while the .helicopter passes over. Inside residences with windows open, the noise levels are expected to be 15 dBA less. than those experienced outside.. Speech, watching television, and. similar indoor activities involving communication would not be signifi- cantly .disrupted. A typical person sleeping would be awakened, or at a minimum his sleep would be disturbed. In both the outside and inside situations the noise levels are not high enough to cause any physiological damage. 4.4:2 Mitigation Measures The traffic consultant has recommended the Jollowing measures to mitigate .,. adverse impacts to the surrounding street network. Primary " mitigation measures involve .the implementation of adjacent street system improvements r.. and_ modification of site access facilities. The following measures are recommended: . Intersection improvements at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue: Beach Boulevard - 1 . Add a southbound right turn lane. 2. Install dual northbound left turn lanes. Warner Avenue - -� 1 . Install dual eastbound left turn lanes. 2. Install three eastbound through lanes. w 3. Maintain eastbound right turn lane. Street improvements: Beach Boulevard - . 1 . Construct street improvements adjacent to project to standard cross-section design. 4-19 2. Install separate right turn lane at project access location. Warner Avenue - 1 . Construct street improvements adjacent to project to standard cross-section design, along with transition section west -of Ash Street and including barrier median to prohibit left turn entry at the mid-site access location. 2. Strip separate right turn lane for entry to the project and at Ash Street. Intersection and street improvements at Warner and Ash Street: Warner Avenue - 1 . Install dual left turn lanes on Warner at Ash. 2. Widen Ash Street to provide for four lanes of traffic -- two lanes in each direction: 3'. Install an actuated traffic signal at Warner/Ash with interconnect to the signal at Beach/Warner. Access improvements: 1 . Relocate westerly parking structure access to the most southerly. parking bay and coordinate with functional design of the structure. 2. Reduce the exit traffic lanes from the project at the Warner Avenue access location from three lanes to two right turn only lanes, and revise the connection to the surface parking to intersect with the internal roadway. 3. If a left turn lane entry from Warner Avenue is to be considered, _. conduct detailed design studies to determine if there is adequate space between the intersection and the proposed driveway to accom- modate storage requirements and physical design requirements. Internal improvements: 1 . Consideration could be given to providing additional roadway or — turnouts along the internal roadway to accommodate dropoff activities. The acoustic consultant has recommended the following measures to minimize the noise produced by the proposed heiistop operations. It should be noted that measures controlling the operation of the helicopter once in 4-20 r • flight cannot be mandated. The operation of the helicopter once in flight As the responsibility of the pilot, and due to safety considerations cannot be infringed upon. 1 . Limit: flights to daytime hours only. Residential uses are generally considered to be more sensitive to noise during the evening and nighttime hours than during the day. Currently, only daytime operations are anticipated. 2. Restrict use of helistop to Hughes 500C or quieter helicopters. 3. Encourage approaches and departures along Beach Boulevard when possible. This will lower slightly the noise levels experienced in the nearby residential areas. 4. Encourage the pilot to minimize hover times and to fly the helicop- ter in a manner which minimizes noise. 5 Design and/or provide sound insulation for buildings onsite to insure acceptable interior noise levels. 6. Recommend that the applicant coordinate with the City' Fire Department and Police Department and the public to enhance the acceptance of the heliport. It is fully expected that all procedural requirements for approval of the helistop (City Council , ACCU, FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics) , the safety of the helicopter use, and adequate design of the heliport, will be met and in so doing, will mitigate adverse impacts other than acoustic. r Q 4-21 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.5.1 Environmental Impacts Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary and mobile. Stationary source conditions include . emissions onsite from construction activities and natural gas combustion as well as emissions at the power plant associated with any electrical requirements for lighting, etc. Mobile source considerations include short-term construction activities and long-term traffic generation. - Short-Term Impacts The preparation of the study area for building construction will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and dust generated as a result of soil movement. The emissions produced . during grading and construction activities, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to workers , and adjacent Y developments, even though prescribed wetting procedures are followed. These emissions will not, however, cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded onsite. Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment - At this time, the number and type of construction equipment is estimated at 5 grading tractors and 1 . water truck,l for a period of 3 months. Utilizing construction equipment emission factors from AP-42,2 the emissions over the 3-month construction period are expected to be approximately 1 .95 tons.3 Fugitive Dust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. Building and road construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest emission potential . Emissions are associated with land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and construction of the units. oa l Personal communication with Frank Mola, April 20, 1981 . 2 U.S. EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition, *y August 1977. Includes Supplements 1- 11 . 3 See Appendix F for assumptions. 4-22 r P w . Dust emissions vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of. activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. A Iarge portion of the emissions result from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the site. The quantity of fugitive dust generated is proportion- al to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activi- ty. Emissions from heavy construction operations are directly proportion- al to the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than 75 micrometers in diameter) and inversely proportional to the square of the soil moisture. Based upon field measurements. of, suspended dust emissions from apartment and shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor -for construction operations is 1 .2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity.l Long-Term Impacts Long-term impacts are those associated with permanent usage of the • facilities proposed. The air pollutants emitted can be projected as the, sum of both stationary and mobile source emissions. Daily .emissions can be determined through the multiplication of a usage rate land an emission factor for each primary pollutant (see Appendix F2). The results obtained are provided in Table 4-6 and are summarized below. Vehicular emissions assumed automobile trip generation by the land uses as calculated .by the traffic consultant (Section 4.4) . In 'general ; stationary source emissions represent approximately 7% of the .total emissions from all sources. In 1985, motor vehicle emissions will account for 93% of the total , although exhaust control technology or legislation may reduce this percentage. It should be noted. that the bulk (71%) of the air pollutant emissions will be carbon monoxide issuing from motor vehicles. To assess what this atmospheric loading implies in terms of its relative impact upon air quality, the emissions generated by the proposed project ...• 1 U.S. EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition, August 1977. Includes Supplements - 2 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-23 Tabl a 4- 6 PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS COMMERCIAL EMISSIONS Natural Gas Combustion 1985 Emissions (including Generation of Electricity Vehicular Total Emissions Primary space heating)0 ) Fuel Oil Comb. Emissions(2) Emissions From all Sources(3) Pollutant (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) CO .0006 .0055 1 .5807 1 .5868 HC .0003 .0050 .1662 .1714 NOX .0032 .0632 .2791 .3455 N SOX .0000 .0728 .0253 .0981 Particulates .0003 .0110 .0307 .0420 TOTAL .0044 .1574 2.082 2.2438 (1 ) Based upon a consumption rate of 63,333 ft3/day. (2) Based upon a consumption rate of 54,932 kwh/day and 10,000 BTU required to produce 1 kwh. Fuel oil is Low Sulfur oil (0.5% as is currently used in Orange County). (3) Assume fuel oil is used to generate all electricity required by the project. t � c f r i � t � • f f E C E � r. � c_ i should be compared with regional projections. Projected daily emissions are available for 1975, 1982 and 1987 only. Therefore, it was assumed for the purposes of comparison that the proposed project would be built out by 1982. In actuality, the anticipated buildout is 1985. Table 4-7 tabulates that daily emission burden for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) , � . Orange County and the proposed project for 1987. The emissions represent .02% of the SCAB ' s and .13% of the County' s emissions. i ' I Table 4-7 REGIONAL EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON Pollutant SCAB1 Orange Coutyl Project CO 4064.78 789.99 1 .36 HC 2175.13 429.59 .14 NOx 1160.49 156.76 .32 Sox 397.64 35.85 .10 Particulates 285.57 49.83 .04 TOTAL 8083.57 1462.03 1 .96 Air Quality Projections - Assessing the impact of the local air quality on the proposed project is achieved herein by using the Caltrans Caline 3 air quality model . Caline 3 allows carbon monoxide concentrations to be M estimated along roadway corridors adjacent to the study area. Roads not directly adjacent to the site are not considered. Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process and limitations on knowledge of dispersion characteristics of .the other' air pollutant species, carbon monoxide is the most suitable tracer pollutant for microscale modeling. Secondary pollutants are a large-scale phenomenon, and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. The assumptions made for Caline 3 appear in Appendix F2 and the results of the calculations are given in Table 4-8 for the Beach Boulevard-.Warner Avenue intersection. The concentrations given are for the eight highest 1 The California standard is 40 ppm (1-hour average) and the federal • standard is 35 ppm ( 1-hour average) . 2 Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-25 hours of the day. The state and federal one-hour standard is rarely,' if ever, exceeded while the eight-hour federal standard is exceeded. The results also include the second highest eight-hour concentration of 14.3 ppm measured countywide, reflecting the ambient air quality. Table 4-8 MAXIMUM EIGHT-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT BEACH BOULEVARD-WARNER AVENUE INTERSECTION Distance2 Concentration -- (Meters) (ppm) 15 16.26 30 15.53 -- 61 15.15 Although the carbon monoxide levels exceeds the federal air.. quality standard (9.0 ppm for 8-hour averaging) , the basis of the concentrations was the second highest ambient level of 14.3 ppm 8-hour average, measured countywide plus the concentration expected from ultimate .traffic, volumes at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Therefore, although it appears that the levels are high, the project's incremental impact is slight; the second highest ambient level of 14.3 ppm plus ultimate traffic volume concentrations of 1 .96 ppm equals 16.26 ppm, therefore the ultimate '- volumes contribution is 1 .96 ppm of CO. Accordingly, the concentrations indicated should exceed ambient air quality on approximately five days per year. Note that as the distance of the receptor from the source increases, concentration levels decrease. Regional ambient air quality will be impacted by the growth of population and industry in this and surrounding areas. The proposed parking structure offers the potential for impacting air quality in the immediately adjacent residential area. The extent of — impact, if any, is dependent on a number of factors, including wind and dispersion patterns, structural design, distance of the structure from adjacent residences, and operational characteristics. The proposed 1 The California standard is 40 ppm (1-hour average) and the federal standard is 35 ppm (1-hour average) . ` 2 This is the distance of the downwind receptor from the intersection. 4-26 50-foot setback from the centerline -of the road (as depicted in Exhibit 2-1 ) , together with the proposed 50% enclosed structure design and perimeter landscaping (each level ) can ' be expected to work toward minimizing any air quality impact associated with this parking facility. Air Quality Management 'Plan The proposed project does not conflict with the goals of attainment in the AQMP. The employment accommodated by the proposed expansion is within the w employment growth projected for RSA 37. Although the proposed project can be considered to be growth-inducing, the quantification of induced growth is difficult to assess due to the lack of base data (e.g., what percent of the new employees will be from outside the immediate area or outside. the county and how many employees are moving closer to their workplace, etc.) . With respect to the Air Quality Management District as a whole, any single employer employing more than 100 employees is responsible to implement • Rule 7 - stationary source curtailment plans and traffic abatement plans. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures The following measures are either recommended for inclusion in the project -, or are already a part of the project. For example, the location of the office. and professional towers at a major intersection facilitates the use of mass transit by future employees. 1 . Employment of prescribed watering techniques will work to reduce the short-term impact of construction-generated fugitive dust. 2. Several techniques of reducing long-term energy and fuel usage could be employed ' which would result in reductions in air pollutant emissions. These mitigation measures are set forth in Section 4.7 of this document (PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Electrical and Natural Gas Service) . In addition, the building materials for the tower have been noted for their energy efficiency. 3. . .The parking structure design features (50% enclosed, landscaping) "' • can be expected to work toward reducing the air quality impacts associated with this facility. 4-27 4. Compliance with Rule 708.31 of the AQMP District Rules and Regulations will achieve partial mitigation of mobile source emissions on days when episode stages are predicted. 5. . The project will conform with applicable rules and regulations of the SCAQMD. W 1 If required by the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) , a business employing more than 100 employees/shift must submit a "Traffic Abatement Plan" that is to be implemented during predicted episodes of oxidant, oxidant/sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. The purpose of _ the Traffic Abatement Plan is to reduce .vehicular usage during a • predicted episode period. 4-28 4.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4.6-.1 Environmental Impacts No-ise levels in and around the study area will increase if the proposed project is implemented. However., the proposed project is a land use consistent. with .the surrounding commercial uses. Short-term acoustic impacts will result from construction activity for implementation of the project, while long-term acoustic impacts will result from use of the facilities by. patrons and employees, and resultant vehicular traffic. Short-term acoustical impacts will occur as the existing buildings and the pavement are demolished and cleared for construction of the proposed development. Each distinct construction phase will have its own mix of �— equipment and consequently, its own noise characteristics. Noise from pneumatic wrenches, jackhammers and pile-drivers (which tend to be the noisiest) ranges from 80 to 105. dBA., at fifty feet from the source. Appendix. G incl_udes additional construction equipment noise ranges by category. As the project progresses through construction, the surrounding residen-tial and. commercial land uses will be impacted accoustica.11y, as will onsite construction workers. However, the activity is short-term in nature (1.2 months construction period) and will occur during daylight hours only. Adverse impacts will occur again with construction .of 'tower #2. The long-term use of the facilities proposed will necessitate additional automobile and truck traffic on the surrounding street network as well as noise from air conditioning units and loading and unloading of restaurant .r goods. This will result in increased noise levels along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The traffic report prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D1 ) considered the project-related traffic on Beach Boulevard and Warner W . 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-29 Avenue. Utilizing the existing plus project traffic volumes for Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard, the CNEL contour fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane is 78.87 dBA CNEL on Warner Avenue and 75.2.3 dBA CNEL on Beach Boulevard (see Table 4-9) . The project traffic will, therefore, increase noise levels a maximum of .46 dBA. Table 4-9 NOISE LEVELSI Existing2 Plus Project2 Warner Avenue 72.41 72.87 Beach Boulevard 74.99 75.23 Operation of the two restaurants, the theater and twin towers will �. increase the onsite noise levels. Although data is not available to quantify noise from cooling and heating equipment, loading and unloading of goods, and restaurant and theater patrons, it is fully expected that these uses will contribute' to a heightened noise level . 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures Short-term construction impacts can be partially mitigated by the following: Limit construction to daytime hours only; Recommend that.construction workers wear protective hearing devices; Muffle or acoustically shield construction equipment, when feasible. Long-term accoustic impacts related to increased traffic volumes on surrounding arterials will rely heavily on mitigation of the receptors as opposed to the source (traffic volumes) . Additionally, encouraging employees to utilize transit will reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Acoustic impacts relative to the loss of the of the commercial office complex can be partially mitigated by the following: — Muffler heating and cooling units, as appropriate; Recommend delivery and pick-up of goods during daytime hours only; and "r Encourage theaters to speed their seating of patrons. 1 All calculations are fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost �r travel lane. 2 Refers to traffic volumes. 4-30 „ 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.7.1 Environmental Impacts Fire Service The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department will experience. incremental �. increases in. demand for . fire protection services due to this project. However, no future expansion of area fire protection is anticipated. The current. ISO rating of III is not anticipated to change from project implementation. The subject process poses an increased severity potential only from the standpoint of the high-rise portion. Fighting fire in a high-rise structure will require additional manpower and introduces a greater demand on resources. However, countywide cooperation on planning for and combatting. h:igh-ri.se incidents will serve to reduce this concern. The general site location has more than adequate water available; however, the fire department. expresses concern over water pressure in_ considera.tion of the proposed towers. Because of the heights involved and fire .sprink- -- 1er system demands', the provision of fire pumps for the towers is expected.. In addition the pr.ovision. of a helistop atop_ tower 1 will provide fire and . emergency helicopter rescue . service to the site. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department does not set forth any specific heliport requirements beyond compliance with FAA for operational procedures and the Uniform Building Code for construction of the facility. Police Service Development of the study area will result in an increased opportunity for crime and . an increased demand for police services. As the cumulative effects of development in the City of Huntington Beach significantly - affect the. department's ability to- maintain the present level of service, it may be necessary after complete buildout of the_ project to employ additional personnel to service the site. 4-31 It has been estimated by the Huntington Beach Police Department that the • proposed project could require 562 calls for service (based on one call for service per 1 ,000 square feet) . To provide police service without -` increasing workload per officer, approximately three additional officers would be required. In addition, the helistop access will offer a considerable benefit in respect to insertion and extraction of emergency personnel .. However, since the helistop will be constructed on one tower, only one tower will provide access to this benefit. The police department has further indicated a helistop at this development �- will not interfere with either landing or takeoff patterns for Meadowlark Airport, John Wayne Airport, or police facilities. Water Implementation of the proposed project •wi l l result in the .need to provide water service to a presently unserved area. Average daily water demands are expected to be approximately 35.1 million gallons per year, according to consumption figures in Table 4-10. Table 4-10 PROJECTED WATER CONSUMPTION Land Use Consumption Ratel Annual Consumption Office/Commercial 30 gallons/day/employee 22.9 million gallons (2,092 employees) Restaurant 50 gallons/seat/day 12.2 million gallons (2 restaurants, approx mately 668seats total ) TOTAL 35.1 million gallons/year 1 City of Los Angeles, EIR Manual for Private Projects, August 1975, updated January 1979. ater consumption ra es rom the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department are not available at this time. 4-32 • As mentioned previously, the provision of water service to the proposed project would. concern general upgrading to the existing facilities. The -� project would require a loop around the site with additional. eight-inch mains off the feeder along Warner Avenue in order to service the .r development adequately.) I ' Wastewater The proposed new construction is expected. to generate approximately 235.3 �., mil-lion gallons of wastewater per year, as shown in Table 4-1.1 . Table 4-11. WASTEWATER GENERATION RATE .r Land Use Generation Rate2 Annual Generation4 Office 1503 gallons/1 ,000 s.f./day 28.6 million gallons (Total : 5.23,008) Commercial 100 gallons/1 ,000 s.f./day 7.8 million gallons (Total : 219,000) Restaurant 50 gallons/seat/day 12.2 million gallons (2 restaurants - 668 seats total ) TOTAL 235.3 million gallons/year 1 See Appendix G, Correspondence. Copies. . are availabl.e for review at 2 the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Los Angeles EIR Manual , City of Los Angeles, August 1975, updated a_nuary eneration factors from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department are not available at this time. 3 Office areas within the project are estimated to have four employees. per 1 ,000 square feet. Since water usage is estimated at 30 gallons per employee per day, wastewater generation is. not anticipated to exceed 150 gallons/1 ,000 sq.ft./day. 4 Factors used to determine projected water consumption and wastewater generation . rates are the most accurate available for projects of this size and intensity. It should be noted, however, that total gallons -- of water consumption and wastewater are only estimates designed to project future service needs. 4-33 The orange County Sanitation District has indicated that the 69-inch • County main located along Warner Avenue will accommodate the proposed project.l Solid Waste Development of the site would result in increased .demand for. solid waste collection and. disposal services. However, no local service constraints are expected for the ultimate development of the proposed project.2 Based on similar use, the project can be anticipated to generate approximately 22-23 tons of solid waste per day or 8,208 tons per year.3 The additional solid wastes generated by the project will accelerate the use of current disposal sites, thereby incrementally adding to the demand for future solid waste disposal facilities. The approved Bee Canyon facil- ity (with an expected operating span of 20 years) will replace Coyote. Can- yon when capacity of that site is reached in the next two years. Subse- quent to Bee Canyon, the nearby Round Canyon landfill will be brought into use. I.t is not anticipated that the ultimate wastes generated by the pro- ject would create significant adverse impact to future disposal facili- ties. Telephone Service General Telephone indicates that existing facilities along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are not adequate to serve the proposed project. How- ever, long-term plans for additional telephone service to the area wi l l be activated by this project. No obstacles are foreseen by General Telephone in providing quality telephone service to the study area in a timely manner. A major size '.underground cable will be installed to serve the proposed project and provide additional service to the surrounding area. 1 Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR #80-3. 2 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 3 Based on 20.9 pounds -employee/day for commercial and office uses as recommended by the Los An eles EIR Manual , City of Los Angeles, August • 1975, updated January . 4-34 V ' 4 Energy a Natural gas consumption for commercial buildings will vary largely with the type of energy system incorporated into the design of the building and the degree to which it is utilized as an energy source. Assuming reliance on natural gas as a primary energy source, however, the proposed. project may be expected to consume as much as 1 .90 million cubic feet of natural gas per month or 22.77 million cubic feet of natural gas per year as .shown .1n Table 4-12. Table 4-12 NATURAL GAS DEMAND-ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Average Monthly Consumption Annual Consumption Office/Commercial 1 .90 million cubic ft./month 22.77 cubic ft./year (Total : 542,208 sq. ft.1 ) (Generation Factor: 3.5 ft3/ sq. ft./month Southern California Gas Company (SCG) representatives have indicated that . the. proposed project can be serviced from existing facilities in the area. The. service will be in accordance with the Company' s policies and exten- sion rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. Under present conditions and .availability, natural gas could be supplied without significant impact occurring. Gas supplies can be affected, however, by actions of the California Public Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take action which affects gas supplies, gas service will be- provided in accordance with revised conditions. The- use of electricity by future activities of the study area will create. an impact upon the energy supply of the region. Table 4-13 provides a summary of the expected electrical demand at ultimate development of -the project. 1 Natural gas demand for the proposed restaurant uses was not calculated- for this EIR. 4-35 Table 4-13 ELECTRICAL DEMANDS ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Annual KWH per sq. ft., Annual Consumption Office and Professional Building 34.2 17.89 million kwh (Total : 523,008 sq. ft.) Restaurant 76.9 1 .54 million kwh (Total : 20,000 sq. ft.) Theater 32.5 .62 million kwh ,- (Total : 19,200 sq. ft.) 20.05 million kwh Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds SCE' s estimates, and provided there are no unexpected outages to major electrical supply sources, SCE expects to meet its electrical requirements for the next several years. If plans for new generating facilities are delayed, energy available for peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid-1980s. The proposed towers will be similar in appearance and design to the South Coast Plaza Town Center high rise development nearing completion in Costa Mesa. The South Coast Plaza Town Center twin-towers stand 15 stories tall and total 600,000 square feet. As reported in the Los Angeles Times2 and -- summarized below, these high rises have been designed to use approximately one-third the energy required, exceeding Title 24 energy conservation standards. It is - anticipated that utility bills of the South Coast Plaza Town Center Development will be cut in half as compared .to a typical . five-year old 1 Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD. 2 os Ange es Imes, May 3, 1981 . 4-36 e -- Orange County high rise and by 20% or more compared to the average build- , ing under construction today. The reduced energy requirements of the towers area result of four features which are expected to reduce energy costs by $280,500 a year. These features and anticipated savings are as follows: heat reflective double pane Solar Ban glass exterior wall ser- vices, annual saving of $105,300; a low wattage flourescent lighting system, annual saving of $65,900; cooling and . heating system features, annual savings of $55,000, and an off-peak electric power usage afforded, by a centually located energy plant, annual savings of $54,300. The South Coast Town Center project has set a precedence for energy conservation strategy in major commercial developments which the Beach Boulevard - Warner Avenue project will support. The special features of the South Coast Town Center high rises will be incorporated into the �- project design of the Beach Boulevard - Warner Avenue Office Complex. Therefore, similar energy saving are anticipated. Energy conservation has been, and will be, a continuing and controlling determinant of the project concept: An. energy statement for the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue Office Complex was prepared by James A. Knowles and Associates, Inc., consulting Mechanical engineers for the project. The statement introduces and outlines the energy conservation strategy of the project as follows. Orientation of buildings, shading of exposed surfaces, control of the fenestration area and the use of highly efficient glazing material on the office towers, are all considerations that will influence directly. the energy conservation strategy of this project. During subsequent develop- ment the insulation characteristics and the heat transfer dynamics of thermodynamically complementary structural and system components will also be carefully considered in the interest of enhancing the overall project efficiency within the site boundary. Limited quantities of gas and electricity from the respective gas and electric utilities will be required. Fuel oil will be used only for the emergency power which will support the Life Safety Systems and not as an alternate fuel for the 'back-up' heating system. The major energy users within the structure will be lights, air conditioning, and elevators. 4-37 r. The. project team is committed to complying with the "Budget Exemption" provisions of the California Administrative Code "Energy Conservation Standards for New Non-Residential Buildings" Title 24 Division T-20 chapter 2 subchapter 4. This will be accomplished by incorporating in the project design specific energy conserving means. Water Implementation of the proposed . project wi l l result in the need to provide water service to a presently unnerved area. Average daily water demands are expected to be approximately 35.1 million gallons per year, according to consumption figures in Table 4-10. 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures Fire Service ° 1 . The proposed twin towers will be constructed in conformance with " all applicable building codes to ensure maximum protection fire hazards. Special features will include smoke detectors and automated sprinkler systems wherever required by the building �._. code. 2.. Fire-retardant building and landscaping materials will be used wherever possible. 3. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Marshal will review future detailed. plans specifically for building separation and accessibility of emergency fire equipment. 4. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Marshal will review plans for building construction prior to the issuance of building permits " which will further ensure adequate building design protections against fire hazards. 5. All fire protection requirements for high-rise buildings as addressed in Section 1807 of the Uniform Building Code ("Special Provisions for High Rise Group F, Division 2, Office Buildings") will be complied with by the project applicant. Police Service Police service can be further enhanced through the following measures: 4-38 i 1 .. Review. of the security. system and circulation. aspects of the proposed development by the Police Department prior to final construction approval . 2;. Provision for adequate lighting along streets_, parking.. structures and walkways to the satisfaction of, the. Police Department. Water. Service The_. fo1.1owing measures are offered, to encourage water conservation: .�. T., Use shrubbery and vegetation with, minimal water requirements wherever possible. 21. Use automatic sprinkler systems to ensure landscape watering during: early morning hours. or during the eyeni:ng., thereby reducing .the amount of water normally lost from; evaporation. 3. Install; low volume toil:e.t tanks. to reduce. water. consumption. 4. Imstall_ plumbing. fi-xtures designed; to reduce water_. loss from ,.. leakage due. to faulty. or damaged washers. 5'. Instal�l flow control dev.i,ces to reduce, water fl ow, from faucets. w Wastewater. Service 1 . The project sponsor will work in conjunction with, the City, of Huntington Beach Engineering Department to construct the necessary sewer line improvements to service. the proposed project-..' Water conservation measures outlined for water service will also reduce wastewater generation. No other mitigation measures are recommended. Solid Waste Disposal Provisions for adequate onsite storage will mitigate any potential impacts .� related to solid wastes. 1 . Trash compactors will be installed as needed to mitigate potential onsite storage problems. r � . 4-39 r Telephone Services Due to the absence of significant impacts to telephone service, no mitigation measures are proposed. Energy -- 1 . Building construction will conform with California State building standards for energy conservation established under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Under this Title, minimum construction standards are required which, when applied, will work to reduce natural gas ( and other forms of energy) consumption. 2. Consider. use of solar water heating to supplement the water heating requirements. 3. Use time-controlled public area lighting, both interior and exterior,, and limit amount to that necessary for safety and protection. -- 4. Install energy-efficient escalators and elevators. The methods by which the project is mitigating impact to energy resources are the following: Full consideration will be given to 'passive' conservation means such as: highly. efficient fenestrations; considerations of external shading by adjacent structures; modest but adequate light levels; individual room light switching; the use of the substantial structural mass and the fire reserve storage water as heat sinks; precise evaluation of the most favorable structural orientation; and optimal insulation. r. Specifically: The project' s structural mass . will be thermally manipulated to serve as a 'heat sink' each day, by the two temperature dead band room thermostats in order to exploit daily the nocturnal cooling effect. Mechanical system motors are dominant energy users in any project. To minimize their impact on the site consumption the fundamental components will be carefully selected to assure that the energy consumed by various prime movers (i .e., fan and pump motors, etc.) will be reduced by optimizing the heat 4-40 transfer components and by generous pipe and duct • sizing ' in order to reduce fluid transportation energy. Additionally all prime movers and system components will be selected at the point of- maximum efficiency. D The basic air conditioning system configuration will be ''all-air variable volume. ' Such systems are inherently efficient and do not rely upon parasitic heat to maintain comfort ("parasitic' - that heat used to reheat cold air solely for the purpose of space temperature control ) as do terminal reheat, induction and other more traditional and' less efficient systems. Direct solar energy collection is not practical given the state of the art, location and con!fi!g- uration of the project,, however., passive solar .. collection will be fully. exploited by system! integration with the fire .reserve water storage facilities. Explicit means of beneficially using �.. occupant, light and solar heat to reduce the site depl,etable energy consumption will be included. In effect, the structures themselves will function as passive solar collectors accumulating , excess internal heat each day in . the fire storage water reservoir for use that.• evening .or the next day as needed. The heat recovery and storage mechanisms .,� then be the primary heating source - the boilers only back-up. The onsite consumption of the proposed project will be at, or below, the energy Budget Exemption level of 43,000 BTU/SF/.year as stipulated by Title 24. 4-41 4.8 AESTHETICS _ 4.8.1 Impacts . Development of the project will significantly alter the existing visual characteristics of the study area. In place of, and surrounding, one-, two- and three-story buildings will be twin sixteen-story towers and a five-and-one-half, level parking structure. The towers will be imposing at 232 feet in height, while the parking_ structure will rise 35 feet above ground. At the same time, the weedy, overgrown lots with dilapidated buildings will be replaced with new structures and landscaping. The architectural style exhibits clean, unencumbered lines with building materials that are not visually harsh reflecting the sky, clouds and landscaping (see .Exhibit 4-5) . The towers are similar to the twin towers in the South Coast Plaza Town Center in Costa Mesa. The building material is granite veneer framing the entrance, and reflective glass vision and spandrel panels covering the entire building. The -proposed landscaping concept, trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the development, in a park-like setting, will soften the transition from residential land uses to commercial and office uses.. A plaza of textured. _ concrete or bricking and planters wi l l occupy the space between the towers and the restaurants, further extending the landscape theme of the development and physically relating the major elements of the proposed project.. Potential lighting impacts will result from parking lot and parking struc- ture night lighting as well as building lighting for security purposes.l Glare impacts will be greatest during the day and will result from the sun reflecting on the buildings. However, the architect notes that the glare 1 According to the Los An eles EIR Manual , building exteriors and. parking areas that exceed - oot can es is an illumination impact - (City of Los Angeles, Environmental Impact Process for Private Projects, August 1975. ) 4-42 6 j A � • 1.1 ;;�� I�� I I i.•Ii — _�� •r•-:'���„'�r�.--;==gym` -- y � _�,�<{�i ��► M s�.� 77 � I II 1 • from the buildings themselves is not a significant impact (based on a re- view of similar structures) unless there is a reflective surface adjacent to the buildings. In addition, potential glare will be more of a problem to employees in the vicinity of the building rather than residents. 4.8.2 Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are either proposed for inclusion in the project design or are already a component of the project: 1 . Landscaping at the perimeter of the development will soften the transition of land uses. �— 2. All lighting should be directed on the site. As indicated by the architects for the project, 'most of the lighting used will project the light from a hidden from view fixture. 3. Care should be taken to avoid reflective surfaces (white concrete or white buildings) adjacent to the towers. AD 4-43 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The purpose of this section is to provide .a discussion of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the reasons each was rejected in favor of the proposed plan are presented below. 5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Implementa.tion of the no project alternative retains the .existing general plan . designation. (General Commercial ) and the C-4 Highway Commercial zoning on the property with no project. Since the existing land use of an abandoned school site (Ocean . View School District) is an economically deficit land use for the City, the site would probably be developed at some future date. Unless a general plan amendment and zone change are requested, the future development would likely be that of general commercial uses as specified on the current LUE (see Exhibit 34, General Plan and Zoning) . These uses, as previously discussed, would include • convenience and neighborhood commercial developments, community and regional shopping centers, highway-related commercial uses in addition to hotels, motels and office/professional uses. The advantages of the no project alternative. are that the site would be reserved for future development options. Long-term and short-term adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, which have been summarized. in Section 6.0, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS, would .be delayed until such time that future development took place. Particularly, the no project alternative would eliminate the increased traffic generated by the proposed office complex, specifically to Beach •—' Boulevard, Warner Avenue and the surrounding residential streets. In eliminating this project-related traffic increase, the no project alternative eliminates projected increases in air pollution and noise levels. It also reduces long-term demand on energy sources and public services and utilities. As well , the visual and aesthetic milieu will not change from its existing .condition. 5-1 7 The primary disadvantage of this alternative would present itself in the foregone opportunity to increase the economic productivity for the site *` and the City in general . Due to the highly developed nature of the surrounding land use, present use of the study area would require that the city forfeit the potential revenue source the proposed project would generate. This revenue generation represents a substantial increase to " City funds. Additionally, under the no project alternative, the opportunity for a more diversified urban land use, additional employment opportunities, and recreational and support-type services, would be delayed. The no project alternative has been rejected by the project sponsor because it would not provide a viable long-term economic base. 5.2 ZONING OF C-4 WITHOUT MULTISTORY SUFFIX .� The existing C-4 (Commercial Highway District) allows for a conventional development of approximately 90,000 square feet, with a maximum building height of 35 feet.l Permitted land uses in a C-4 zoning district include • motels and hotels, professional services and offices. The primary advantage of this alternative is that the demand for public services, protection, water, electricity, natural gas, fossil fuel resources, sewer and solid waste treatment would be less. than in the proposed project. The long-term impact associated traffic,. noise and air quality would also be incrementally reduced from that of the proposed project. The primary disadvantage of this opportunity would be- the lost opportunity 0 of increased economic productivity. As stated previously, under this alternative, development would accommodate approximately 90,000 square feet as opposed to the proposed 562,208 square foot commercial/office complex. This would result. in a loss of 472,208 square feet. As commercial land uses are a relatively high-generating revenue source, the 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 5-2 opportunity of 472,208 square feet will result' 'in the loss of potential • economic productivity. Employment opportunities will also be substantially less than that of the proposed project which is expected to '►ter generate an additional 2,152 jobs (2,092 office jobs and 60 restaurant Jobs) . This alternative for development -of the study area in the C-4 zone, was .-. rejected because it failed to achieve acceptable economic productivity. Costs associated with necessary improvements such as transportation . and public service.-and utility systems were determined too high for the level Of development that the current zoning designates. �. 5.3 RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OVER THE FIVE-AND-ONE-HALF STORY PARKING STRUCTURE This alternative proposes a residential component over the five-and-one- half-story parking structure in addition to the two 16-story towers, restaurants and four-plex theater. Advantages to this alternative would include location of residents in proximity to an employment center, thereby incrementally reducing traffic generation, air pollution and noise pollution. In addition, the economic productivity of the site would be increased. by the addition of these ,.. residential units. Disadvantages to this alternative include issues of legality: one relates to that of access and the other to ownership rights. The feasibility and. responsibility of public access to a private development is questionable. As well , how to define legal ownership of a condominium on a publicly owned development raises several legal questions. In addition; there is an inconsistency with both the existing general plan and zoning designations (neither "allows residential use over a parking lot structure) . Furthermore, while office/professional uses are acceptable up to a CNEL of 75 (the study area is within a CNEL 65-70 area as indicated - - • by the general plan) , residential uses demand. an optimal noise level of CNEL 60. This alternative would necessitate .detai.led acoustical analysis 5-3 and extensive and costly structural modifications. The provision of residential units would also require additional public service and utility , service to the project. Inasmuch as the market would appear to support the proposed condominium units and in light of the potential for additional economic revenues that may be generated by this additional use, the disadvantages of this alterna- tive has presented itself in such a way as to require rejection by the applicant. 5.4 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES y This section addresses alternate development concepts that are not consistent with existing .General Plan and zoning designations. Implementa- tion of any of these alternatives would, unlike the currently proposed project, require a General Plan Amendment and change of zoning consistent with tfte uses to be developed. Consideration is given to the three alternatives concerning the 10-acre study area: - Medium Density Residential Alternative - Industrial Park Alternative Open Space Alternative Medium-Density Residential Alternative This alternative would .provide for 10 acres of residential land uses by eliminating the proposed commercial uses. Although this alternative would most probably result in lesser impacts with respect to grading, traffic, and demands for services and utilities, surrounding commercial land uses along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue would present incompatible land uses to a proposed residential development of the site. Residential development would present a significantly less economically viable land use than the currently proposed project in terms of loss of employment opportunities and long-term revenue generation to the City. In addition, the study area falls within a CNEL level (65 to 75 CNEL) that the City deems generally inappropriate for residential uses. • 5-4 In view of economic generation .incapabilities of residential development, incompatibility to surrounding land uses and unacceptable noise levels from. Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, this alternative was rejected. Industrial Park. Alternative This alternative by eliminating the proposed 10 acres of commercial/office ~-� uses through a General Plan Amendment and zone change, would provide for 10 acres of industrial land uses. This alternative would create a loss of �. 2,152 commercially oriented employment opportunities. Advantages to this alternative would include a reduction to traffic generation, air pollutants and noise levels in the general area since commercial uses generally generate higher numbers of average daily vehicular trips. This alternative would likely provide additional . employment opportunities since industry generally provides more jobs than commercial uses. . r.• Disadvantages of this alternative relate primarily to the loss of revenues (e.g. ,_ sales taxes) associated with elimination of commercial activities. Further, this alternative would fail to capitalize on the apparent long-term demand for commercial uses within the market area of the site. In addition, there is incompatibility of such a use along Beach Boulevard, -� which is characteristically a commercial area. Open Space Alternative This alternative, by eliminating the proposed 10 acres of commercial , would provide for 10 acres of open space in the form of a neighborhood park. Like that of the previous alternative discussed, there will be a loss of commercial: skilled employment opportunities, but, unlike the prior alternative, this loss will not be compensated. by additional employment gains• in other land uses such as industrial . Advantages to the open space alternative include increased visual ameni- ties, reduction of traffic .generation, air quality and noise pollution. Additionally, the demand for public services, fossil fuel resources, sewer and solid waste treatment would be lessened. _ 5-5 Primary disadvantages are essentially as discussed for the prior alterna- tive. This alternative was rejected because it failed to generate acceptable economic return on the property and because it does not respond to the long-term market demands for commercial facilities in the area. All the alternatives were rejected in favor of the proposed project: 16- story twin office/business towers (total of 523,006 square feet) , two restaurants (total of 20,000 square feet) and a four-plex theater (19,2000 square feet with 1 ,748 seating accommodations) . Through review of the discussions, of land use alternatives, commercial development, as consis- tent with the present general plan and zoning designations, presents the highest and best land use of the study area. The proposed project will generate beyond a net surplus of $20,900 .over a 10-year period.l . Land value in view of the location of the site; dictates use of the 10-acre study area. Commercial development of the site, while providing 2,152 commercial-oriented job opportunities will generate acceptable economic return .on the property and fulfill the long-term market demands for �y commercial facilities in the area. 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 5-6 ... � 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Approval of a conditional' use permit for the Beach-Warner office/commer- cial complex will allow development of the study area to proceed, consistent with the proposed general plan. This section provides a summary of the adverse impacts anticipated within the study area should the development occur. Natural. Systems No unavoidable adverse impacts. to natural systems are expected to occur from project implementation as addressed in the DIS prepared by the City of Huntington Beach staff and Section 1 .2 of this report. -- Urban Systems Intensi.ficati.on of urban land use upon the study area necessitates signifi- cant alteration of pre-existent conditions. Unavoidable adverse impacts resul-ting.. from construction and development of the study area. are both short-term and long-term in duration and effects. Impacts are described i-n detail in Section 4.0 of this EIR and are summarized as follows: Short-term construction-related activities i-nclude temporary .,. disruption of pedestrian circulation and vehicular traffic, elevated air and noise pollution levels. Development of the study area will significantly alter the existing visual characteristics of the study area. However, the issue of compatibility between' the proposed project and surrounding land uses were addressed through City approval of the General Plan Amendment 80-2, placing the study area in a multistory node, and approval of the zone change to include the multistory suffix (MS) . Increased local and regional traffic generation will require full improvements to both Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard and some modifi- _ cations to internal access (see Section 4.4 for details) . The proposed project will generate an additional 10,225 trips. 6-1 The project could create an annual demand for approximately 22.77 . million cubic feet of natural gas and 20.05 million kwh/year of electricity, intensifying long-term commitments to nonrenewable and finite energy resources. ` Projected water and wastewater demands of the. project will concern general upgrading to the existing facilities. Approximately 35.1 , million gallons/year of water and 235.3 million gallons/year of waste- water will be generated upon project implementation. Increased demand for police and fire services will add to cumulative demand for additional officers and facilities to provide adequate coverage to the study area. Ambient noise levels will be increased from that of existing conditions as a result of helicopter operations (see Section 4.4 for detailed discussion) . 6-2 - • 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT .AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY w The proposed Beach Boulevard office complex represents a long-term commit- ment to the development of significant multistory nodes in the City of Huntington Beach.. Presently the General Plan of Huntington Beach desig- nates six such developments throughout the city. The proposed office complex can . be considered a productive step in attaining the City' s long- range planning objectives to "provide for the appropriate and harmonious w. development of multistory structures in the City of Huntington Beach."l In addition, a major development on this site could greatly influence surrounding land uses, encouraging a new direction for community growth. However, a development of this scale and type may prove to be in direct competition with the revitalization efforts for the downtown area. Of three alternative land use proposals for the downtown area presented by the Coastal Element, may. be precluded if major office developments are •r being provided elsewhere in the community.? Currently, the project area is devoted to an abandoned school/site sur- rounded by commercial and retail uses, single family residenti.al�and apart- ment complexes. As a result,. the study area has already been ,dedicated to urban-oriented. uses. Implementation of the project would lead to a long- term intensification of onsite. land uses. The intensification and infill- ing of un existing urban area is consistent with State of California urban development policy in that it has the 'potential for reducing development demands .at the urban fringe. The proposed 10-acre commercial complex will increase the study area' s pro- ductivity in terms of land efficiency and greater -economic return gener- ated from the commercial uses versus the current use of the site. This increased economic productivity will occur without the necessity to commit -- 1 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Multi-Story/High Rise Study, May, 1973 - October, 1-974. 2 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 7-1 currently undeveloped land to urban uses. The project may also be considered, therefore, as an enhancement to long-term productivity in terms of land efficiency. Because of the large monetary commitment required to construct the proposed Beach Boulevard office complex and the City' s goals of the establishment of identifiable multistory developments, it is unlikely that the study will return to a less intensive land use. After the approximate 50 to 75-year lifespan of the commercial structure, it is reasonable to assume replacement by a more modern facility or possible alternative land use. Conditions may be such in the future that the proposed development is no longer the most economically productive use of the land area. It -is logical to assume that the office complex would then be replaced by a "more productive" activity as the development and redevelopment of land progresses through time,. in response to human needs. 7-2 ' t � ... 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES Approval and subsequent development of the. proposed project will result in an irretrievable commitment of energy supplies and other resources. These energy. resource demands will be utilized by the project for construction, heating and cooling of buildings, and the transportation of employees/pa- trons and goods to and from the Beach Boulevard office complex. As fossil fuels are the principal source of energy, it can be stated that the proposed development will incrementally reduce existing supplies of fuel including fuel oil , natural gas, and gasoline. It has been forecast that the proposed project will require approximately 20.5 million kilowatt hours of. electricity and 22.77 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. --� This represents a long-term commitment to an essentially non-renewable resource. .r- The construction of the proposed development will also require the commitment or destruction of other non-renewable and slowly renewable resources. These resources include lumber and other forest products; sand . and gravel ; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel , copper, y' lead and -other metals; water, etc. An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (waste disposal and treatment, etc.) will also be required. Since the study area is currently in a "developed state" there is no further commitment of undeveloped land, only a more intensive use of the resource previously committed. Additionally, the proposed project would not significantly affect the allocation of open space as the study area is already developed. However, the project will result in long-term modifica- tion to the current visual milieu of the site. r 8-1 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS- Growth-inducing impacts relate primarily to increased economic activity in the city of Huntington Beach. Direct growth impacts will not occur inasmuch as the project does not propose residential uses. However, a wide variety of indirect (or secondary) growth inducements can be expected to evolve. The project will employ an estimated 2,152 additional long-term employees W- and approximately 732 employees during the approximate one-year construc- tion period, which will create a demand for additional goods and support services in the general vicinity, thus stimulating growth in these sectors of the economy. This effect is known as the economic multiplier and can be considered somewhat stabilizing as the land and economic resources reach saturation. It can be expected that Huntington Beach and other neighboring cities will experience incremental demands for housing. The project may also indirect- ly induce the development of more intensive land uses in the area. a.. :.r 9-1 �. 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 10.1 PARTICIPANTS W The PBR personnel who participated in the preparation of this EIR: include: Principal-in-Charge Michael Brandman, Ph.D. -- Project Director Lloyd Bookout Project Manager Luana Vogelsang 'Environmental Research and Analysis Lynn Masaki Kim Mauvais Beverly Bruesch Biological. Re-sources Eric Hansen, Ph.D. Graphics Lynn Buhlig -- Steve McCormick Word• Processing/Edi,ti ng Barbara Heath Mary Chri stl e Pamela Richardson 10.2 PUBLIC AGENCIES Ci ty of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services James R. Barnes Mike Adams .— Fire Department William Cooper Pol'ice. Department Earle W. Robitaill,e ' Public Works Department George Tindall 10.3 PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCIES Southern California Gas Company J .D. Allen - General Telephone Company W.R. Duvall Southern California Edison Company D.R. Burris i 10-1 , 10.4 CONSULTANTS Architect. Albert C. Martin and Associates Union Bank Square 445 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles, California 9007.1 Jonathan D. Lloyd John H. Johnson Carl Clockie Traffic/Circulation Greer & Company 430 North Lakeview Avenue Anaheim, California 92807 Larry E. Greer 4 Helistop Noise Study Vincent Mestre Associates 200 Newport Center Drive, Suite 213 Newport Beach, California 92660. Vince Mestre r 10-2 11 .0 BIBLIOGRAPHY i Archaeological Research Incorporated. Scientific Resources Survey and Inventor�Huntington Beach, California, e_cnica ersion Restricted Distribution, April 1973. California State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics. "Information Relating to the Establishment of Heliports. in.. California," May 1978. City of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976 and amended through March 1979. -� Huntington Beach General Plan, Housing Element, November 9 . Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Division 9, 1952. Department of Development Services. Land Use Element men men - nvironmental Impact Report 80-3, December . Huntington Beach Planning Department. Multi-Story/- ig - ise to y, .May 1973-October 197.4. Huntington Beach Planning Department. and Leighton-Yen and Associates.. .Geotechnical Inputs, February 1974. • Cy 9 Impact of Los Angeles. Environmental Im act Process for Private Projects, August 1.975, updated January . First American Title Company. Residential Sales Survey, Orange County Single. Family Detached and Condominium and PlannedUnit Developments, 1980. ` Greer & Company.. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Beach-Warner Office Compl.ex,. May 1981 . Kinchen, David M. Los Angeles Times, "South Coast Plaza Center Saves Energy, May 3, 1981 . LeRoy Crandall and Associates. Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed Mola Office Complex Beach Boulevard and. Warner Avenue, April _ ._. . -- National Oceanic and Atmospherica Administration, Climatological Data Annual Summary, V, 82, n. 13, 1978. Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center. Report on the State of the County 1979-1980, April 1980. PBQ&D. A Traffic Report on the Proposed Beach and Warner Professional • Plaza, October 980. y 11-1 i i South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rules and Regulations. Southern California Association of Governments. Growth Forecast Policy, January 1978. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administra- tion. Advisory Circular Heliport Design Guide No. 150/5290-1B, August 1977. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollu- tant Emission Factors, Third Edition, August 1977. Includes Supplement Vincent Mestre Associates. Helistop Noise Assessment, May 1981 . •r • 11-2 12.0. FINAL EIR ADDENDUM" This section of the EIR contains comments received on the Draft EIR 81-19 Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Office Commercial Complex, and responses prepared for each of these comments pursuant to Section 15146 (b) of the California Administrative Code. A11 comments received during the public review period of June 22, 1981 through August 5, 1981 are discussed herein, as well as comments received subsequent to the close of the 45-day review period. Unless otherwise noted all comments will be. incorporated into the Final EIR without comment. 12.1 LIST OF PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS AND AGENCIES COMMENTING ON DRAFT EIR 81-1 Page 1 . Orange County Transit District 12-2 2. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, EAD 12-3 3. City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department 12-6 4. California State Department of Transportation 12-10 - 5. California State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics 12-13 6. City of Huntington Beach, Environmental Board 12-13 7. City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department 12-21 W I IYY ' r 12- 1 Orange County Transit District I . Comment: "We have found that the consultant made no mention of transit in this report. In order to minimize traffic -- impacts and encourage transit usage, we feel. that transit accessibility and necessary accommodations should be addressed. .� "Route 29 currently serves the site on Beach Boulevard. Route 72 serves the site on Warner Avenue. In order to serve the proposed project, we suggest bus stops be situ- ated on Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. -Depending on the street width and striping plans, bus turnouts may be necessary at these two stops. (We will be glad to confer _. with you on this matter.) We are also requesting that the developer include bus shelters at both bus stops. In addition, the developer should be encouraged to adopt a transit incentive program for the project to further maxi- mize transit usage. These transit improvements could be viewed. as the developer' s contribution toward traffic mitigation, and the City may consider parking reduction below that required by the City code." Response: The following is hereby incorporated as paragraph .2 on page 4-12 of Section 4.4, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Public transit is currently provided to the project . site by the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) . Route 29 ..�„ serves the site from Beach Boulevard and Route 72 from Warner Avenue. Route 29 is a local bus route with service every 20 minutes at peak traffic hours. Route 72 is also a local bus route, serving the project site on an hourly basis, only. The following measures shall be incorporated into Section :- 4.4, TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION, page 4-20: 1 . Bus stops, with bus shelters, should be situated on Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard, in order to serve the proposed project. 12-2 2. Coordination with project planners and OCTD will address the need, location, and type, of bus turnouts on Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. 3. It is. recommended that the City encgurage the devel- oper to adopt a transit incentive program to further maximize transit usage and improve the efficiency of available roadway facilities. ,.. 2. Comment: "Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this supplementary EIR. We would appreciate that the City could ask their consultants to take transit into account when preparing any future environmental reports or specific plans. Please feel free to contact me or Mike Haack' at 971-6405 should you have any questions. Response: Comment so noted. County of Orange Environmental Management Agency, EAD 1 . Comment: Page 4-14, paragraph-l . The report states that the inter- section of Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street will increase by only 40 vehicles and will not create a significant impact at this intersection which is currently operating at Level of Service (LOS) "E" . We do consider LOS "E" as significant and any new traffic would aggrevate an already poor situation to an intolerable one. The applicant should address measures to mitigate the impacts at the Warner/Magnolia intersection. Response: Warner at Magnolia currently operates at a LOS ''E With the project the intersection will continue to operate at LOS. "E" , . therefore, the project will not create a signifi- cant impact to this intersection. However, measures addressed on pages 4-19 to 4-21 (and those incorporated as a re.sult of this comment and response package) will not only serve to mitigate traffic impacts to the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, but have the secondary effect of alleviating impacts. to the inter- section of Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street as well.. 12-3 2. Comment: "Page 3-19, paragraph 3. The noise contour (75.01 . CNEL) produced by traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard does not • agree with the figure provided in Table 4-9." Response: The difference in the two noise levels as cited on page 3-19 and in Table 4-9 of the EIR is the result of rounding to the nearest hundredth, by the calculator program ( .02 dBA CNEL) . In order to eliminate confusion, (Section 3.6, ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT) , paragraph 3 on page 3-19 is hereby amended to read (as underlined) : ". . .Traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard produce an almost identical noise contour, a 74.99 CNEL, fifty. feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane." 3. Comment: "Page 4-17, Air Transportation. Should be discussed or cross-referenced in Noise Section." Response: The following cross-reference is added to page 4-30 following paragraph 1 : • "The reader is referred to pages -4-17 to 4-19 of Section 4.4, TRANSPORTATION/CI.RCULATION, for noise impacts related w- to the proposed heliport, and pages 4-20 to 4-21 for recommended mitigation measures for onsite and surrounding land uses." v 4. Comment: "Page 4-19, line 7. The 15 dBA estimate should be more like 10-12." ' Response: So noted. The discussion following on page 4-19, lines 6 and 7, is hereby amended to read as underlined: ". . .Inside residences with windows open, the noise levels are expected to be from 10-12 dBA 1 ess than those exper- ienced outside." 5. Comment: Page 4 21 , last paragraph. Airport Land Use Commission also has statutory authority." 12-4 t Response: The comment above is as a result of a typographical error. Reference to ACCU in the last. paragraph on_ page 4-21 . -is hereafter amended to read. ALUC (Airport Land. Use Commis- . sion) . Correction is so noted. 6. Comment: "Page 4-29, first and third paragraphs. Clarification of surrounding commercial and residential uses needed." Response: In order to facilitate discussion of surrounding.. land. uses on page 4-29, the following is hereafter added as under-- lined to paragraph 1 , second sentence: . . .However, the proposed project is a land use .consistent with the surround-ing commercial uses . (see Exhibit. 3-1 , -- Onsite "and- Surrounding Land Uses) ." And paragraph 3, first sentence: _ tl✓ , "As the project progresses through construction, the surrounding residential and commercial land uses will be impacted acoustically (see Exhibit 3-1 , Onsite and Surrounding Land Uses), as will onsite construction workers." 7. Comment:. "Page 4-30, Table 4-9. Beach. Boulevard estimate (74.99) not the same as -on page 3-19. .r: Response: Refer to Response to Comment #2 from this agency. 8. Comment.: "Page 4-30, line 20. Please clarify phrase ". . .relative to the loss of the commercial . . ." Response: Line 20 on page 4-30 was incorrectly stated and is hereafter amended to read: "Acoustic impacts related to operation of the commercial office complex can be partially mitigated by the following: 12-5 City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department The Public Works Department has the following comments and concerns regard - ing the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed commercial development at Beach .Boulevard and Warner Avenue. 1 . Comment: "Short-cut" trips through the residential area to the southwest (i .e. , Cypress, Elm and Sycamore Streets) can reasonably be expected; therefore those streets should be examined relative to. reconstructing or repaving. r Response: Comment so noted. The following measure will be added to Section 4.4: 1 . The applicant, with city assistance, will examine reconstruction or repairing of surrounding roads -- H .e. ,. Cypress, Elm and Sycamore Streets) in order to discourage short-cut trips through residential areas southwest of the site. W 2. Comment: "Consideration to closing the intersection of Beach- at Cypress may be appropriate as a traffic signal is proposed for the Warner/Ash intersection." Response At the time street improvement plans are submitted, the City of Huntington Beach should consider closing the intersection of Beach at Cypress. 3. Comment: "Since the employment totals for the development will be significant, it is recommended that bus "turn-outs" be provided for the eastbound Warner Avenue, near side bus -- stop and for southbound Beach Boulevard on the far side of the intersection." Response: Refer to Response to Comment 1 from :the Orange County Transit District (OCTD) in regard to the provisions of bus turn-outs. 12-6 i 4. Comment: "The provisions for east-bound traffic (2 left-turn lanes, 3 through lanes, 1 right-turn lane and bus turn-out) will probably require. additional right-of-way and street improvements beyond the 60 feet and 52 feet R/W and road- way requirements. This can be determined by the Civil Engineer doing the street improvement plans; however, the developer should be made. aware in the event this will affect his site pl,an." Response: Comment provides amplifying remarks regarding ultimate right-of-way conf figuration. At the time street improve- ment plans are submitted, engineering standards, as noted, shall be reviewed for project implementation. 5. Comment: "The Beach Boulevard south-bound bus "turn-out" and separate right-turn lane at the access po.int could. be incorporated and designed so that these - two functions — would not interfere with bicycle and moped traffic outside of the third south-bound lane. A portion of the parkway (say 4-5 feet). plus the parking lane could be combined to provide the turn-out and r.ight-turn-only lane." • Response: The above comment provides amplifying remarks regarding the south-bound Beach Boulevard bus "turn-out". and. the sep- arate right-turn-only lane. At the time street improve- ment plans are submitted, engineering considerations such as that suggested in the above comment will be. reviewed. 6. Comment: "In order to provide four lanes on Ash Street, it is recommended that the inside lanes be 10 feet wide and the outside lanes be 14 feet (to allow for bicycle traffic) . W.i,thout provisions for parking on Ash Street, the curb to curb distance needs to be 48 feet." Response: Comment provides amplifying remarks regarding ultimate ri.#t-of-way configuration for Ash Street. These engineering standards will be reviewed and, if found appropriate, will be incorporated into the project at the time street improvement plans are submitted. 12-7 7. Comment: ' ".In general , the highways around the development are v intended to move traffic and on-street parking will not be permitted. If street parking is going to be allowed on Ash Street, additional widening will be required." Response: The following is hereby incorporated on page. 4-20 of the DEIR as measure #4 under "Intersection and street improve- ments at Warner and Ash Street": "4. Should on-street parking on Ash Street be allowed additional widening of the roadway will be required. _ 8. Comment: "Report fails to mention water requirements for fire flows which may be significant. Sizing of lines will be . based on fire flows, not domestic water." Response: The water requirements for fire flows is presently being investigated by William Cooper, Deputy Fire Marshal , City of Huntington Beach and is not yet available.. Based on Fire Department correspondence dated May 1 , 1981 , there is • adequate water available to serve the site. Work will be done by the developer to bring water onto the site in order to satisfy fire department requirements. Therefore, it is expected that fire flow requirements, though dicta- ting the sizing of lines, will not present an adverse impact. y 9. Comment: "How can wastewater generation be more than 8 times water use? See page 4-33." Response: Review of the calculations indicate an error' to water and wastewater service impacts as discussed on pages 4-32 to 4-34 of the EIR. The following will replace Table 4-10 of the EIR. As shown, projected water consumption rates of the proposed project, based on the number of employees, will total approximately 23,564,400 gallons per year or 64,560 gallons per day (See Table 4-10) . • Discussion of project-related water service on page 4-32 to 4-33 will reflect Table 4-10 as amended. 12-8 Table A will replace Table 4-11 of the EIR as amended. �.. Wastewater .generated from the project will total approxi- mately 9,581 ,250 gallons annually or 26,250 per day. Table 4-10 PROJECTED WATER CONSUMPTION Land Use Consumption Ratel Annual Consumption Office/Commercial 30 gallons/day/emp 23,564,400 gallons (2,152 employees) TOTAL 23,564,400 gallons/year or 64,560 gallons/day 1 City of Los Angeles, EIR Manual for Private Projects, August 1975, . updated January 1979. Water consumption rates from. the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department are not available at this time. Table A WASTEWATER GENERATION RATE Land Use Consumption Ratel Annual Consumption Office Professional 2,000 gpd/acre 8,760,000 gallons (Total : 12.01 acres) Commercial - (Total : .90 acres) 2,500 gpd/acre 821 ,250 gallons 9,581 ,250 gallons per year or 9.58 gallons per day • 1 Source: Lowry and Associates. City of Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan, November 1978. 12-9 As noted on page 4-32 of the EIR . (footnote 1 ) water consumption rates from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department are not available at this time, therefore, any. discrepancy between that of water demand and wastewater generated is a result of the use of two different generation sources (i .e. , City of Los Angeles EIR Manual for Private Projects and Lowry and Associates, City of Huntington Beach Sewer Master Plan) . Discussion of environmental impact to wastewater service _ on pages 4-33 to 4-34 will hereafter reflect the table as amended. California State Department of Transportation 1 . Comment: "Caltrans is a Responsible Agency on this proposal inasmuch as access and improvements to State Route 39 (Beach Boulevard) are proposed. Work proposed on Beach v Boulevard as mitigation will require an Encroachment Permi t." •y Response: The above comment will be incorporated into the EIR as additional information to paragraph 3 on page 3-13, Existing Conditions. Additionally, the following will be added to page 4-20 of the , EIR as measure #3 of street improvements to Beach Boulevard: w "3. An Encroachment Permit will be required of the following improvements proposed to Beach Boulevard, which shall be reviewed and subsequently approved by Caltrans." 2. Comment: "Regarding these proposals, Caltrans will insist the right-turn lane on Beach Boulevard run the entire length of the site and that the left-turn pockets be of ample length to accommodate the total left-turn demand. Additionally, no median openings on Beach will be permitted. Caltrans believes that the EIR will need to be _ changed to reflect the above before it is adequate for the • purpose of issuing any Caltrans Encroachment Permit." 12-10 Response: The right-turn lane on Beach Boulevard and lengths to left-turn pockets, in order to accommodate the total r- left-turn project-related demands, will be reviewed and determined at such time as street improvement plans are submitted. It is further recommended that the following be added to w page 4-20 as measure,. #4_,of street improvements to Beach Boulevard: "4. No median openings will . be permitted. on Beach Boulevard." 3. Comment: "In our response to the NOP, Caltrans pointed out that -' - there are, mitigation measures appropriate. in addition to street improvements. These are provisions for alterna- tives to the single-occupant automobile. In the case of a proposal with significant traffic impacts, such as this multi-story office complex, strategies for encouraging the use of vanpools, carpools, etc. , should be a condition of approval by the local agency." Response: Traffic mitigation measures, associated with development of . the proposed project may offset some of the localized impacts. The following will be added to- page 4-20 as measure #4 of improvement to access of the project. 4. "Investigation and implementation of HOV lanes, ramp V metering, car and vanpools, etc. should occur on a regional level , with local. guidance and input." . 4. Comment: "In addition to the above, Caltrans feels the document should have addressed impacts to Route 405. This is especially appropriate inasmuch as the Traffic Study on page 5 states freeway access as being significant to the project." Response: Comment so noted. The following reply was prepared by Larry E. Greer, Professional Engineer, of Greer and Company. 12-11 The information provided below will be incorporated into �— the DEIR on page 3-14, following paragraph 2. Addition- ally, the discussion will also be added to page 6 of the Traffic Report prepared for the project as contained in the Appendix to this EIR (copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department) . "San Diego Freeway The San Diego Freeway is the major regional traffic carrier in the project vicinity. Freeway ramp systems access Beach Boulevard, Magnolia Street, and Warner Avenue. The Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue streets are primary routes to the project site. Existing available p.m. peak hour volumes are shown on Exhibit 3-28 (see attache*d) . The San Diego Freeway (I-405) will serve the project by providing convenient links to the project. site from remote residential communities. Other connecting -- freeway links to the San Diego Freeway in the immediate area include the Costa Mesa Freeway, San Gabriel Freeway and the Long Beach Freeway. Beach Boulevard will provide freeway access for northbound -freeway traffic generated by the project during the p.m. peak hour. Northbound freeway access at the Beach Boule- vard interchange is accommodated by the cloverleaf inter- change design without additional signalized intersections on Beach Boulevard. Current p.m. peak traffic volumes for _ the northbound onramp are unavailable from Caltrans. Northbound and southbound San Diego Freeway access east of the project site is accommodated by the split interchanges in Warner and Magnolia. P.M. peak hour traffic destined southbound on the freeway will access the freeway from eastbound Warner to the southbound onramp. Current p.m. peak hour volume on this onramp is 410 vehicles per Ca,ltrans volume counts.' The discussion of project-related impacts regarding Route 405 is hereby added to page 4-11 of the DE IR preceding the discussion of Air Transportation. Also, the following is to be incorporated into the Traffic Report on page 22, as contained in the Appendix to this EIR (copies are avail- able at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department) . 12-12 "Traffic impacts during the p.m. peak hour study period are not expected to create- significant impacts at the two primary freeway access locations. These access . facilities -- are the northbound Beach Boulevard onramp and the east- bound Warner Avenue onramp for access to the San Diego Freeway. The northbound Beach Boulevard traffic is metered. by the Edinger Avenue traffic signal prior. to entering the freeway ramps. P.M. peak hour project volumes of about 200 vehicles are estimated northbound on Beach . Boulevard at Edinger Avenue. Approximately 100 to �-- 120 of these vehicles will enter the freeway using the northbound onramp. The traffic signal at Edinger Avenue will have the effect of slowing and disbursing arrivals. The project volume estimated for eastbound Warner Avenue. is 305 vehicles. Approximately 200 of these vehicles are expected to enter the southbound San Diego Freeway ramp. `- These additional volumes should not exceed the ramp capacities for the existing ramp system. Vehicle arrivals at the Warner Avenue southbound freeway entrance will be metered by the traffic signal control at Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street. Therefore, it is estimated that project-related traffic will not have significant impact at either the Beach Boulevard or the Warner Avenue San Diego Freeway ramp systems." California State Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics 1 . Comment: "Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics, has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for this project. The. proposed rooftop heliport, of course, places us in the role of Responsible Agency since the Division' issues Heliport Permits." Response: Comment so noted. 2. Comment: "Noise: The .DEIR recognizes the potential noise impact from helicopter operations, and recommends acoustical treatment of facilities in the project area, as well as restricting heliport use to daytime hours only. With the proposed approach/departure corridors, it appears that some of the surrounding residential areas may fall within the 75 dBA CNEL contour. It might be advisable to require the proponent to assist impacted residents in acoustical treatment of their homes." 12-13 Response: Mitigation measures regarding acoustical treatment of both short-term and long-term impacts of the project are addressed on page 4-30 of the DEIR. Measures specific to the helistop operations are provided on page 4-21 which addresses restriction of heliport use to daytime hours only, and partial mitigation to noise levels experienced in nearby residential areas and interior noise levels of buildings onsite. The following reply was prepared by Vincent Mestre, Professional Engineer, of Vincent Mestre Associates. The above comment indicates that the noise from the heli- stop will produce noise levels in residential areas in excess of 75 dBA CNEL. This is definitely not the case. ` Refer to Exhibits 3 and 4 of the DEIR which show that the CNEL levels associated with the helistop operations are -- less than 45 CNEL. Exhibit 5 indicates that the maximum noise level during a flyover will be in the 75 dBA range. The distinction that must be drawn is that between the single event maximum noise level and the 24-hour average time weighted CNEL noise level . The latter noise metric, CNEL, is used to assess the noise impact of sources in res- idential areas. The maximum noise levels have been. report- ed for informational purposes and are included to provide a complete picture of the noise environment. The helistop will not cause any noise impacts which warrant mitigation in the residential area adjacent to the project." 3. Comment: "Safety: The DEIR contains no discussion of heliport- related safety issues. The environs of any heliport have a potential for accidents during helicopter operations. Approach and departure corridors for the helicopter should involve consideration of possible landing sites under emer- gency conditions - such as engine failure. _ This issue should be assessed in the Final DEIR." 12-14 Response: As stated .in the EIR (page 4-21 ) , at the time procedural requirements for approval of the helistop are undertaken (City Council , ALUC, FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronau- tics) , the safety aspects of helicopter use, in addition. .-- to adequate design and construction of the heliport, wi-11 De addressed. Heliports are frequently located in highly urbanized areas and with the appropriate structural design and construc- tion, related hazards can be mitigated to an acceptable level of safety. Early coordination with FAA, state and -- local authorities is recommended to ensure that no perti- nent code or regulation is overlooked in regard to safety issues onsite and to the surrounding land uses. In addition, it is fully anticipated that the Caltrans Div- ision of Aeronautics will authorize a permit for heliport operation only after safety issues regarding 'the heliport have been considered. ,r 4. Comment: "Encroachment: While there is no encroachment of incompat- ible land uses, the heliport itself may be difficult to justify- as a land use compatible with the surrounding resi- dential areas. The DEIR does include measures which might mitigate potential noise, safety, and land use conflicts." -� Response: Comment so noted. 5. Comment: Circulation: The DEIR includes a thorough discussion of potential circulation problems, and recommends certain street and intersection improvements as mitigating meas- ures. The Final EIR should spell out just who will be re- quired to fund those improvements. The Lead Agency - and the proponent - should coordinate surface transportation improvements with the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, and Caltrans District 7." Response: As a standard condition by the City, applicants are requir- ed to fund street improvements to provide for an adequate level of service. However, the following will be added. to page 4-20 following measures #1 of internal improvements. 12-15 "The lead agency and the proponent shall coordinate sur- face transportation improvements with the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County, and Caltrans District 7." 6: Comment: "The DEIR is well done and addresses most of the issues which are of concern to the Division of Aeronautics. We �- recommend that the proponent initiate early contact with the Division of Aeronautics on the heliport permit pro- cess. We also recommend that the City condition approval of the C.U.P. on the proponent complying with all FAA and state requirements for the heliport." Response: City approval of the CUP will be dependent. on compliance with all FAA and state requirements in relation to the construction, design and operation of the proposed heliport. City of Huntington Beach, Environmental Board 1 . Comment: The EIR report in a number of cases appears to- be incon- sistent and contradictory. For example, on pages 1 and 2 the report indicates that "Development of the study. area will not alter . . the amount of surface runoff." How- ever, on Pg. 4-6 the report states that "Development of the site will increase surface runoff to the site." _ Again, on Pg. 4-7 the report indicates that "A properly designed storm drain system will reduce the potential impacts of increased onsite runoff volumes. This -is inconsistent. Which is it? Increased runoff or not? Response: Page 1-2 incorrectly stated that development will not alter amount of surface runoff.' Development of the study area will potentially increase surface runoff (development will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces) . The r City' s Public Works Department has confirmed that the project includes a properly designed storm drain. system which will not exceed the capacity in the overall storm drain system for the city. .. 2. Comment: With respect to waste water, on Pg. 4-6 the report says that "the (storm runoff) system will be adequate for the • 12-16 p " � r u applicant' s ultimate 'development proposal ." But on. Pg. • 4-39 the report indicates that 'ft will be "necessary ( to construct) sewer line,-.improvements to service the proposed �- project." Another inconsistency. Response: These statements are not inconsistent. The storm drain system conveys storm water runoff; the sewer system is a separate system conveying wastewater. Sewer line ne improve- ments is a typical requirement of the developer. 3. Comment: Such readily apparent inconsistencies and contradictions bring into question the adequacy of the entire report. What other items were overlooked? What measures inade- quately developed? What impacts unassessed? . Response: The purpose of the public review process is to incorporate new or changed information to the. Draft EIR, thereby provi- . ding a complete informational document. Given that this document has been distributed to individuals will varying types of expertise, it is expected that inconsistencies, �-- � inadequacies, etc. will be corrected. Broad general i za- tions about inadequacies are not a sound basis for deter- mining that an entire document is inadequate.. 4. Comment: With respect to other issues, the report does not make clear the relationship between CNEL and dBA noise levels. On Pg. 4-18 the report says that "Noise levels generated by helicopter operations will be '.less than 75 CNEL in surrounding residential areas" while . Pg. 4-19 indicates that "nearby residential areas will experience maximum sound levels of 75 to 80 dBA'." What is the relationship between CNEL and dBA? Response: See Response to California State Department of. Transporta- tion Division of Aeronautics Comment. #2. In addition, dBA is a noise measurement unit that describes the response of the human ear to noise. CNEL (Community Noise Equivalent Level ) i.s a 24-hour weighted average of noise in dBA. Noise occurring from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. is weighted by three times and noise occurring from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. is • Y weighted b ten times. 9 12-17 5. Comment: The report addresses the impact on fire service but fails �-- to even mention the capability of the fire. department to fight a fire in a 232-foot tall building. This oversight needs to be corrected. Response: Fire Department correspondence, dated May 1 , 1981 in DEIR 81-1 Appendix H (separately bound and available for review at the City 'of Huntington Beach) , indicates that "fighting fires in a high rise requires appreciably more manpower and puts a greater demand on resources." However, the letter continues on that"County-.wide cooperation on plan- ning ning for and combatting high rise incidents reduces this concern." In addition, the letter states "the subject project will not necessitate the fire department making any expansion.." 6. Comment: The EIR estimates that the proposed project would require three (3) additional police officers to provide police service. However, no mention is made as to when, how, or where the salaries of these officers would come from. This question has an important budgetary impact and needs to be addressed. Response: The police department has indicated no additional person- nel will be employed as a result of project site develop- ment. Project implementation will result in increased workloads per officer as a result of the. increased demand upon police services. This would be an unavoidable adverse impact of the project as addressed in Section 6.0 (Unavoidable Adverse Impacts) of the DEIR. Measures. that offer partial mitigation are provided on. pages 4-38 to 4-39 of the DEIR. C. _ . In addition, the project will provide for onsite private security which will consist of two persons on patrol duty during office hours (one person to patrol each tower) and one person to patrol both towers after office hours. The parking structure will be monitored during open hours, as • it will be a paid parking facility. 12-18 7. Comment: Parking is another item which is not adequately resolved by the EIR. Table 4-5 on Pg. 4-16 indicates a peak park- ing demand of 1 ,862 spaces while on Pg. 4-17 :the peak �.. parking demand is reported as 1 ,579 spaces. Yet another contradication. Further, the assumptions used to generate. Table 4-5 need to be thoroughly analyzed. A slight differ- ence in any of these assumptions, such as a theater show- ing, can quickly increase the peak .parking demand.. As it is, . Table 4-5 projects a peak parking demand of 1 ,862 spaces with only 1 ,893 spaces available (nearly 1 ,000 less -r - . than the code requirement of 2,865) . This does not leave much room for error. Thus there appears to be a need to . further address the parking question and its. relationship to car pooling, public transportation, add.itional alter- native parking schemes, etc. �- Response: Text discussion of project-related parking requirements addressed on pages 4-15 to 4-17 of the EIR reflects the Traffic Impact Analysis as amended in June 1.981 , which V superseded the previously prepared traffic study of May 1981 . However, information provided by Table 4-5 reflects �. the initially prepared traffic study (May 1981 ) and was not amended accordingly. Therefore, the incongruency — • noted between text and table is the result of an error overlooked in the incorporation of traffic information as amended in the June 1981 report. Table 4-5 of the DEIR is hereby replaced with the following. revised table: 12-19 Table 4-5 PEAK PARKING DEMAND Code Parking Estimated Peak Parking Use Requirement Reduction Demand General Office 1 ,743 16%1 1 ,464 Restaurant 286 60% 115 Theater 583 100% 0 Total Spaces 2,612 1 ,579 1 Assumptions relative to peak general office parking demand: a) assume 90% average occupancy of buildings b) assume 5% average absence of general building popu- lation due to illness, vacation, business trips;- and building population of 4.25 people/1 ,000 S.F. and vehicle occupancy of 1 .2 from ITE Trip Genera- -- tion Report, Second Edition, 1979. c) assume 2% of the general building population util- ize public transit, are dropped off, use bicycle or other means of getting to work without requir- ing a parking space. Source: Greer & Co.. , Engineers and Planners As discussed in the EIR on pages 4-15 to 4-17, the total * �, parking figure, as required (2,612 parking spaces) is not representative of actual parking demand conditions during a weekday for the proposed project. Using a "worst-case" analysis or peak parking demand (hours between 4:30 and noon) , parking requirements of the project were calcula- ted. Parking demand for the office towers will be reduced 16% as a result of several factors: office vacancy; employee absence due to illness, vacations or business trips; public transit use, vanpooling and carpooling; and bicycle and motorcycle use. In addition, walk-in clientele (from nearby towers) to the two restaurants will account for an estimated 60% reduction of restaurant parking and the overlapping of office employee parking . leaving the site during the traditional lunch break hours between noon and y 12-20 1 p.m. and incoming non-employee restaurant patrons. During this time period the theatre. would not be in use, reducing the parking requirement by 583 parking spaces (or. 100b. It can be noted, theatre showing would not prove a relevant issue to this situation' These reductions are shown accordingly in Table- 4-5 as . revised and result in the peak parking demand of 1 ,579 total spaces (as correctly noted in the EIR on page 4-17) . Therefore, while less than parking code requirements, the proposed parking provision of 1 ;893 parking spaces should be -adequate to accommodate the peak parking demand of the project. 8. Comment: Other areas of concern revolve around conservation mea- sures. For example, a number of water conservation mea- sures are "offered," such as low volume toilet tanks and flow control devices. 'But in the analysis of water usage, a standard figure of 30 gal ./day/person is used which apparently does not take into account the offered conserva- tion measures. This can only lead to the conclusion that the commitment to conservation measures is merely lip service. A project of this size and magnitude should be committed to conservation measures and do everything possible to implement resource conservation and-recycling techniques. Proposals "offered to encourage. conservation" would seem to be inadequate., Response: Water generation factors reflecting the implementation of water conserving measures; are not available, therefore, the standard figure is used. This standard also repr.e Bents the worst case water demand. Conservation measures are "offered to encourage conservation" in the project design, if feasible. In general , it is the responsibility of the water serving agency (City of Huntington Beach) to determine -the. feasibility. . 9. Comment: Yet another inconsistency appears in Tables 4-10 and 4-11 on pp. 4-32 and 4-33. It is unclear how 35.1 million gallons/year of water consumption (Table 4-10) results in 12-21 235.3 million gallons/year of waste water (Table 4-11 ) .. In addition, if the volumes in Table 4-11 are added, a sum of 48.6 million gallons/year is reached. Obviously, 235.3 is in error. Nevertheless, these differences need to be resolved. Response: There was an error in calculation. See Response to City of Huntington Beach Public Works Report Comment No. 9. 10. Comment: With respect to energy conservation, the EIR rejects dir- ect solar energy collection as not practical without actually analyzing the feasibility of such active solar systems for such things as hot water heating. The report indicates that "Full consideration will be given to 'passive' conservation means" such as "external shading by adjacent structures." Since these buildings will be the tallest in Huntington Beach, it is hard ' to imagine how there would be any shading from adjacent structures. Response: An energy statement for the Beach Boulevard and Warner Ave- nue office complex was prepared by James A. Knowles and Associates, Inc. , consulting mechanical engineers for the project as contained in Appendix H of the EIR and summar- ized on pages 4-37 to 4-38. The report sets forth the following objectives for dismissal of direct solar energy consideration: 1 ) given the present state of the art, 2) the project site location, and 3) the configuration of the project The report as summarized, provided energy conser- vation measures recommended in the enhancement of overall project efficiency within the site boundary which includes the four-plex . theatre, two restaurants and a 5-1/2-story parking structure, in addition to the twin 16-story office towers. It is expected "shading of exposed surfaces" will be addressed to the former of the proposed land uses. It should be noted that the project will meet or exceed Title 24 energy conservation standards through incorpora- tion of specific energy conservation measures into project design. 11 . Comment:. The traffic .impacts as a result of this project appear very significant. Ninety-eight hundred vehicle trips per day will pour out onto Beach and Warner, one of the 12-22 busiest intersections in the City. The report indicates on which. streets these trips• would be distributed, but fails to address the current overloaded condition of Beach Boulevard . and the impact of this. project would have on further aggravating this overloaded condition. The report needs to address more thoroughly mitigating the increased traffic flow as well as implementing the, use of car and bus pools and staggering. office start/stop times to dif- fuse the peak rush impact. In addition, large, detailed drawings showing. -the existing and proposed conditions of the Beach/Warner intersection would help clarify the mitigation measures proposed for these streets. Response; In general , an intersection determines. a road's capacity (it controls the flow of traffic) . As noted on page 3-14 and 4-13 of DEIR 81-1 , the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue intersection is operating. at Level of Service (LOS) E, characterized. as the maximum traffic volume an intersec- ti.on can accommodate. Therefore, the congested condition . of- Beach Boulevard has been addressed. Pages 4-13 and 4-14 indicate that the project impact on. the Beach/Warner intersection is to drop the LOS from E to F (or force flow condzitions) . With. the recommended street improvements,. pages 4-19 through 4-2.1 , the intersection overall capacity will improve from F to nearly D. The project impact -on Beach Boulevard, with the. recommended mitigation. measures will be to improve intersection ^� capacity from LOS F to nearly LOS D. The mitigation measures. noted fn the comment were over- `` hooked. The following. is hereby added to page 4-20 as a new set of mitigation measures. �-_ ''Increased Traffic Mitigation: 1 . Encourage lessees of the office, spaces to stagger work hours -to diffuse the peak hour rush 2. Coordinate with OCTD to provide tran.si.t to the si.te. 3. Encourage the use of-van.pools and carpool.s.0 Street improvement plans are not submitted as part. of the environmental process. They are reviewed by the City staff for conformance with city standard plans. and are a �- ministerial action. 12. Comment: With respect to the building shadows, .the report indicates- that the longest shadows only affect 'commersially . zoned areas: This is hard to determine actually since Exhibit _ 4-1 does not show the surrounding community. But the exhibit does show shadows extending approximately 500 feet across . Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. This would appear to impact the Mill Stream condomi.niums' to the north- 12-23 west of the proposed project. This question should be _ researched more thoroughly, especially in light of solar access laws. Response: The longest building shadows (cast during the winter sol- stice) will impact _ the Mill Stream condominiums. The attached exhibit shows some areas of the condominium complex will be shadowed until approximately noon, at which time the shadows will impact the commercial uses along Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard. The period of impact to residential uses would extend approximately two months of the year with the longest shadow projection on December 22 (see Exhibit 4-1 ),.l Currently, there are no solar collectors located within Mill Stream condominiums;2 however,. future solar collec- tors could be shadowed during this time. At present, no state solar access laws restrict or prohibit the shadowing of potential solar collectors.3. Neither the City of Huntington Beach nor the County of Orange has adopted local ordinances which would restrict or prohibit the shadowing of potential solar collectors.4 13. Comment: The cost/revenue analysis presented in Table 4-3 on Page 4-11 needs clarification. Does it mean that the revenue to the City over a ten-year period would be $20,900? This is. such a small sum as to be meaningless. What were the primary assumptions used in developing this table. What is its full meaning? Response: In cooperation with Ultrasystems, Inc., the. city conducted a computerized fiscal analysis impact methodology .using a citywide fiscal impact model to analyze the proposed land uses presented in Land Use Element 80-2 (refer to Appendix A of Land Use Element Amendment 80-2 EIR #804) . _ The fiscal impact evaluation encompassed the land use alterna- tives considered for four proposed areas of _development, one of which addressed the 10-acre project site. All 1 Personnel communication with ACMA. 2 Personal communication with owner John Vlases, October 8, 1.981 .. 3 The California Solar Rights Act and the Solar Shade Control Act (both passed in 1978) do give individuals the right to prevent shadowing of existing solar energy systems. 4 Personal communication with Sue Pierce, Development Services Department, City of Huntington Beach on October 8, 1981 and Mr. Reichstein, Plumbing Inspection Department, . County of Orange, October 9, 1981 . assumptions usedl were reviewed and subsequently approved • by the City of Huntington Beach. As concluded by the fis- cal analysis, and noted in the DEIR, the proposed project ..E . will generate a net surplus. of $20,400 over the ten-yea.r \ period of study. In addition, the cumulative fiscal implications of Land Use Element 80-2 should be considered. The total cumu- lative fiscal impact of the amendment will be optimized �- through the selection of commercial (office) options for. the project site in relation to specific land uses to the three remaining areas proposed for development and address- ed in the EIR prepared in the LUE Amendment as adopted in December 1980. 1 Refer to Appendix A of the Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR #80-3. • 14. Comment:. Although the Beach/Warner area is identified in the General Plan as a high rise node, this location appears to be a . poor location for such high rise development for two major reasons: 1 . traffic in this location has already overloaded the existing streets and high . rise development will sharply aggravate this condition. 2. other than the immediate corners and along Beach and Warner, the surrounding community is residential in �- nature. High rise development will have a correspondingly greater impact on residential areas than if these areas were commercial in nature. Response: Comment so noted. The impacts noted above have been addressed in Section 4.4 and Section 6.0 of DEIR 81-1 . As noted in Section 6.0, both "reasons" are unavoidable adverse impacts. 15. Comment: For these reasons, alternative 5.2-- zoning of C-4 without multistory office--should be far more thoroughly analyzed rather than being rejected out of hand because it "failed to achieve acceptable economic productivity." After all , the report is supposed to determine environmental. impacts 12-25 K � without regard to the economics of a project or alterna- tive. The visual impact of the proposed project on the . " surrounding residential community will be very signficant and should be very carefully considered. Response: The "zoning of C-4 without Multistory suffix" alternative was an alternative evaluated in conformance with Section. 15143(d) of the State EIR guidelines (discussion of 'an alternative capable of reducing significant adverse envi- ronmental effects). In addition, section 15012 of the State EIR guidelines clearly indicates that an EIR is an informational document that will inform public decision '- makers of the environmental effects of a project they propose to approve and balancing the economic . and social -- factors in determining whether and how a project should be approved. The visual impact of the proposed project has been address- ed on page.4-42 and 6-1 of DEIR 81-1 . 16. Comment: In summary, the Environmental Board is concerned that EIR 81-1 contains many inconsistencies and inadequacies which must be resolved piror to any consideration of project approval . There are far too many items that are "offered"or "proposed" without any indication that they will indeed become part of the project. This is especially true with respect to conservation. Many of the propsoed . "shoulds" W ought to be mandated rather than left to the discretion of the developer. Response: Review of this Comments and Responses package should clarify the purported "inconsistencies and inadequacies." Finally, it is through the project review process .that mitigation measures become mandated as opposed to "shoulds". Again, the purpose of the. EIR is as an information tool . 12-26 City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department r4 1 . Comment: The following is a concise summary of the areas which the Traffic Engineering section addressed as needing to .be corrected. An evaluation was conducted on the EIR dated May -1981 for the Beach-Warner office complex. . The evalu- ation determined the accuracy of all figures, numbers and factors* used in the report conducted by Greer and Company for Phillips Brandt Reddick. TRAFFIC VOLUMES Counts were conducted _in March and April of 1981 , along Beach Boulevard, during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours; all r of the major intersections were surveyed. The count at Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard for 1981 during the p.m. peak hours was as follows: Beach Boulevard northbound = 2,315 Beach Boulevard southbound 2,395 Warner Avenue eastbound 1 ,295. Warner Avenue westbound = 1 ,320 Based on the 1981 counts, the total increase in traffic at this location amounts -to an' increase of approximately 16 percent or 1 ,000•"V6hicles. • Response: So noted. New counts provided by the City in March and - April 1981 are hereby incorporated to page . 7 of the Traffic Report. rl 2. Comment: EXHIBIT 3 The volumes indicated in this figure will have to be revised in' conjunction�'with item number 1 of .this memo. Response: Exhibit 3 is hereby revised as noted. 3. Comment: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITIONS (Page 1 In the table which lists the intersection analysis for existing conditions, it was found that the intersection of Beach and Edinger* is in the "D" range rather than the "C" range indicated: The volume indicated in the "Sum of Critical Lane Volumes" for this intersection was found to be only 84 percent of the actual count. The existing sum of critical lane 'volumes"' for 'this intersection is 1 ,490. . As illustrated on the '.'Level of Service (LOS) Ranges Table, this total falls into the "D" range. This "D" . level of service 'is not'an acceptable level of operation. 12-27 The analysis also indicates that the two remaining inter- sections (Beach/Warner - Warner/Magnolia) just exceed the -" level "0" cutoff value of 1 ,450 by values of 1 ,500 and 1 ,470 respectively. First of all the cutoff value for "D" range is 1 ,460 and not 1 ;450 as indicated in the paragraph following Table 2. Secondly, the intersection of Beach/ Warner exceeded the cutoff value of 1 ,460 with a volume of 1 ,623 vehicles instead of the 1 ,500 value indicated. This situation was also true for the intersection of Warner/Magnolia. This intersection exceeded the cutoff value of 1 ,460 with a volume of 1 ,535 instead of the 1 ,470 value indicated. As you can see, these totals put the -� level of operations well into the "E" range. Response: Owing . to more recent counts, the existing intersection — analysis for all three intersections has been altered. The following replaces sentence 2 and 3, paragraph 2 on page 3-14. "The analysis indicate that the Beach and Edinger inter- section is currently operating at a level of service (LOS) not an acceptable level of service, whi1e .the remain- ing intersections currently operate at LOS 'E' . Table 2 in the Traffic Report is hereby amended as follows: TABLE 2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS - EXISTING CONDITIONS — Sum of Level of Intersection Critical Lane Volumes Service Beach Boulevard and Warner Ave. 1 ,623 E " Beach Boulevard and Edinger Ave. 1 ,490 D Warner Avenue and Magnolia St. 1 ,535 E 12-28 4. Comment TRIP DISTRIBUTION SITE RELATED DAILY TRAFFIC - (Exhibit 4) The trip distribution layout in Exhibit 4 tended to favor traffic coming from the north and from the east. Studies which have been conducted in-house have shown that a larger percentage of traffic will come to the development from the west. After a careful evaluation of all site related traffic, it was calculated that trips from the east would be approximately five percent less. There will be an increase of approximately seven percent in development related . trips from the west. Trips from the -- south will increase by about one percent. Trips from the north will be reduced by approximately three percent. All of these revisions in development related trips are based on the figures given in Exhibit 4. Response: Exhibit 4 in the Traffic Report and Exhibit 4-2 in the EIR are hereby amended to indicate the following trip distribution: 30% of, the trips from the east (2,940 ADT) , 22% of the trips from the west (2,156 ADT) , 27% of the trips from the north (2,646 ADT) and 21% of the trips from the south (2,058 ADT) . 5: Comment SITE ACCESS AND CIRCULATION - (Exhibit 5) - Based on the revised Trip Distribution Numbers, the site access and circulation percentages .will have to be altered to reflect these changes. Response: See comment #4 above. 6. . Comment: INTERSECTION ANALYSIS - POST PROJECT CONDITIONS = (Page - I a e In Table 4, the assumed or projected volumes ( sum of criti- cal lane volumes) for each of the three intersections were '. found to be low and incorrect. The intersection of Beach and Edinger has a projected LOS rating of "E" rather than "D" as indicated. The corresponding critical lane volumes total is 1 ,635 rather than 1 ,310. The projected sum of critical lane volumes for the intersection of Warner and Magnolia was found to be approximately six percent low as compared to totals calculated by our Department. 12-29 i Response: Table 1 .5 in the Traffic Report is hereby amended as follows: TABLE 4 — INTERSECTION ANALYSIS - POST-PROJECT CONDITIONS Sum of Level of Intersection Critical Lane Volumes Service Beach Boulevard and Warner Ave. 1 ,765 F Beach Boulevard and _ Edinger Avenue 1 ,635 E Warner Avenue and Magnolia .Street 1 ,601 E 7. Comment: CONCLUSIONS (Page 22) Greer and Company has stated . that the proposed project will not create any significant traffic impacts at the — intersections of Beach/Edinger and Warner/Magnolia. The Traffic Engineering section disagrees that the intersec- tion of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue will not exper- ience significant traffic impacts. The intersection is currently one of the biggest trouble spots within the City of Huntington Beach. These problems range from signal coordination to vehicle operations. The intersection will -- eventually "bottom out"' due to . the addition of 'the development related traffic and the progression of vehicle trips within Orange County. The intersection will eventually have to be redesigned and reprogrammed to handle the demands called upon it. Response: Although. the proposed project contributes to the reduced LOS at Beach/Edinger, the intersecti.on's poor . LOS is reflective of traffic impacts from all surrounding development. Eventual redesign and reprogramming of the intersection will handle the demands place on it. 8. Comment: The remaining sections of the E.I .R. concerning the- traffic analysis seem to be in proper order. Response: So noted. 0 12-30 • 4'q 0 �.. 2 e 1•s • _ 625 EDINGER AVE. 1105 � ao � 1- C CA N N > c a ¢ m 44, 1 O a = G z Do A- cs ly HEIL AVE. Gq CFI, m PROJECT SITE z M J 5, O cm M � ?0 E 1 1 B5 W ARNER AVE. — 1S 54D 9 10or 11 0 y ...� . Sycamore Ave m 4� 9 —P Blaylock Dr 14 Cypress Ave N O C J (A fA N O Y c E 4 • 01. C W SLATER AVE. SOURCE: GREER & CO. - each-Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 3-2B HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT SEMI-ANNUAL STATUS REPORT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/CITY COUNCIL for the period July 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986 0061 R REDEVELOPMENT This Redevelopment Semi-Annual Status Report to the Redevelopment Agency provides updated information on the activities and programs for each of the five project areas as well as the Beach Boulevard Proposed Area. -2- REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREAS Talbert-Beach Talbert-Beach Project Area was adopted in 1982. Originally the site was made up of numerous encyclopedia lots which were consolidated and assembled for development by the Redevelopment Agency. Three residential development projects have been completed on the site so far: Emerald Cove - 164 units of below market rate senior apartments owned by the Redevelopment Agency. Windward Cove - 90 units of affordable senior condominiums. Capewood - 54 units of market rate multi-family housing. Future Activities: 1. The Agency has authorized a Request for Proposals to sell the five acre industrial parcel in the project area. It is expected that escrow would close on April 3, 1987. 2. Staff has -been meeting to review and discuss the architectural plans for the Collins-Zweibel entitlement. Yorktown-Lake Yorktown;-Lake Project Area was adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in 1982 and consists of the Civic Center facilities and vacant land owned by the Huntington Beach Company. Future Activities: 1. A pending land exchange agreement with the Huntington Beach Company is being -reviewed by staff and the Agency. If successful, this exchange would facilitate development of the private property and provide additional parking for the Civic Center and a site for a Community Center. Oakview Oakview was adopted by the Redevelopment Agency in 1982 and consists of residential, commercial, and community-facilities property. Oakview is distinguished by two distinct neighborhoods: North Oakview is home to a major commercial center Charter Centre and large single-family residential -lots transitioning to condominiums and upscale apartments. South Oakview can be characterized by the many four-plex buildings in various stages of rehabilitation and deterioration. Also, the Oakview Elementary School as well as the Oakview Community Center are located in south Oakview. The following projects have been completed: 1. Charter Centre is now complete with the following tenants: Chilis Restaurant, Tony Roma's Restaurant, Franco's Restaurant,. Holiday Health Spa, Edwards Theatres, and several other small commercial tenants. -3- . t .... Oakview - Continued 2. Koledo Lane is complete and a dedication ceremony was held on September S, 1986. Similar concepts are being explored for Jacquelyn and Queens Lane. Main-Pier Main-Pier Project Area was adopted in 1982 and consists of residential, commercial and visitor-serving facilities. The Redevelopment Agency has entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with Huntington Pacifica Development Group and Exclusive Negotiation Agreements with Mola Development, A & M Equities, and Main Street Property Owners for the development of four major projects. Also, the Agency has contracted with Keyser-Marston for economic analyses of downtown projects. Three firms (Paul MacMillin do Associates, Cedric White, and Dick Metcalfe) are currently performing appraisals of property downtown to determine fair market value. Based on these appraisals acquisitions are being pursued by John Cutler and Associates on behalf of the Agency. Activities: 1. Main-Pier Phase I: Developer has submitted plans for entitlement application on Pierside Village and has obtained a Conditional Use Permit and Coastal Development Permit. Plans for the hotel portion of proposed development are presently being prepared for entitlement application. Staff and Redevelopment Agency are presently reviewing information with the intent of consideration by fall of 1997. 2. Main-Pier Phase lI: Staff is negotiating wit'', the representatives of Main Street Property Owners and A & M Equities with the intent of preparing a Disposition and Development Agreement Document and reviewing the conceptual development plans. 3. Town Square: The Redevelopment Agency has authorized the extension of the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement in order to provide staff and the developer with necessary time to explore and develop a project of 300 residential units and 23,000 sq. ft. of commercial. 4. Lake Street: Agency authorized staff to enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Beachfront Construction Company for a 64 unit residential project on city-owned property. Property will be sold to the developer upon receipt of project entitlement which should be ready for consideration in late spring. The entitlement application is presently being prepared. S. Cousteau Center: Preliminary Feasibility Study conducted for the Cousteau Facility has been reviewed by the Redevelopment Agency and staff. Results indicate a strong possibility for the development of Cousteau Ocean Center. The Agency directed staff to work with the Cousteau representatives in the exploration of financing options. Huntington Center This project area was approved by the City Council in November 1984. The Redevelopment Plan was prepared because of the need to correct problems within the project area boundaries, including problems relative to circulation, parking, under -4- Huntington Center - Continued utilization of commercial land, to stimulate economic activity and to assist the private sector in the rehabilitation of commercial land thereby providing incentive for construction of additional commercial uses. Activities: 1. Engineering feasibility was completed which showed that a four lane arterial roadway could be constructed between McFadden and Bolsa to align with Hoover. 2. A traffic impact study was completed in conjunction with the engineering feasibility that showed some of the benefit to the regional traffic circulation system. 3. Preliminary discussions with the City of Westminster have been held regarding the Gothard-Hoover connection. 4. City Council approved a new Precise Plan for Street Alignment for Gothard Street between McFadden Avenue and Center Drive. 5. City Council authorized staff to discuss with property owners methods and procedures to obtain needed right-of-way for the Gothard Avenue realignment between Center Drive and McFadden Avenue. 6. An additional driveway into Huntington Center at One Pacific Plaza has been constructed. 7. An engineering concept haj been completed for a new entrance to Huntington Center from the I-405 off ramp at Center Drive. 8. A 90,000 square foot mini-warehouse has been completed. 9. One Pacific Plaza is under construction. The 224 room hotel completion is planned for summer 1987; the 12-story office-building completion is planned for November 1987. 10. A major addition of retail commercial was completed in the fall of 1986. This project included Mervyn's Department Store, 44 new shops, and a food court with 10 food vendors. 11. Staff has been working with the MacDonald Group, Ltd. regarding a disposition and development agreement that would allow MacDonald Group to receive a portion of the tax increment they created to de returned if the project economics warrant this type of subsidy. 12. A 5,600 sq. ft. one-story savings and loan facility was opened in 1986 at the former gasoline site on the southwest corner of Sher Lane and Edinger. Beach Boulevard Beach Boulevard is a Proposed' Project Area consisting of the commercial corridor from Edinger to Atlanta Avenue. The goals of the project area are to relieve circulation problems, develop a common design theme, and to increase tax revenues. Suggested. -5- Beach Boulevard - Continued street improvements include new or improved synchronized traffic signals, control, increased parking, improved circulation, and new curbs, gutters and sidewalks where necessary. Activities: 1 Staff and consultants prepared a number of draft documents, Redevelopment Plan, EIR, and Preliminary Report and circulated these for administrative review. 2. Staff also worked with the community to help organize a Project Area Committee (PAC) that represented the interests of businesses, residents, and property owners within the proposed project area. The representative nature of the PAC was certified by the City Council in December 1986. -6- SUMMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES SUMMARY OF REDEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES* Major housing assistance and redevelopment programs began at the federal level with the United States Housing Act of 1937. Concerned over the presence of urban slums and tenement dwellings, some groups began to seek federal support for public housing as early as the 1920's. The 1937 Act was adopted as a way of providing direct grants to cities for slum clearance. However, Congress failed to vote additional funding for major housing and redevelopment programs until 1948. Between 1949 and 1974 most federal public housing and redevelopment assistance was granted pursuant to the Housing Act of 1949. The federal redevelopment law contained a "predominately residential" rule until amended in. 1954 to allow 30% of funds allocated pursuant to Title I of the Act to be used for non-residential redevelopment projected. National policy was then redirected toward community economic development, called "urban renewal", and the predominately residential rule was deleted. Within this historical setting, the California Community Redevelopment Law was adopted by the State Legislature in 1945. As indicated previously, the California Community Redevelopment Law is found in Sections 33000 et. seq. of the Health and Safety Code. As stated therein, redevelopment means "the planning, development, replanning, redesign, clearance, reconstruction, or rehabilitation, or any combination of these, of all or part of a survey area . . .". The purpose of redevelopment is the elimination of blight, as so defined in the code, the expansion of housing, and the creation of jobs. A redevelopment agency has been established by State law in every city and county within the State. As stated in Section .33100 of the Health and Safety Code, "there is in each community a public body, corporate and politic, known as the redevelopment agency of the community". However, the agency has no ability to transact any business or exercise any power until the city or county activates it by ordinance. The ordinance activating the agency is subject to referendum and, among other things, can provide for a governing board that is the same as or separate from the local legislative body. Before a city or county can designate an area for redevelopment and adopt a redevelopment plan, certain procedures, as defined in State law, must be followed. These procedures are presented in Exhibit A on the following page and are summarized below. DESIGNATION OF SURVEY AREA--The legislative body of the city or county must designate, through resolution, a survey area or areas. As stated in Section 33312 of the Health and Safety Code, the resolution must contain the following: (a) A finding that the area requires study to determine if a redevelopment project or projects within said area are feasible; (b) A description of the boundaries of the area designated. SELECTION OF PROJECT AREA--The project area, as selected by the Planning Commission, may encompass all or part of the previously designated survey area. Furthermore, the boundaries of the project area may be contiguous or non-contiguous. However, the project area must be a blighted area requiring redevelopment to meet the public purposes of this law. Section 33321 of the Health and Safety Code, which identifies the scope or characteristics of a project area, provides that the scope of the project area: ". . .need not be restricted to buildings, improvements, or lands which are detrimental or inimical to the public health, safety, or welfare, but may consist of an area in which such conditions predominate and injuriously affect the entire area. A project area may include lands, buildings, or improvements which are not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, but whose inclusion is found necessary for the effective redevelopment of the area of which they are a part. Each such area included under this section shall be necessary for effective redevelopment . and shall not be included for the purpose of obtaining the allocation of tax increment revenue from such area pursuant to Section 33670 without other substantial justification for its inclusion". FORMULATION OF PRELIMINARY PLAN--The planning commission of each city or county in cooperation with the agency, is required to prepare a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of each selected project area. As stated in Section 33324 f the Health and Safety Code, the preliminary plan must contain the following pieces of information: (a) Description of the project area (b) A general statement of the land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities and building intensities, and standards proposed as the basis for the. redevelopment of the project area (c) Identification of how the purposes of redevelopment would be attained by this redevelopment project (d) Indication that the proposed redevelopment plan conforms to the master or general community plan (e) Description, generally, of the impact that this project would have upon residents thereof and upon the surrounding neighborhood. The planning commission is required to submit the preliminary plan for each project area to the agency. PREPARATION OF REDEVELOPMENT PLAN--A redevelopment plan must be prepared by the Agency for every project area. The plan must conform to the community's general plan and include, among other things, the following pieces of information: - Boundary description - Approximate amount of open space provided - Street layout - Building restrictions - Number of buildings and proposed uses - Number of dwelling units - Property devoted to public purposes - Neighborhood impact report - Description of proposed financing method. In addition to the specific provisions referenced above, the Health and Safety Code requires that a variety of broader provisions, dealing with owner participation and related considerations, be included in the redevelopment plan. SUBMISSION OF PLAN TO PLANNING COMMISSION--Prior to submitting the plan to the legislative body, it is submitted .to the planning commission for review and comment. In its report, the planning commission will include any recommendations concerning the .redevelopment plan and its conformity to the general plan. The planning commission may recommend for or against the approval of the redevelopment plan. If the planning commission does not respond within 30 days, they are deemed to have approved the plan. SUBMISSION OF PLAN TO PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE--For project areas within which a substantial number of low and moderate income families are to be displaced due to redevelopment activity, the legislative body of the agency is required to call upon residents and existing community organizations within the project area to form a project area committee. If a project area committee has been formed within the project area, the redevelopment plan must be submitted to the committee for review and comment prior to submitting the plan to the legislative body. The committee may choose to prepare a report and recommendations for submission to the legislative body. REVIEW OF PLAN BY FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE--A fiscal review committee may be formed within any project area where the redevelopment plan of the project area proposes the use of tax increment financing. The county or any affected taxing entity may call for the creation of a fiscal review committee, which is composed of one representative from each of the affected taxing entities. The fiscal review committee is to hold a hearing on the redevelopment plan not less than 25 and not more than 40 days from the transmission of the plan from the agency to the committee. After the hearing, the committee has 30 days to prepare and issue a report suggesting amendments to the plan which would alleviate any fiscal impact on affected taxing agencies. PUBLIC HEARING--Both the agency and the City Council/Board of Supervisors must hold a public hearing on the proposed redevelopment plan. Notices must be published in local newspapers and certified notices must be mailed to each property owner and local taxing entity within the proposed project area. CONSIDERATION OF PLAN BY LEGISLATIVE BODY--Upon the preparation and approval of the plan by the agency, the redevelopment plan is submitted to the legislative body. If the planning commission or project area committee has recommended against the plan, a 2/3 vote is required for approval. If approved, the ordinance adopting the redevelopment plan is forwarded to appropriate government officials including the agency, and the auditor and tax assessor of the county in which the project is located. To finance redevelopment activity, redevelopment agencies are authorized to, among other things, borrow money, accept funds advanced by the city/county, and issue bonds for redevelopment purposes. The principal financing mechanism authorized to finance redevelopment activity, however, is tax increment financing, which provides funds to pay off tax allocation bonds and other debt incurred by the agency. Tax increment financing is authorized in Article XVI, Section 16 of the State Constitution and in Section 33670 of the Health and Safety Code. The provision provides that at the time the redevelopment plan is adopted, the assessed value within the project area is frozen, and that any property tax revenue generated by an increase in assessed value over the frozen base may be utilized by the agency to pay the principal of and interest on loans, moneys advanced to, or indebtedness (whether funded, refunded, assumed, or otherwise) it incurs in conjunction with redeveloping the area. As a condition of receiving tax increment revenue, the agency must file a statement of indebtedness with the County. For projects that were established in 1977 or later, 20% of .this tax increment revenue must be used for low and moderate income housing, unless the Agency makes specific findings in this regard pursuant to Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety Code. When all indebtedness is repaid, the base is unfrozen and the tax increment, thereafter, is paid to all of the local taxing entities within the project area. * An excerpt from "The Use of Redevelopment and Tax Increment Financing by Cities and Counties" published by California Debt Advisory Commission, October 1984. VT&A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L-7Z COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 87-55 HUNTINGTON BEACH - To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson City Council Members City Administrator Subject BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT Date April 16, 1987 AREA COMMITTEE Attached you will find a letter with attachments that staff has transmitted to the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee as a follow-up to discussions at their last meeting. Please feel free to call me at your convenience, if you have any questions regarding this material or the status of the adoption process for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. Respect submitted, C. s W. Tho n City Administrator CWT/DLB:sar Attachments 1371r xc: Department Heads 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 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 Thursday regarding the various alternatives available to the Project Area Committee in terms 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. Sin ely, D N. I a Belle Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment DLB:sar xc: Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee Members Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist Gail Hutton, City Attorney Telephone(714)GWIT 82 MATURITY SCHF�ULF:, 1NTERVST RATES ANC) PRICE $8,020,000 Serial Donds DA1e ;.{; to n. Due Amoual •Cdu "�� Me Aww M 19S6... oh).,X� 9.75�, 199,...... ... S 650.0:(. 11.2U% r 19r 925 '' 1993....... "7�;(Wr) 11.44) 9........... 44(). Q 9.75 1994........... (Il�i.�i(Ki I1-W IN&9 4RO,Oaq 10:S 14V;........... 9tki;kir f t 7� 1v'�1) .. .. 1(1.15 199b........... . 1,OO'(4n) 1190 MISSION I'41. .. . 3 9 S�M) 11.0) 149� ........... S".980,000 12.50% Perm Bonds due Miy 1. 2012 . Price of all Bonds 100% (Accrued interest to be added) t . The Use of Revelopment: :anal Tax Increment Finaimcm.g by - Counties Jesse M. Unruh, Treasurer Chairman HT MEMBERS Jesse M.Unruh,Chairman George Deukmejian,Governor Kenneth Cory,State Controller • Robert Beverly,State.Senator (R Manhattan Beach) John Foran,State Senator _ (D-.San Francisco) Jim Costa,State Assemblyman (D-Fresno) Patrick Nolan,State Assemblyman (R-Glendale) Thomas.C. Rupert,T reasumr of Cloy of Torrance Richard B. Dixon, Treasurer of Los Angeles County Melinda Carter Luedtke,Executive Secretary 1 i l i 915 Capitol Mali, Room 400 P.O. Box 1919 Sacramento,California 95809 Telephone: (916)324-2585 1 CHAPTER IV--CONCLUSIONS This study has succeeded in compiling data on essentially every rede- velopment agency and project in the State. It also provides, for the first time, a comprehensive basis for comparison. Because a similar study was conducted in the mid-1970's, and other data has been col- lected since that time, this study offers an opportunity to assess the impact of redevelopment and tax increment financing, and to begin to draw conclusions in this regard. In doing so, it must be stated that while every effort has been made to assure the accuracy of the data contained herein, the history and circumstances of individual projects has not been examined, nor have on-site inspections of rec- ords or redevelopment project activities been made. Even so, the data is complete enough to permit analysis and warrant the following conclusions: . The use of redevelopment and tax increment financing by cities and counties continues to increase. } Redevelopment is an important planning and financing tool for cities, and there are indications that it may become a signif- icant tool for counties. . Redevelopment has resulted in significant accomplishments in a relatively short period of time. . Redevelopment activity to date is economically feasible and. financially sound. The fiscal impact of redevelopment and tax increment financing on counties has increased. This area should be monitored on a continuing basis and additional safeguards should be provided to assure that the cumulative impact of redevelopment and tax increment financing results in an effective balance between the need for county operating revenue and the long-term economic development and revitalization goals of cities and counties generally. 63 i Redevelopment does not represent a significant cost to the State, and the possibility of State liability for indebtedness is remote. . Additional changes in the redevelopment process and the provi- sion 'of additional financing authority may be appropriate. However, while continued monitoring is important, regulation of the redevelopment process is neither necessary nor war- ranted. . Additional training and information on a continuing basis would be helpful . Each of these points are discussed in detail throughout the remainder of this chapter. THE USE OF REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING BY CITIES AND COUNTIES CONTINUES TO INCREASE A general awareness that cities and counties were increasingly using redevelopment and tax increment financing led to the first compre- hensive study of this subject in the mid-1970's. At that time, it was learned that 146 cities and 6 counties had activated their rede- velopment agency, and that 229 redevelopment projects were underway in Ill cities and 2 counties. This study results from a similar belief. Not only is there the general awareness that cities and counties have continued to use redevelopment and tax increment financing, but there is substantial interest in the redevelopment activities of cities and counties since the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. 64 By almost any measure, data collected in conjunction with this study indicates that the use of redevelopment and tax increment financing by cities and counties continues to increase. There are now 263 cities (approximately 60% of all cities) and 10 counties (almost 20% of all counties) that have activated their redevelopment agency, and 467 redevelopment projects are underway in 218 cities and 3 coun- ties. Similarly, tax increment revenue has grown from approximately $50 million to $378 million during this period. Tax allocation funds now total $1,750,000,000, and total indebtedness to be repaid from tax increment revenue is $3,500,000.000. At the time Proposition 13 was passed, there were many who believed that this measure would adversely impact redevelopment and that its growth would be slowed. To the contrary, of the '263 city redevelop- ment agencies, approximately 40% were established after the passage of Proposition 13. Similarly, all but 3 of the 10 county redevelopment agencies were established since 1979. With respect to, redevelopment projects, 42% of the city projects and 57% of the county projects were established since the passage of Proposition 13. REDEVELOPMENT IS AN IMPORTANT PLANNING AND FINANCING TOOL FOR CIT- IES, AND THERE ARE INDICATIONS THAT IT MAY BECOME A SIGNIFICANT TOOL FOR COUNTIES The importance of the authority granted to cities and counties by both the State Constitution and the Health and Safety Code lies in the fact that redevelopment is both a planning and a financing 65 tool , Tax increment financing gives cities and counties a way to implement their plan. To this point, cities have been the primary users of redevelopment and tax increment financing. Perhaps this is to be expected in that urban areas requiring revitalization and investment to encourage economic development are predominately located within cities. Regardless, the data collected in conjunction with this study con- firms that redevelopment and tax increment financing is now a very important planning and financing tool for numerous cities in this State. Not only is this seen in the growth of redevelopment agen- cies generally, but the continuing use of this tool is also reflected in the increasing number of redevelopment projects and project- related indebtedness. Of particular importance is the fact that redevelopment and tax increment financing is being used by cities of all population sizes throughout the State. It is not just a tool for small , medium, or large cities. Of the 263 city redevelopment agencies, for example, there is a somewhat even distribution through- out all population groupings, as follows: Number of City Population Grouping Redevelopment Agencies Under 10,000 63 10 - 25,000 58 25 - 50,000 66 50 - 100,000 50 Over 100,000 26 66 At the present time, counties receive a minor portion of total tax increment revenue, and they account for a small percentage of total redevelopment indebtedness. However, there are indications that counties may increase their use of this planning and financing tool in the future. As with cities, counties in all population groupings are expressing interest in the redevelopment process. This may be seen in the fol- lowing table summarizing the population distribution of the 10 county redevelopment agencies: - Number of County Population Grouping Redevelopment Agencies Under 100,000 1 100 - 500,000 3 500 - 1,000,000 4 1,000 - 5,000,000 1 Over 59000,000 1 TU While no county redevelopment agency (except San Francisco and Sacramento which are combined city and county agencies) has issued tax allocation bonds, there is at least one county that is actively considering this alternative and others that are discussing it. Also, approximately 20% of the counties in the State have activated their redevelopment agency and, to one extent or another, are receiving and utilizing tax increment revenue. These facts, coupled with the reality that redevelopment is one of the few viable financ- ing tools available to counties, suggests that the use of redevelop- ment and tax increment financing by counties may increase in the future. 67 REDEVELOPMENT HAS RESULTED IN SIGNIFICANT ACCOMPLISHMENTS IN A RELA- TIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TINE One thing is clear from the data collected in conjunction with this study--redevelopment leads to something. At least one project is underway in the majority of city and county agencies, and the avail- ability of tax increment revenue is making the elimination of blight and community revitalization possible. Furthermore, significant results , measured primarily by new construction and rehabilitation, have occurred within a very short period of time. The use of tax increment financing did not really begin until the early 1970's when the Federal Government began phasing out its pro- gram of urban renewal . Tax increment financing was viewed locally as a replacement funding source, and over the past 15 years has been a key part of the financing activities of redevelopment agencies generally. During this 15 year period of time, redevelopment agencies have undertaken projects aimed at revitalizing urban areas, and they have constructed or facilitated the construction of housing, commercial and industrial space, and public facilities generally. Critics of redevelopment contend that much of this activity would have occurred anyway, and that many of these areas were not truly blighted. There is no question that some agencies have abused their authority by establishing projects in areas where development was slated to pro- ceed, and where blight, as viewed by most, was marginal at best. It is beyond the scope of this study to analyze this question in detail , and it is doubtful whether a firm conclusion could ever be drawn even if the before and after circumstances of all individual redevelopment projects were reviewed. However, all redevelopment 68 agencies are required to act within a legal framework, and most have competent legal counsel advising them. Furthermore, abuses have become more difficult as the law has been amended and refined begin- ning in the mid-1970's, and all proposed projects and plan amend- ments have been subject to public scrutiny since fiscal review com- mittees were authorized in 1977. These activities, coupled with the fact that relatively few lawsuits have been filed challenging the legality of individual redevelopment projects , suggest that the vast majority of the projects have been conducted within the spirit and intent of the law. Noting this, the accomplishments of redevelopment are impressive. As reported by cities and counties in conjunction with this study, a total of 55,492 housing units have been or will be eliminated in conjunction with redevelopment, while 201,859 housing units have been or will be provided. The majority of housing eliminated and provided by agencies over the last 15 years was for very low and low income households. This does not include additional housing that has been provided outside of redevelopment project areas. In addition, almost 190,000,000 square feet of commercial and industrial 'space has been constructed or rehabilitated, and the provision of a wide range of pu bl i c facilities and buildings are part of the redevelopment activ- ity in over half of the redevelopment projects that have been estab- lished. This level of economic activity is significant in itself. However, the broader implications for individual communities and the State are even more impressive. While it will never be possible to quan- tify the extent to which blight has been eliminated, there is no question but that this objective has been met by the redevelopment activity that has taken place to date. In the mid-1970's, there were redevelopment project areas where the assessed value had 69 declined below the base year because of the obsolescence and dete- rioration of property generally. This has been reversed by rede- velopment activity in these areas. There are also many instances where, through the activity of redevelopment, new vitality has been injected into established residential and commercial areas that were characterized by vacancies and economic inactivity in general . In many instances, the investment of time and money made by redevelop- ment agencies has made the development of property affected by poor planning, multiple ownership, or physical limitations possible. Not only has the encouragement of new economic activity resulted in the elimination of blight, but it has produced a ripple effect that most would view as being beneficial for the State as a whole. By providing a stable source of financing in the form of tax increment revenue, cities and counties throughout the State have been able to leverage these dollars and, to this extent, maximize the results of - redevelopment. Not only is this true in terms of the ability to service debt in conjunction with tax allocation bonds, but redevel- opment agencies have also combined their tax increment revenue with other one-time and continuing sources of revenue to further achieve their objectives. Of the 221 agencies that have redevelopment proj- ects underway at the present time, 98 agencies or approximately 45% indicate that they have used other funding sources in conjunction with tax increment revenue to accomplish their redevelopment goals. Exhibit M on the following page summarizes the use made by these 98 agencies of other funding sources. Because some agencies have used more than one source, the total indicated is greater than 98. In addition, the ripple effect of redevelopment activity may be expressed in terms of job creation throughout the State. Job crea- tion results in positive one-time and continuing economic impacts for both the private and public sector. 70 EXHIBIT M I OTHER FINANCING SOURCES USED BY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES i Financing Source Number of Agencies Utilizing Community Development Block Grants 36 Loan From City 33 Mortgage Revenue Bonds 31 Lease Revenue Bonds 13 Economic Development Grant 9 Certificates of Participation 8 Industrial Development Bonds 6 Assessment District Bonds 6 Federal Grants 4 Private Notes 3 Loans from Bank 2 State Marina Loan 2 Urban Development Action Grants 3 Revenue Bonds 2 California Housing Finance Agency 2 General Obligation Bonds 2 Federal Aid-Urban (FAU) 2 State Grants 2 Job' s Bill Grant 2 Developers Assistance 5 Farmers Home Loan 1 71 With respect to the private sector, one-time impacts are primarily reflected by employment opportunities in (1) jobs directly related to on-site and off-site construction; (2) jobs indirectly related to construction that are created in allied industries such as the sup- pliers of lumber and wood products, concrete, plumbing, and asphalt; and (3) jobs in other local industries such as retail trade, whole- sale trade , transportation and utilities, finance and insurance, services, and local government. Continuing impacts in the private sector result from jobs that can be accomodated by the new commer- cial and industrial space, as well as the multiplier effect on employment in various industries resulting from the spending of those working and living in the area. Job creation can be reliably estimated using employment mul ti pl i ers developed by the Lawrence Laboratory at the University of California at Berkeley. Appendix W applies these multipliers to data submitted in conjunction with this study- and analyzes , in more detail , job creation attributable to the redevelopment activities of cities and counties. In summary, the analysis indicates that the construction of 69,216 housing units and 173,235,591 square feet of commercial and industrial space has resulted in a total of 370,732 jobs over the past 15 years, or 24,716 jobs annually. This estimate of job creation is conservative for the following reasons: It allocates job creation equally over the past 15 years which is the period of time when most redevelopment activity and the use of tax increment revenue has taken place. However, the activity is , in reality, much greater in recent years, and most of the activity has been accomplished over the past decade. To this extent, job creation in recent years is understated. 72 New construction within redevelopment project areas is all that is accounted for. The activities of redevelopment agen- cies with respect to rehabilitation and construction outside project areas, as well as new development in areas adjacent to project areas, has not been considered. . None of the projections consider job creation resulting from the construction of public facilities and public improvements. From the standpoint of the public sector, both State and local gov- ernment benefit from the construction activity resulting from rede- vel opment. On a one-time and continuing basis, construction pay- rolls, payments to suppliers, and the related spending of individuals generate taxable personal income and taxable sales which contribute to the two major sources of State revenue. Similarly, local public agencies receive sales tax revenue from purchases made by businesses and individuals during the construction period, and they also receive property taxes, sales taxes, and state subventions on a continuing basis. As indicated in Appendix W, it is estimated that the State has aver- aged approximately $43 million annually in personal income tax and sales tax revenue as a result of the construction of housing units and commercial/industrial space in conjunction with redevelopment activities. It is reasonable to assume that this figure is at least $90 million today when the following factors are considered: . The $43 million is an average figure over the past 15 years. Because redevelopment activity has been much greater in recent years, the amount received by the State today is correspond- ingly greater. Allowing for this difference, it is reasonable to assume that the State received half as much during the first 73 half of the 15 year period ($21.5 million annually), and 1 1/2 times as much during the second half of the 15 year period ($64.5 million annually). • The $43 million average annual figure results from the con- struction of housing units and commercial/industrial space within redevelopment project areas. In addition, redevelopment agencies have incurred $3.5 billion of indebtedness for public buildings and other improvements. This additional construction represents 37% of the $9.4 billion estimated total project cost for the construction of housing units and commercial/industrial space (see Appendix W). As such, it is the equivalent of an additional $24 million annually ($64.5 million x 37%) in State personal income tax and sales tax revenue. . State personal income tax and sales tax revenues resulting from new construction in areas adjacent to redevelopment projects ` have not been considered. REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO DATE IS ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE AND FINAN- CIALLY SOUND Perhaps the best indication that redevelopment activity is economi- cally feasible is that its use by cities and counties has continued to increase, even after the passage of Proposition 13 which reduced the amount of tax increment revenue that would otherwise be avail- able for expenditure in a project area. The amount of tax increment revenue that is available has been sufficient to permit cities and counties to implement and fund projects locally, and there is no indication that serious financial problems have resulted in any of the 474 redevelopment project areas. 74 In this regard, it is important to note that this study has not included a detailed review of redevelopment agency records. Thus, no attempt has been made to assess the financial solvency of indivi- dual agencies or projects. It is also important to note that while various financing methods and. forms of indebtedness may be utilized by a redevelopment agency to accomplish its objectives , the agency itself is typically only liable for repayment of principal and interest on tax allocation bonds it issues and for advances made to it by its parent entity, the city or the county. As indicated pre- viously, redevelopment agencies have used other financing tools in conjunction with tax increment revenue, but the source of repayment is typically lease revenues, user fees, or other revenues related to the project being financed. In these cases, the redevelopment agency typically has no repayment responsibility. In fact, from a technical standpoint, the primary obligation of the redevelopment agency is repayment of debt associated with the issuance of tax allocation bonds. While it would obviously be contrary to the plan of the respective city or county, there would be no loss to inves- tors if the redevelopment agency failed to ultimately repay the cash advances of its parent city or county. As indicated by data collected in conjunction with this study, the total indebtedness of all redevelopment agencies for outstanding tax allocation bonds is $1,750,233,800. This indebtedness is attribut- able to 305 project areas. On a statewide basis , there is ample cash flow available to -meet the annual debt service requirements for this indebtedness. On the average, the annual debt service for the $1.75 billion that is currently outstanding is approximately 10% or $175 million. With $380 million in tax increment revenue available, there is more than twice what is needed to pay annual debt service. Several additional observations are important in this regard: 75 i . Although some redevelopment agencies have had difficulty meet- ing debt service obligations, particularly after Proposition 13, there have been no defaults on tax allocation bond issues. While total information is not always available, the market is generally acquainted with the financial problems of individual redevelopment agencies, and the underwriting of a bond issue I would be difficult where required coverages and adequate cash flow was in question. I All of these factors reinforce the conclusion that redevelopment activity to date is economically feasible and financially sound. THE FISCAL IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING ON COUNTIES HAS INCREASED. THIS AREA SHOULD BE MONITORED ON A CONTIN- UING BASIS AND ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARDS SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO ASSURE THAT THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF REDEVELOPMENT AND TAX INCREMENT FINANCING RESULTS IN AN EFFECTIVE BALANCE BETWEEN THE NEED FOR COUNTY OPERATING REVENUE AND THE LONG-TERM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION GOALS OF CITIES AND COUNTIES GENERALLY. To fully assess the fiscal impact of redevelopment, a number of fac- tors must be considered, as follows: . The impact on total tax increment revenue, bonded debt, and total debt, if certain projects are eliminated from the totals . The extent to which development would or would not have occurred without redevelopment 77 The amount of increased assessed value attributable to rede- velopment as opposed to normal inflationary growth and proj- ects that would have proceeded anyway . The impact of tax sharing agreements . Development that has occurred outside a redevelopment project area as a result of redevelopment activity generally . Private investment and job creation, inside and outside a project area, as a result of redevelopment activity . Redistribution of existing economic base, as opposed to real growth in the base . The extent to which redevelopment activity has generated other tax revenue (e.g. , sales tax, hotel -room tax, etc.) . Several of these factors require judgments over which reasonable people can disagree. Others require data that is not and may never be available. However, the data presented herein provides a start- ing point for examining the question of fiscal impact, :and it indi- cates , among other things, that the fiscal impact on county govern- ments is increasing. Two indicators of fiscal impact on county government are the percent of county assessed value that is frozen and the percent that frozen assessed value represents of total county property tax revenue. These two indicators are obviously related. With respect to frozen assessed value, Exhibit N on the fol 1 owi ng page shows the total assessed value of property within each county, the frozen or incremental assessed value within each county, and the 78 EXHIBIT N--FROZEN ASSESSED VALUE AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE BY COUNTY 1983-84 1963-84 Percent Frozen Assessed Total Assessed Frozen A.Y. County Value (a) Value (b) Of Total A.V. Alameda j 945,108,807 ; 32,850,301,132 2.9% Butte 117,841,115 4,416,661,552 2.7% Contra Costa 1.184,740,414 21,024.668.644 4.4% Fresno 221,259,911 17,023,695,164 1.3% Glenn 1,865,233 1,013,720,299 .2% Humboldt 87,342,335 2.960,441,718 3.0% Imperial 68.474,072 2,318.415.911 3.0% Kern 84,578.500 25,124,380.979 .3% Kings 7,933,643 2,067,845.408 .4% Los Angeles 12,643.968.564 227,738,903,948 5.6% Marin 358,194,189 9,673,406,036 3.7% Merced 122.110.603 3,990,313,459 3.1% Monterey 187,277.534 9.685,735.578 1.9% Napa 68,916.024 3.456,466,590 2.0% Orange 3.122.914,946 77.168.759,668 4.0% Riverside 1.320.735.967 24,138.639.984 5.5% Sacramento 598,830,291 21,193.402,695 2.8% San Bernardino 1,535,501,624 26,516,267.841 5.81 San Diego 753.703.478 61,119,741,257 1.2% San Francisco j 127,034.319- ; 27,326,417,507 .5% San Joaquin 66,653,479 10,480,600,211 .6% San Mateo 385.699.761 25,472.065.347 1.5% Santa Barbara 302,296,293 11.330.941.827 2.7% Santa Clara 3,553.415,934 50.267,604.226 7.1% Santa Cruz 22.136,750 6,405,289.290 .31 Shasta 4.507,000 3,914-573.355 .1% Solano 278.572,866 6,990:012,337 4.0% Sonoma 223.213.885 12,000,921,448 1.9% Tulare 43,666.910 6,347,733,053 .7% Ventura 499,204,106 19,685,774,468 2.5% Yuba 19,777,787 1,157,662,683 1.7% TOTAL $28.927.331.023 $814.164.230,514 3.6% (a) Figures in this column represent the amount of taxable assessed value in a county that is reserved for the repayment of redevelopment indebtedness. It is the .amount of assessed value increment within project areas that is over ano above the base year, and is generally not available to local taxing agencies for operating purposes until all rede- velopment indebtedness has been repaid. (b) Source: Financial Transactions of Counties; State Controller's Report;. 1982-83. 79 percent that the frozen or incremental value is of the total assessed value.. Only those counties having frozen assessed value as of June 30, 1984 are shown. As indicated in Exhibit N, the percentage that the frozen assessed value is of each count y' s total assessed value ranges from . 1% in Shasta County to 7. 1%. in Santa Clara County, with the .median percentage being 2.5%. On a statewide basis, the percen- tage is 3.6%. These percentages are significant when compared to those identified nine years ago. In 1974-75, approximately $500 million in taxable assessed value was frozen in a total of 27. counties. When adjusted to reflect the current method of assessing property, this is the equivalent of approximately $2 billion in assessed value. In 1983-84, approximately $29 billion in taxable assessed value was frozen in 31 counties. In 1974-75, frozen assessed value repre- sented less than 1% of total assessed value in all but two cases, and the highest percent was 1.5%. In 1983-84, the median percentage was. 2.5%, and all but 8 counties were at 1.0% or more. Several are above 5%, as follows: Percent Frozen A.V. County of Total A.Y. Merced 5.8% Los Angeles 5.9% Riverside 5.9% San Bernardino 6.3% Santa Clara 7.8% 80 A related indicator is the extent to which county property tax rev- enues are used to finance the activities of redevelopment agencies . This question is, of course, difficult to answer without analyzing all of the factors that were previously referenced concerning fiscal impact. However, the data does permit a comparison of tax increment revenue with property tax revenue generally. In this regard, Exhibit 0 presents , on a county by county basis, the tax increment revenue generated within each county, an estimate of each county's share of that revenue , the total property tax revenue received by each county, and the percent that the estimated tax increment revenues are of the county' s property tax revenues. Only those counties where tax increment revenue has been generated, as of June 30, 1984, are shown. As indicated in Exhibit 0, the percentage that each county' s esti- mated share of tax increment revenue is of each county's total prop- erty tax revenue , ranges from .1% in Shasta to 9.6% in Santa Clara. Most redevelopment agencies and projects are not individually creat- ing fiscal problems for county government. While they are responsi- ble for freezing the assessed value of property within their project areas , offsetting considerations include the following: . Since 1977, county fiscal review committees have been effec- tive in negotiating tax sharing agreements which mitigate the fiscal impact of individual redevelopment projects on the co unt y. . Changes in the law since the mid- 1970's have placed an increasing responsibility on redevelopment agencies to justify a proposed redevelopment project, and this justification has included a review of fiscal impact on affected local agencies . 81 EXHIBIT O--PERCENTAGE COUNTY'S SHARE OF TAX INCREMENT REVENUE IS OF TOTAL PROPERTY TAX REVENUE County's Share Of Estimate of Ratio: County's Total Property County's Share Share To Total Tax Increment Tax Rev. Gener- Of Tax Increment Property Tax Property Tax County Revenue ated In County (a) Revenue Revenue 1982-83(b) Revenue Alameda S 13.332,329 28% $ 3,733.052 S 99,979,011 3.7% Butte 1,276,918 20% 255.384 8,993,405 2.8% Contra Costa 15,949,939 24% 3.827.985 65,936,962 5.8% Fresno 2,778,705 30% 833.612 50,966.469 1.6% Glenn 21,033 33% 6,941 3,293,654 .2% Humboldt 1,243,755 32Z 398,002 9,643.088 4.1% Imperial 758,711 32% 242,788 71097.829 3.4% Kern 1,041,952 42% 437,620 90,547,732 .5% Kings 86.726 44% 38.159 8,520,287 .4% Los Angeles 176,656,895 42% 74,195,896 9339.331,614 7.9% Marin 681.529 28% 190,828 27,295,052 .7% Merced 1,404,409 39% 547,720 15,043,057 3.6% Monterey 1,659,067 27% 447,948 25.027,039 . 1.8% Napa 833,748 27% 225,112 9,114.268 2.5% Orange 39,368,274 .18% 7.086,289 143.186.479 4.9% Riverside 13,528.517 27% 3.652,700 67,190,918 5.4% Sacramento 6,744,989 35% 2.360,746 73.487,192 3.2% San Bernardino 19.619,258 27% 5,297,200 71,354.014 7.4% a San Diego 10.028,111 24% 2.406,747 138,489.484 1.7% San Francisco 1.461,180 85% 1,242.003 226.618,886 .5% San Joaquin 732,153 38% 278.218 38,585,518 .7% San Mateo 4.080.904 .24% 979,417 21,402,539 4.6% Santa Barbara 3,559,255 28% 996,591 30.770.165 3.2% Santa Clara 48.512,711 26% 12.613,305 130.889,416 9.6% Santa Cruz 283,802 27% 76,627 16.076,614 .5% Shasta 45,070 25% 11,268 9,581.997 .1% Solano 3,268,020 M 1,143,807 23.617,618 4.8% Sonoma 2,790,558 33% 920,884 38,472,200 2.4% Tulare . 462,930 . 41% 189,801 23,832,569 .8% Ventura 5,881,662 28% 1,646,865 56,213.642 2.9% Yuba 205,636 37% 76,085 4,051,623 1.9% (a) Source: State Board of Equalization; 1982-83 Annual Report. (b) Source: Financial Transactions of Counties; State Controller's Report; 1982-83; 82 . By adjusting statewide totals to allow for a few unusually large projects, the minimal impact of most individual projects is clearer. For example , it was shown earlier that the aver- age bonded indebtedness per project was reduced substantially if 7 projects are eliminated from the statewide totals. Simi- larly, with respect to tax increment revenue , 24% or $92,139,743 of the approximately $378 million in total tax increment revenue was generated from 5 project areas, as follows: C i ty Proj ect Tax Increment Agency Name Revenue Ana he i m Alpha $11,668,851 Los Angeles Bunker Hill 15,567,398 Los Angeles Central Business District 16,698,137 Industry Civic-Rec-Industr. 01 17,814,946- San Jose Merged Area 30,390,411 $92,139,743 As with bonded indebtedness, when the projects are ranked there is a natural break in total tax increment revenue between these 5 project areas and the next project area which has total tax increment revenue of $8,375,652. Taki ng these figures into account, the remaining $286 million in tax incre- ment revenue is spread over 351 project areas. This reduces the average amount of tax increment revenue for these 351 proj- ect areas from $1,061,000 to $815,000 per project area. It is the cumulative impact of redevelopment activity within an individual county that could lead to an imbalance between the need for county operating revenue and the long-term economic development and revitalization goals of individual redevelopment agencies within the county. This should be monitored because: 83 By adjusting statewide totals to allow for a few unusually 1 arge projects, the minimal impact of most individual projects is clearer. For example , it was shown earlier that the aver- age bonded indebtedness per project was reduced substantially if 7 projects are eliminated from the statewide totals. Simi- larly, with respect to tax increment revenue, 24% or $92,139,743 of the approximately $378 million in total tax increment revenue was generated from 5 project areas, as follows: city Project Tax Increment Agency Name Revenue Anaheim Alpha $11,668,851 Los Angeles Bunker Hill 15,567,398 Los Angeles Central Business District 16,698,137 Industry Civic-Rec-Industr. 41 17,814,946 San Jose Merged Area 30,390,411 $92,139,743 As with bonded indebtedness, when the projects are ranked there is a natural break in total tax increment revenue between these 5 project areas and the next project area which has total tax increment revenue of $8,375,652. Taking these figures into account, the remaining $286 million in tax incre- ment revenue is spread over 351 project areas. This reduces the average amount of tax increment revenue for these 351 proj- ect areas from $1,061,000 to $815,000 per project area. It is the cumulative impact of redevelopment activity within an individual county that could lead to an imbalance between the need for county operating revenue and the long-term economic development and revitalization goals of individual redevelopment agencies within the county. This should be monitored because: 83 . The size of individual redevelopment projects has increased in recent years . As indicated in the previous chapter, the aver- age size of a project area is 642 acres. However, of those projects that were established prior to 1979 and Proposition 13, the average size of the project areas is 481 acres. Of those projects established in 1979 or later, the average size is 811 acres. It will be some time before the indebtedness of existing rede- velopment projects is repaid and the current incremental assessed value is returned to the tax rolls. For exampl e, when the last statewide study was completed in 1976, redevel- opment agencies estimated that 95% of all projects underway at that time would be completed by 1985. This estimate referred only to when the activities of redevel opnent agencies would be completed, and did not mean that all indebtedness incurred in conjunction with these projects would be repaid by that time. By contrast, and partially as a result of Proposition 13, most of these projects are still active, and current estimates in conjunction with this study indicate that indebtedness for the average project will not be repaid until the year 2000 or later. At the same time, it should be noted that the number of redevelopment agencies and projects has grown since the 1976 study. Redevelopment agencies have grown from 152 to 273, while redevelopment projects have grown from 229 to 467. To the extent that some agencies and projects are just getting underway, this will increase the amount of frozen assessed value and extend the time until all indebtedness is repaid. While the basic., facts suggest that the fiscal impact on counties is increasing , it is important to again note that. this is only true to the extent. that net increases in assessed value would have occurred 84 without redevelopment. In further studying this question, consider- ation should be given to an overall limit on the amount of indebted- ness an individual agency may incur. In the alternative, considera- tion might be given to a limit on total redevelopment agency indebt- edness that could not be exceeded within a county without approval of the county, whenever the cumulative amount of incremental assessed value is equal to a certain percent of county assessed value or its - equivalent in county property tax revenue. It may also be appropri- ate to extend the provisions of Section 33333.2 of the Health and Safety Code to all redevelopment projects , thereby establishing a limit on the total amount of tax increment revenue that may be utilized for redevelopment purposes. REDEVELOPMENT DOES NOT REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT COST TO THE STATE, AND THE POSSIBILITY OF STATE LIABILITY FOR INDEBTEDNESS IS REMOTE The primary fiscal impact of redevelopment and tax increment financ- ing on the State occurs in two areas, as follows: . School districts are subject to a revenue limit, and the l.aw guarantees school districts an amount of revenue annually that is equal to their revenue limit. The State provides the dif- ference between what school districts raise locally from the property tax and the amount of the revenue limit. Thus, to the extent a school district is located within a redevelopment project area, the State in effect reimburses the school dis- trict for tax increment revenues that go to finance the acti- vities of the redevelopment agency. 85 The State provides redevelopment agencies with replacement revenue for the business inventory exemption. _ In 1983-84. this totalled $50.2 million. In the future, the State will continue to guarantee this amount of replacement revenue to redevelopment agencies, but its obligation will be reduced to the extent that redevelopment agencies, receive additional rev- enue. from the supplemental property tax roll . In 1983-84, therefore , the fiscal impact on the State is represented by the school portion of property tax revenue that went to redevelop- ment agencies , plus the amount of business inventory replacement revenue . If one assumes that all of the increases in assessed value would have occurred anyway, and that none of the incremental assessed value is attributable to the activities of redevelopment, which is clearly not the case, the maximum fiscal impact on the State in 1983-84 is $163 million. This figure represents $113 million which is the school portion of tax increment revenue when calculated on a county by county basis (see Appendix X) , plus the $50 million in business inventory replacement revenue. As indicated, the $163 million assumes that all of the increases in assessed value would have occurred anyway, and that none of the incremental assessed value is attributable to the activities of redevelopment. Such an assumption is clearly unrealistic. This assignment has not permitted a before and after comparison of each protect area, but it is clear that redevelopment agencies have facilitated and made new development possible by a variety of acti- vities including the assemblage of parcels and the provision of needed public improvements that made private investment and develop- ment economically feasible. While it will never. be possible to derive a specific figure on which everyone will agree, a conservative estimate is that at least half of the increased assessed value is attributable to the activities of redevelopment agencies. This, in 86 i tsel f, .reduces the. basic cost ..to the . State from:_$163. million-.-,.to $81.5 million. In . addi ti on, it i s •necessary to offset the basic cost: to the State with -personal income tax and sales ,tax revenue resulting from.•: rede- velopment.. When the $90.million in annual State revenue is .appl,iedi a positive cash flow, of' approximately $9 mill ion-resul ts. T•hi s..i:s conservati ve" to the extent ,that. more . than half of the J ncrementaI assessed. value .is attributable to -redevelopment, to the extent. that revenue- estimates- .do._.mt reflect. new co,nstructi on in . areas adjacent to redevelopment.. projects, and to the extent that State business i nventory.s.ubventi ions,-dec•l i.ne i n .t.he future. In addition to the minor fiscal impact, the possibility. of any State liability. for " the indebtedness of individual redevelopnent agencies would appear to be remote. Given the... magnitude . of -redevel;opnent acti vi ty around- the State, it may be appropriate to request the Attorney General for an opinion regarding State -1 iabi l'-i"ty in the`event"of default. However, in con= versations -with. bond--,counsel mu`ni-cipal attorneys, and others qual i- fied to assess this question, there was general agreement that from a strict legal standpoint=; the State has no liability whatsoever fn the event -of -a default on tax al ljocati°on bonds. Tax increment rev- enue is the-only source pledged for repayment, and the State' s lia- bility is no different -=fhan i-f; a l oca"1 agency were..-to, default on other types of bonds-it may have sold: There are some. who are alleging 'that the State of Washington is liable in conjunction -with' the recent default on- bonds° issued by the 87 Washington Public Power Supply System. In addition, others would suggest that the State might assume some liability if it acted retroactively in a way that jeopardized the ability of local agen- cies to service existing debt. For example, they suggest that there could be an "impairment of contract" if the State were to rescind the current business inventory exemption which local agencies may have relied on when deciding to issue tax allocation bonds. These questions are further reasons why .an Attorney General ' s opin- ion in this area may be appropriate. In the meantime, with' more than twice the amount of tax increment revenue available than is necessary to service tax. allocation bond debt, the possibility of default would appear to be remote except in isolated instances. r ADDITIONAL CHANGES .IN THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND THE PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL FINANCING AUTHORITY MAY BE APPROPRIATE. HOWEVER, WHILE CONTINUED MONITORING IS IMPORTANT, REGULATION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS NEITHER NECESSARY NOR WARRANTED. As indicated previously, additional legislation may be desirable in order to assure that the cumulative impact of redevelopment within a county does not result in an imbalance between the need for annual operating revenue and the long-term economic development and revi- talization goals of redevelopment agencies within the county. Sim- ilarly, the results of this study suggest that some local agencies do look at tax increment financing as a general financing tool and that, because redevelopment plans can be 'amended, there is a ten- dency for projects to continue. In this regard, it may be appropri- ate to consider a limitation on the frequency or magnitude of changes that may be made to a redevelopment project once it is established. 88 In addition to such further revisions to existing law, it would also be helpful to broaden the long-term financing authority of local agencies generally. For example, reliance on tax increment revenue could be reduced in the future if cities and counties were author- ized to issue general obligation' bonds , or if significant State funds were made available for infrastructure financing. While further revisions to existing law and additional financing authority may be appropriate, nothing in this study suggests that regulation of the redevelopment process is either necessary or war- ranted. Rather, the following factors would argue against a regula- tory process of any kind: • Over time, both the courts and the legislature have clarified and refined the authority of cities and counties in the area of redevelopment and tax increment financing. Thi s has 1 im- ited the authority of agencies generally and caused them to assume responsibility for more specific planning and justifi- cation before a redevelopment plan can be adopted or amended. Overall , it has minimized the opportunities for abuse. . With the establishment of fiscal review committees, affected local agencies have a forum for reviewing and negotiating with redevelopment. agencies before a plan can be adopted or amended. These committees have been increasingly effective in reaching an acceptable compromise where controversy exists with respect to a proposed redevelopment plan, and they have the ability to sue in the event that the redevelopment agency is either arbi- trary or capricious. 89 . . The marketplace has been effective in monitoring the economic feasibility of individual redevelopment proposals. While default is always a possibility, it has not been the prac- ti ce. Furthermore, the likelihood of default is minimized by the close scrutiny and required coverages of the financial community and investors in general . The total amount of debt is not disproportionately large in comparison to, other State and local debt. Where an individual agency is excessive in .its reliance on this tool , or a county is adversely affected, because of the cumulative impact of redevelopment activity, legislation would appear to be an effective remedy. The record of redevelopment under current ground rules is impressive. While individual projects may be of concern to some and further legislation may be necessary in order to con- tinue to refine the process , it is reasonable to conclude that the overall objectives of the State are being met under a pro- cess that is working. satisfactorily in most cases. Although regulation is neither necessary nor warranted, continued State monitoring of the redevelopment process and of individual redevelopment agencies is important and desirable. Such monitoring is important because the results of redevelopment are impressive, and' continued analysis of trends may result in the identification of further ways to supplement this process and make it an even more important economic development and revitalization tool . At the same time, continued monitoring will also help to assure that abuses do not occur, and that a balance is maintained between the need for operating revenue and the longer-term objectives of redevelopment agencies. 90 ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND INFORMATION ON A CONTINUING BASIS WOULD BE HELPFUL While there is considerable redevel opnent activity throughout the State, there is also widespread confusion and, to some extent, con- cern regarding ways to effectively utilize redevelopment and its implications generally. In this regard, additional training and information would be hel pful for: . Those using redevelopment. Areas to cover include: - What has worked and hasn't worked - How to assess economic feasibility - How to assess fiscal impact - Factors to consider in determining blight M - Factors to consider in establishing a project area - Factors to consider in preparing a redevelopment plan - How to utilize other revenue sources in conjunction with tax increment revenue. . Those concerned with redevelopment. Areas to cover include: - Basic data regarding current activity and trends - How to establish a Fiscal Review Committee - How to analyze a proposed project . - How. to determine fiscal impact ` - What constitutes blight - What options exist for tax sharing - What have others done. 91 As the body responsible for collecting data that can be used to monitor the redevelopment process, the State should: . Prepare more specific uniform guidelines that redevelopment, agencies and counties can use to report indebtedness and pro- cess requests for tax increment revenue. Once the guidelines are developed, training should be provided on a statewide basis to encourage understanding and consistent application. . Revise definitions related to low and moderate income housing to assure an improved and common understanding of these desig- nati ons . . Requi re a si mpl i f i ed si ngl a reporti ng procedure that can be used to report when an agency is activated, a project is established or completed, and to annually report basic data regarding redevelopment activity generally. Auditing should be undertaken as necessary, and the State should be authorized to impose an appropriate sanction in the event that local agency cooperation is unreasonably withheld. . The training referenced above could effectively be conducted by Statewide associations such as the League of California Cities and the California County Supervisors Association. It could also be provided as part of the technical assistance program of the Califor- nia Debt Advisory Commission. Because of their familiarity with 1 ocal government finance , their auditing capability, and their reporting responsibilities generally , the State Controllers Office, in cooperation with other State agencies interested in the redevel- opment activities of cities and counties , should be assigned respon- sibility for establishing and implementing a simplified and single reporting process. Both cities and counties should have an oppor- tunity to review and comment on any changes in the reporting process. 92 i 985/2 FM d � ENDEVELOPA4ENTS While redevelopment-has be- come an extremely popular way of rejuvenating cities,relatively few ttt municipalities have really encour- aged owner participation,the proc- ess which enables local property owners to create their own rede- velopment projects within the redeveloped area. In downtown Anaheim,however, owner participation is the standard approach for small and medium- rim sized redevelopment projects. �. Anaheim has 10 downtown owner participation projects.In Ho:.• alphabetical order,they are:Ana- heim Savings&Loan Building, + : Chamber of Commerce Building,El Camino Business Complex,Mascie) fit• Building,Masonic Lodge,Pacific i.. I f IF Telephone additions,Security Pacific 1 r Bank,Chestnut/Harbor Office Build- ing,Willdan Associates Building, who�q and Wood Bridge Village. Notes Norman J.-Priest,Executive Director of the Anaheim Redevel- opment Agency: "The primary reason this has hap- pened in Anaheim is that we have a lot of vital people who have a strong This old photo shows Anaheim Boulevard looking south from"Old Lincoln"with desire to preserve our municipal the three-story building at left standing where the new Chamber of Commerce heritage.This feeling has been Building now is.Behind that are the sn►:►ll buildings that occupied the present strongly evidenced by past and sites of the new City the Wilklan Associates Building. continued next gage present members of our City Coun- and a pro forma showing antici- Chamber eventually formed to con- cil,which also acts as our Redevel- pated cost and income factors. struct our new home. opment Agency.At the same time, Next,these proposals are re- "In 1980,our executive director at our Redevelopment Agency staff viewed by the Redevelopment the time was sympathizing with has worked closely and coopera- Agency for conformity to the Obie Moore,a realtor who owned tively with property owners who are redevelopment plan and for the commercial property directly unfamiliar with it complicated financial feasibility. across the street.Both the Chamber land development process. 3. Owners whose proposals are and Mr.Moore were going to have "For example,when the Town tentatively approved then nego- to relocate.The idea came about to Center site was cleared,we built a tiate a firm agreement with the combine forces and set up a build- temporary shopping center next to Agency staff.This agreement ing corporation which would have the Library to house displaced includes architectural plans,a de- Mr.Moore and the Chamber as businesses. tailed pro forma and,frequently, general partners.We formed the "Most recently we assisted the a financing commitment.Review corporation—and,working with owners of Jackson Drug Co.and and approval of this agreement Obie—used all the Chamber's re- Dirk R.Bode Insurance Associates in involves the Redevelopment Agen- sources and expertise to begin to relocating after our agency pur- cy and the Planning and Rede- put together the project.Our first chased and cleared their parcels on velopment Commissions. architectural plans were for an elab- old Lincoln Avenue.When the 4. Construction then begins with orate five-story building. agency bought their property,both the owner participant acting as "Fortunately,one of our directors owners indicated an interest in construction manager or hiring was Dave Hook,who owns Sunset redeveloping a parcel close to someone to perform that role. Construction.He felt that our build- where they had been.We prepared Each downtown owner participation ing with its large open interior a temporary location on their per- project was different because it garden would not financially'pencil manent site so they could stay in involved a distinct set of circum- out'and would not be practical to business while their project was in stances and challenges.While it is build.Eventually,we brought Sunset the planning and construction not possible to review each one, into the picture.Dave contributed a phases.We put in utilities,rented "Redevelopments"has interviewed design from a building he had modular trailers,made interior the principals involved in three of already constructed near the sta- modifications to accommodate the larger owner participation proj- dium.All the architectural work was them,and provided parking space. ects.Their views on the process already done.It was just a matter of Once the modules were ready,we follow. adjusting that building to the site we paid for their moves.During the are on now. course of the occupancy,a little over CHAMBER OF COMMERCE BLDG. "We formed a limited partnership two years,we maintained the with three general partners,Sunset modules.We worked closely with Completed early in 198k the Construction,the Chamber,and these owner participants all through S%000-sq:ff:,three-story Chamber Obie Moore.We began selling the redevelopment process.I think of Commerce Building immediately limited partnerships to raise suf- the process was accomplished with north of City Hall is the largest ficient capital.All together,the a minimum of inconvenience to downtown owner participation proj- Chamber put$70,000 into the proj- them.Both businesses are now ect.The organization formerly jest.We actually ended up with 11 operating in Wood Bridge Village, occupied a now-demolished store- percent of this building even v within 100 feet of their previous front building on Lemon Street,a though we had started without locations." block southwest of its present iota- any money. tion.Executive Director Allan "We had the opportunity to THE PROCESS Hughes observes that it was very dif- design our own office.We were ficult to function in the Chambees able to pick the site and the floor we The owner participation process is old home because there was only wanted—and to design the space complex,so it generally takes two to one office,the conference room on the basis of what we anticipated five years to complete a project. was not large enough to hold all the- to be our needs.So,we moved into Here is a brief outline of the steps directors,and the facility was inade- new quarters and just about dou- involved: quate in a number of other ways. bled our square footage.We've. 1. The Redevelopment Agency Looking at the relocation in retro- even increased it more when you sends a Statement of Interest spect,Hughes said: look at the fad that we were able to form to redevelopment area prop- "When downtown redevelop- plan it efficiently and lay it out the erty owners.Those who corn- ment was approved,we knew we way we wanted to. plete the form are invited to would have to relocate.We were "The change between our old submit proposals when parcels leasing our space,we did not have a headquarters and what we have have been assembled lot of surplus money,and we were here is just like night and day.It is so and cleared. concerned about where we could different,it's hard to even compare. . Z A property owner,or a group of find a suitable place to lease.Early in We are just delighted with the owners,then takes the initiative 1979,we formed a search commit- change.I have been all over Cali- to prepare a preliminary proposal tee to look for a new location.That fornia and 1 don't think there's . which indicates the type of proj- committee really was the start of the another Chamber quarters in the ect,its basic design parameters, non-profit building corporation the state that can touch us.I've been to project.Founded downtown in 1964,Willdan Associates has grown into a major engineering and plan- ning firm with governmental and private sector clients throughout the United States.In addition to federal,state,and county govern- ments,it numbers more than 170 California cities among its clients. Its staff consists of 200 professionals ll,P ��®®� �f with 75 in its 22,000-sq.-ft.Anaheim �.�,r•. ; t Ail, '�, headquarters—plus 10 regional %J i `rn �e,��®®®®®®�d�0 offices in Southern California, Arizona,and Oregon. r 111® of Prior to construction of Ana- E J , �11Q1�!>��� �., heim's new Civic Center,Willdan ���z . u� w ��su-=.� ® y��p occupied its own building on B � Claudina Street,about where the ®� � ® City Council Chambers now stand. _ Giving his views on owner partici- pation,Willdan President and Co- Founder Dan Heil said: "Our old office had around 9,000 sq.ft.We had to leave that location in 1978 so City Hall could be built. We leased a temporary location 10 The handsome new Chamber of Commerce Building,immediately north of City blocks to the south on Anaheim Hall. Boulevard. It was approximately four years before we were able to U.S.Chamber Headquarters in a joint venture.You certainly have to come back to this location,which is Washington,D.C.,and our quarters know your potential partners and about 100 ft.from where we origi- are as nice as theirs. what you're doing.If you just take nally were.We were able to build a "We were fortunate in our tie-up some businessmen off the street, larger facility to accommodate our with Obie Moore.Together,we and they get into a project,you're expansion.So,our relocation has were able to come up with abetter probably going to find one of them been very beneficial to us. project.Since we had no down is a little underfinanced and none of "We really did not think much payment for this project,the land he them has the needed expertise. about moving elsewhere.This is an owned became the financial foun- While I'd recommend owner panic- Anaheim company.We had a great dation for our corporation and ipation for anyone else,you have to deal of commitment to the down- made this building possible.And,it be careful about the selection of town area.This location is very good was through-his efforts as a realtor your partners.You have to make for us.The City of Anaheim has very that we were able to have this build- sure they're financially able to high visibility.It's well known. ing 100 percent occupied shortly carry their portion. "Actually,we had already bought after we moved in,which must be "There are tremendous advan- a portion of our new site two to some kind of record.They're all tages in working in a redevelop- three years before we had to leave blue chip,long-term tenants,too,so ment area.You are in a vibrant situa- our old site.The owners of an old we don't have to worry about them tion,a centralized downtown where service station on the corner wanted going out of business.This building things are happening.That's a real to sell,so we bought it.On the is a shining example of what can be plus.Also,the architectural control remainder of our present site,there done through owner participation. and quality control a redevelop- were other small buildings,old "The whole project came ment agency can exert is to your homes and beat-up garages.We had together very smoothly.Of course, advantage on a long-term basis.If to wait until the site was cleared and as a Chamber,we had some advan- you're in a redeveloping area,you the parking structure was built tages.We had a working relation- know you're not going to have before we could start. ship with the city.We were not something substandard put next to "We unfortunately ran into the given any preferential treatment, you.That is real insurance from a high-interest-rate period.It wasn't but we were able to anticipate prob- long-term investment aspect." just the high interest; money wasn't lems.Cooperation of the city was available.You couldn't find lenders. tremendous.We knew who to talk. WILLDAN ASSOCIATES BUILDING We had a great deal of difficulty. to,and we were able to make the That held us up probably a year. project very viable right from the Occupied in April,1982,the "At the time,-we were planning word'go.' 45,000-sq-ft.,three-story Willdan on a smaller building,but the city "In any kind of development proj- Associates Building immediately had asked us to conform with its ect,there can be so many pitfalls, south of City Hall is downtown's master plan,which called for a particularly when you're going in on second largest owner participation larger structure here.So,we agreed conlinued next page ImIldlil},,which I.ilc•r ti - c.isle•in handy,sine c our staff - t4.iv- exp.uulc•d while we wc•ic•in leased � qu.crters 011d we sec do d n►(m. spa(t lk "Al%o.hc•tmc•thc•building was r deigned,wc•be(.unc aware that Ihc• city needed additional space for sollw of its IwOlile,evcvl though - City 11,111 had just been huill.Since f�- we're sec(lose to City 111111,it appeared that the city might wish to utilize our facility for some of its staff. It ended up leasing the entire - "`a ' top floor for its data processing " group. By leasing the property to the city ahead of time,we were able to design the structure to .yr� accommodate data processing's needs. "We wanted to maintain a certain _ amount of design homogeneity with the City Hall.We felt that we were so close that we needed to match up.Our building is not exactly like the City Hall,which has a silver tint on its glass,while we have bronze. The Willdan Associates Building,just south of the Civic Center,was designed to But basically,a lot of the architectur- match City Hall. al features are similar.We spent more money than was required,but "We also were able to get nice a higher degree of development. we wanted everything to match. surroundings for our staff which That's all going to be to your bene- "We also took a lot of time work- improved morale.And,we are not fit.And,it certainly doesn't hurt to ing with the agency to make sure we paying more per square foot than have a new facility.I'm a real fan of satisfied all conditions and require- we would for less attractive owner participation." ments.There were a lot of proce- surroundings. WOOD BRIDGE VILLAGE dures,but we found that Anaheim "I've suggested to local business has good municipal and Redevelop- people that—if ever an opportu- Occupied in mid-1985,Wood ment Agency staffs.We had excel- nity comes for them to develop an Bridge Village is downtown Ana- lent relations all the way through. owner participation agreement with heim's newest owner participation The building and safety departments someone in the area—they should project.Immediately north of the were very cooperative with us and consider it The Redevelopment Chamber of Commerce Building, helped us get our buildings com- Agency might want a three-or four- the 35,000-sq:ft.,two-building, pleted on time. story structure,which they might one-,two-,and three-story com- "The owner participation process not feel comfortable owning by plex fronts on Anaheim Boulevard, did mean that the project took themselves.However,they could between"new"and"old"Lincoln more time than it would have taken talk to three or four other local Avenues.The owner participants if we had just constructed a building businesses about coming in as are two long-time local businesses, elsewhere.By the time you go partners.That could be done Jackson Drug Co.and Dirk R.Bode through the planning procedures, instead of just saying,'I can't be Insurance Associates. the owner participation agreements, an owner participant.' Founded in 1923 by Earl Jackson, etc.,I would guess that it adds "if you're in an area where your Jackson Drug was a long-time fix- another year. business has been successful,I ture on the corner of Emily Street "This is a Class A building.The would think you'd want to stay close and Lincoln,where the entrance to windows are double-paned.It has to that location.Owner participa- the new Center Street Parking full sprinkler systems,fire protec- tion allows you to do that. It may Structure is located.The present tion,solar heating.It is a fairly high even allow you to accommodate an owner,Dr.Donald Lee,was born tech building,designed for a great expansion that has occurred in your and raised in Anaheim and began deal of computerization with business,which might not have working in the store while attend-. heavier-than-usual electrical.It been easy to do otherwise. ing Anaheim High.After becoming also has a considerably better-than- "Owner participation in most a pharmacist,he worked there full normal air-conditioning system. cases is a good concept.Usually,the time and bought out Jackson 15 However,we knew the construction area is improved by redevelopment. years ago when the latter retired. business well enough that we were So,if you were successful in the area The Bode agency was founded in able to construct this building at a before,after redevelopment you're 1954 by Dirk Bode,shortly after he relatively low price. going to have better road access and and his family immigrated here from Holland.Its first office was the chances of favorable consideration both retail and offices and certainly then-new Bank of America.Build- would be enhanced by joining with fora restaurant,since(here were ing,which was built wherethe new other interested owner participants. none in the immediate area." Chamber Building now is.Two Don Lee was a natural for that.The T.Bode—"Those were difficult years later,the firm moved two Agency also gave us the name of a times.We interviewed several leas- blocks east.Then,after 16 years,it lady who owned some downtown ing agents.One of them said,'Show came back to another building in property and suggested that we us what you have.'You're put in a its initial block.When the agency's contact her.We formed an unoffi- different position.We needed these founder passed away in 1978,his vial three-way partnership. people.We needed someone who two sons,V.W. Tom Bode and Don "Next,we talked to the Crowell could market what we would build. C.Bode,took over. Corporation,a general contractor One of the major real estate firms In this interview,the Bode that had been referred to us.We said it really was not interested in brothers and Lee tell how they told them basically what we had in being our leasing agent because of came to be the owners of a com- mind:a two-or three-story office our mixed-use approach with both mercial/professional complex that building on the site where we were. retail and office tenants.Another is much larger than they ever We talked about our varying goals said,'You people are building a dreamed they would own: and how we three could combine Cadillac in a Chevrolet area.' T.Bode—"Our business was very them into a development that met "You think:'Are we really making much identified with downtown. the needs of all parties.Our thoughts a mistake?These are professional That was one of the strong factors in evolved into a structure that was people.They're supposed to know our decision to remain here when fairly modern and compatible with what can lease and what can't.'We redevelopment came.When we surrounding development. realized we could build the most purchased the building where the "We made a presentation to the beautiful building in the world,but Chamber now is,we were aware of Agency,but were told that the if it didn't get leased,we'd be in redevelopment,which had been Chamber wanted to be adjacent to real trouble. discussed for years with no tangible the Civic Center,so we would have "The Redevelopment Agency was evidence that it was happening. a better chance if we made a pro- very encouraging and seemed to be "So,we bought the building and posal on the site we now occupy. very pleased with our approach.The completely remodeled the interior. We thought that would be fine.It staff was excited about what we Some people probably thought: was certainly close enough to where were doing and felt it would be a `Those guys are foolish to spend we all had been.In perspective,I good example of what can be done. money on that building.'Down- think we're better off here than we We had—and still have—a good town was definitely in a downward would have been there." relationship with the Agency,which, spiral.We were getting really mar- Lee—"But we couldn't just put a no doubt,was a benefit to both ginal occupancies:the adult book- drug store and an insurance agency of us." ' store and the adult theatre,thrift on this property.It wouldn't pencil D.Bode—"We formed a limited shops,things of that nature.Some of out.A lot of people later asked, partnership.We had an operating the immediate neighbors were very `How did you choose this size?'We document prepared in accordance pleased to see us remodeling.. chose-the size that would make the with SEC requirements.It summa- "When redevelopment was project successful.Too_much,bigger rized what we were doing,what our approved,we expressed a desire to wouldn't-make.it because there projections were,etc We sold remodel the exterior of our building wouldn't be enough parking.Too limited partnerships to local people, so it would be more compatible much smaller and it wouldn't pay including members of our families.. with the development that was the debt service.That's how we got If you're going to do something like_ coming around.us.However,that the 35,000-sq.-ft.size. . this,you have to be willing to do turned out to be contrary to what "We realized that we had to max- what is necessary." the Redevelopment Agency had imize the use of.the land,that retail T.Bode—"Financing was a-big in mind. requires other retail to make it more problem.We had three things "Meanwhile,shortly before my viable.I think it's going to prove out against us.First,at that stage,the dad passed away,Don Lee had for my drug store as we get our only redevelopment that had taken come to our office and talked to us ground floor tenants in.The more ,. 'place was the Civic Center,although about our plans,about combining people are drawn for other reasons, much of the project area was our efforts and doing a develop- the greater are-the chances that they cleared.That:would make any po- ment together.However,he didn't will come in for bottle of aspirin,a tential lender somewhat nervous. have anything specific in mind. birthday card,or whatever. The second factor.was that we had "Our initial thought was we'd "We had a marketing study done no development.experience:we build our own building,occupy it, 'because we realized that a lender were business people trying some- and lease surplus space.The Rede- would need assurance that what we thing outside our field.The third velopment Agency said that various were doing was going to work in factor was that a lot of lenders are parcels would be available.We this area.-We also did it for-the leary about a mixed-use project. wanted to make a proposal on the benefit of a future restaurant tenant, You can't always get a good blend of parcel on which we were located. who would want to know about the retail-and professional.You have to Of course,it was considerably larger demographics.The marketing study be sensitive as to whom your'ten- than our portion. gave a very favorable prognosis.The ants are.It all has to be compatible. "We were informed that the location would be desirable for "The two-building concept actu- mntinued next page ally developed after the execution D.Bode—"All of us paid a fairly building leased at this point and are of our agreement with the Redevel- high price in our businesses for our negotiating for some addi- opment Agency.The overall project involvement in this development. tional space." remained what we had originally My brother and I spent 18 months, Lee—"The very fact that Wood planned,but we weren't happy with devoting 50 percent or more of our Bridge Village is here and up means the design.We solved the problem time to various project details.With our efforts were a success. It's too in somewhat unusual fashion. the two major income-producers of early to determine if it's going to be "Our architect,Lance Bird of La our agency spending less than half the financial success we hope for. Canada Associates; the people from their time on business,our staff But,it is a successful project.We Crowell; and the three of us and went from five people to three. could sell it tomorrow and walk our wives took a day and drove "Don Lee,likewise,spent many away with money in our pockets. It around Orange County in some hours with us in meetings.It was probably wouldn't pay back our vans to look at various commercial often a case of'Drop whatever time,but it would pay our expenses. developments.Our architect told you're doing—we've got to handle We won't know for five to seven us,'When you see something you this right now.'It was difficult to years whether it's going to be a like,tell me.When you see some- keep our businesses going. financial success." thing you hate,tell me.'We went to "There were times we worked T.Bode—"Sometimes when I look various places,saw a lot of things we late into the night and,on a couple at the project,I am reminded of the liked,saw a lot of things we didn't of occasions,all night long,to effort that it took to get here.At like.He took copious notes,refined resolve issues that needed to be other times,Hook at it and think all of this data,and changed the taken care of.I remember preparing that it really did turn out nice.I'm original one-building design to two the loan documents.Tom,Don,and really pleased with the results.As buildings with one,two,and I spent the majority of an entire day time passes and the memory of the three stories. on them.Tom continued all night pain and effort that went into it "We were all delighted with the and was still working on them when fades,it will be easy to look at it and result.We wanted something that we came back the next day." say,'Gee,it's great."' had some warmth and atmosphere, T.Bode—"You need a certain Lee—"I feel sort of that way.I'm in that was not your typical commer- amount of technical support if awe that it happened,considering cial building,which tends to be you're inexperienced as a devel- that we got something this size and rather drab.We wanted the building oper.We had that support with had never done anything like this to have a lot of ins and outs,some Crowell.They were essential to our before.Now,when I see a piece of design interest.With a mixed-use having the project we have today. paper on our sidewalk;I pick it up. project,we wanted to be very care- We couldn't have gotten here with- treat Wood Bridge like my home. ful about the design working for all out them.The rapport we estab- That's a neat thing." tenants.We were satisfied that all lished with people at the Redevel- this was accomplished with the opment Agency certainly was an revision." asset,too.We have 70 percent of the a logoji t r �ykn. y.. --� On Anaheim Boulevard,just north of"Old"Lincoln Avenue(now Center Street),Wood Bridge Village tapers down from the three-story structure in the foreground to the one-story fuddrucker's restaurant in the left background. � ,ems Yt�4 J _,.'....•CtyC'�`�. V. a � v>•' 44 J. The entrance of the Freedman Forum will be the namesake of the world-famous corner of Broadway and 42nd Street!Cars in foreground are on-Broadway with-the City Hall shown at left. After several years of planning, along Claudina,which Freedman The theatre actually will be octag- the long-awaited Freedman Forum proposes be renamed 42nd St. onal but will have a round stage. It Theatre was approved by the Rede- Ticket windows then would be at will occupy the entire width of the velopment Agency in August and the world-famous corner of"Broad- center portion of the building,from construction began in early way and 42nd Street."Immediately Broadway to the parking structure November. to the north,the main lobby will drive. In the spaces at each"corner" The Forum will be a$4-million feature a dramatic folded-plate glass of the octagon will be lobbies and theatre-in-the-round seating 2,280 roof.The remainder of the 42nd St. rest rooms.The rear of the structure people for live performances of frontage will be occupied by an art will include a rehearsal hall,large stage plays,musicals,and other moderne style 100-seat restaurant workshop,six dressing rooms,quar- productions. that features many geometric exte- ters for the musicians and choruses, The developer,-Leo Freedman,is rior shapes,including a glass- and wardrobe and prop storage. the man who brought theatre-in- enclosed semi-circular room that Construction is expected to be the-round to Orange County dur- looks out on the entry. completed in about one year. ing the 1960s.His Melodyland Thea- tre across Harbor Boulevard from i Disneyland featured numerous r major stars. concession Freedman's new theatre-in-the- a D I W round will be built on the 1.3-acre parcel located—appropriately W Restaurant O O N enough—on Broadway,between W Philadelphia and Claudina Streets. L11 On the north,the theatre will be _- Main Auditorium = bounded by the entry drive to the c lobby D �J a W City Hall Parking Structure,which it will utilize for parking,since it p o p y will be open when city offices l/` "'�O d are closed. Ticket � a D concision Designed by Sheldon L..Pollack of Los Angeles,the 53,000-sq.-ft.,one- and two-story glass and stucco struc- ture will take up the entire parcel. B N O A D W A Y leaving;room only for sidewalks, n.irrow planters along;the three the 24..300-sq.-ft.octagonal theatre takes up the majorityofthe first floor.An streets,and a larger planter and Uh itional5,700sq. ft.of offices will be on the second floor,which is not shown. entry at the front of the building ZU I � ' Artist's rendering of the proposed Anaheim Memorial Manor tower,as seen from Center Street:New parking structure is at left. Plans have been announced for Avenue,are the city's downtown all four sides.The skin,itself,will be Anaheim Memorial Manor Tower, senior center and a small park, glazed tile or brick.On the long the 10-story senior citizens'housing which will further enhance the sides,the framework and skin form project proposed for the site for- quality of life for tower residents. balconies for most apartments. merly occupied by the Angelina The tower will occupy only 27 Thus,in addition to enhancing the Hotel,immediately east of the new percent of the half-acre site with 29 tower's appearance,the enclosure Center Street Parking Structure. percent devoted to pedestrian use will provide most residents with And,in mid-September,the tower and parking(19 spaces)and the their own private balcony on which was approved and funded by the remaining 44 percent planned for they can enjoy fresh air and the view U.S.Department of Housing and livable open space. —as well as shading their windows. Urban Development. Anaheim Memorial Manor will The architects,Kurt Meyer The$4.8-million project is being have 49 one-bedroom units of 540 Partners of Los Angeles,also de- developed by Anaheim Memorial sq.ft.,8 handicapped-access apart- signed two large balconies on the Manor,Inc.,a non-profit affiliate of ments of the same size,and 18 effi- second and third floors,above the Anaheim Memorial Hospital and ciency units with 415 sq.ft. main entrance.They shade the National Retirement Housing. The project will be open to low- entry,add more importance to it, On the northwest corner of the income residents who are 62 years and will be used by residents who Philadelphia Avenue and Center or older.Annual income ceilings do not have private balconies. Street intersection,the tower will be will be below$11,800 for an individ- Another possibility envisioned by immediately south of the city's first ual and at or below$13,500 for a the architects is to give the main downtown senior citizens'housing couple.All rents will be federally entrance a sidewalk cafe atmos- project,the low-rise complex subsidized. phere with umbrella-topped tables. fronting on Lincoln Avenue.Thus, A decorative and functional A small kitchenette might be in- tower residents will be able to visit "second-skin"will cover most of the cluded on the first floor to facili- friends next door.Since the tower exterior of the building,but some tate serving meals or snacks. adjoins the new Center Street portions of the'fj{st skin"will be Construction is expected to start' parking structure,out-of-the-area left uncovered tt'%dd visual interest mid-1986.It is estimated that the visitors can use that facility for and extra dimension to the struc- building will be finished within 12 parking,as intended when-the ture.This second skin will be sup- months of the ground breaking. parking structure was designed.A ported by a steel framework built - block to the north,across Lincoln five feet away from the structure on �• I)ownlown Anaheim's Neighhor- y„° ho od I'iesciv.0i0�n Area Nu.4 has hevii p1m ed un the N.itioinal Regis- Ier oI I list oric!'laces. '�✓�; lot.ilint;,tpprcixini.itt•ly I(l acre~, the are,i is hounded roughly by Clive tiUcel on the west,the alley immediately south of Lincoln Ave- �al'Ro. e� nue on the north,industrial prop- erty adjoining the Union Pacific - Railroad tracks on the east,and �� .,, Broadway on the south. Four prop- . . ;:: ` ernes are outside these boundaries: �,a^ o one on Lincoln north of the alley • --� •-..::•••„,� `� - `"": -;.. f �-••• and three on the south side o Y* Broadway. These three interesting old homes on South Kroeger Street are among the 67 properties in the new historic area. Anaheim City Center—the key- now covered with pink granite. floors,two underground and two stone of the downtown redevelop- Meyer Investment Properties,Inc., above.Four more floors are to be ment program—continues its rapid the developer,says the building built later to bring capacity to 1,300 progress with the initial office tower should be enclosed in November cars.The structure will be the initial taking its final exterior form and and ready for its initial tenant by building fronting on City Center the first parking structure starting. January. Plaza,which should become the On the northeast corner of Meanwhile,construction has center of downtown commercial Broadway and Harbor Boulevard, started on the adjoining parking activity. the 10-story,188,000-sq.-ft.tower structure.To be completed in July, was topped out in mid-year and is 1986,the first phase will have four Two Anaheim Community Rede- ' I f store,which was co-founded by his velopment Commissioners,Robert j ` grandfather,Oscar Renner.He J.Anthony and Douglas Renner, ` remained with the store until 1978, have been reappointed to four-year I (r when it was acquired by the Rede- terms by the City Council. velopment Agency to make way for Anthony was first named to the the new downtown.Renner first commission in 1983.He is a vice Ptbecame active in the redevelop- president and manager of financial Q'' ment process in 1973,when he was control at First Interstate Bank of l®`,� elected to the Project Area Commit- California.A native of Texas,he tee.He also was chairman of the studied business administration at Anthony Renner Anaheim Chamber of Commerce Oceanside College in Oceanside, Redevelopment Committee from Calif.,and at George Washington Orange County Chapter of the 1975 to 1978.He also serves as:act- . University in Washington,D.C.A American Red Cross,and several ing president of Mother Colony 30-year man in the U.S.Marina leadership roles with the Knights of Household,Inc:.;chairman of the Corps,he retired in 1968 as a lieu- Columbus. Mother Colony Advisor Board; and tenant colonel and joined First Appointed to the commission in a director of Anaheim Museum,Inc. Interstate. His cof"munity activities 1981,Renner is a fourth'generation have included positions as president Anaheim native son.While attend- of the Anaheim Foundation for Cul- ing Anaheim High School,he went cure and the Arts,director of the to work in the S.Q.R.department j I •, i I Living served as a member of the forefront. Industrial development Anaheim City Council and the city's helps to finance the downtown.The Agency Redevelopment A for seven ghigh-grades city will et a industrial P b Y years,I have developed both a his- „ area,which means an area that pro- toric perspective on our redevelop- duces revenues.We also will get a ment efforts and some definite downtown that is balanced,func- opinions as to the directions these ': tional,and economically efficient,a efforts should take in the future. downtown that will be good for many years. HISTORIC PERSPECTIVE Ultimately,downtown will be considered a tremendous success. A great deal had gone on in That's because the leaders of this redevelopment prior to my being city had the courage to go forward elected to the City Council in April, - with this program. It's also because 1978.However I was familiar with we found somebody of the caliber what was happening,having lived in of our planning and redevelopment PP g• g - P g P this city since 1957,having been a director,Norm Priest,a"let's-move= member of the Parks and Recrea- {; ahead"type.Now,he can stand tion Commission for seven previous ,.r back with pride when he looks at years,having been active in the the things happening downtown Chamber of Commerce,and having financing,which is the basis for and in the industrial area. observed and read about the efforts redevelopment under the state pro- The litmus test for downtown is of trying to rebuild downtown. gram,is the best way to do it.It is going to be the Meyer develop- Our downtown was not too much the most painless way and the ment,Anaheim City Center.When 3 to write home about then.What we fairest way. that project proves viable and dic- knew as downtown wasn't really the Unfortunately,interest rates sky- tates further improvements,it will original downtown.The area had rocketed before downtown rede- encourage other developers to already been rebuilt sometime velopment really could get going. come in and pick up large parcels, around the late'20s or early'30s. There was a long,dry period when such as the Pickwick Hotel site. However,by the'70s,it was pretty developers were not interested in Then,we'll have the kind of thing ramshackled.A lot of wood strut- building.They couldn't borrow that happened in Newport Beach. tures were rotting.The buildings money or make financial arrange- Several good developers started were inadequate for the purposes ments.So,they couldn't enter into commercial projects and the mo- they were serving. agreements with the Redevelop- mentum moved throughout the So,the city had to renew the area. ment Agency to buy property and airport area.Those developers The alternative to redevelopment is build something. aren't married to Newport:they'll something you don't want to think In the meantime,the city and the go wherever they can make money. about:letting the neighborhood go Redevelopment Agency kept mov- down,down,down.Restoring a ing ahead,acquiring parcels,clear- :: ENCOURAGING DEVELOPERS downtown that was decaying ing land.Therefore,when interest made sense. rates came down,construction was We in redevelopment should One reason it was decaying was able to start very quickly and a lot encourage these people to come. that there were many absentee own- has been built in the fast couple It's important that we constantly try ers who really didn't care.Efforts of years. to create interest among developers were made to get those owners to and employers.The staff can do refurbish or invest in their proper- TAKING STOCK TODAY only so much of that.The elected ties,but it just didn't happen.Former officials really should do a lot of it. mayor Bill Thom,when he was in On balance,what is going into I've been critical of our elected offi- the Chamber of Commerce,tried our Downtown Redevelopment cials,including myself,for not doing very hard to get property owners to Area and our Northeast Industrial more promotion.To get high caliber improve their properties.But,they Area is a great credit to this city. people interested in Anaheim,you weren't interested. The industrial area will create a have to go out to meet them.You You have to have some way to financial base for the city,which is have to get them excited about finance renewal.Tax increment necessary to keep Anaheim in the doing something in Anaheim. all�tt� Anaheim is what it is Because of We are getting a better relation- OTHER TASKS the vision and courage of a lot of the ship with the Irvine Company, In addition to talking to people, leaders of this city many years ago. 1 which someday is going to develop there are other things we could be don't believe Walt Disney just the large acreage it has in Anaheim, doing.We should evaluate the settled here.1 believe he was sold on both sides of the Riverside Free- dynamics to determine when it on Anaheim.I know that some way out in the canyon. - might be appropriate to start rede- people from Anaheim went to Bur- Anaheim must fight for its share veloping additional areas of the city. bank to sit down with the Disney of Orange County's commercial Redevelopment should spread into people to try to influence them to development.Orange is expanding areas that are stagnant and are not come here. its commercial development.Santa serving the purpose for which they Rex Coons,who was then mayor, Ana has its Fashion Island expansion. were intended.These could be and Keith Murdock,the former city In Costa Mesa,South Coast Plaza is commercial areas,industrial areas, manager,sold Gene Autry and his still growing.Brea is moving very or residential areas. associate,Bob Reynolds,on bring- aggressively with its commercial Our neighborhood improvement ing the Angels down to Anaheim. improvements.So,Anaheim has to program has been doing very well They really went after them. be sure that it gets its share. with some residential areas.But 1 was involved somewhat in the Commercial development repre- Anaheim is decaying in many areas. Rams move,not in the original sales sents sales tax income and jobs.It Public officials should be aware of pitch,but in the closing negotia- also represents utility revenue to the that and should make plans as to tions.You have to stay on those city.So,it is very important. how they're going to-avoid that things—otherwise they'll go some- place decay.Our neighborhood improve- Anaheim has done a good job of else. THE ANAHEIM STORY ment program needs to grow.A lot of good things have happened as a promoting itself in the past.John Anaheim has a good story to tell result of our neighborhood coun- Seymour was a real tiger,a real companies that want to come to cils,but progress really hasn't been . leader.He went out there and really northern Orange County. en ough. nough. took a few political chances trying to We have a stable,progressive We also have to:keep.selling what do something great for the city.He government and a staff that's going we're doing in redevelopment accomplished a lot. to work with them.Our city tax is to We need to personally get almost nil,and that's a very.big the people we serve.Tax increment involved in meeting with the people thing.And,Anaheim derives a great _ _ financing makes a lot of economic who can bring economic activity to benefit from the tourist hotel indus- sense,but it is difficult for people to the city. try,which provides a good,stable understand.However,as our rede- Every time I see Henry Seger- tax base.A company coming in here velopment activities continue,peo- strom,he says,"When are we going can rest assured that the city is on ple hi will identify more with them and t to sit down and talk about putting very firm financial footing without this will add to their pride in our city. the 57 Freeway through?"Anaheim exacting additional contributions could benefit from sharing his from general business. thoughts on that.It would be a heck We have access to a large labor of a deal for the city and the county. force,not only in our city,but in the We should sit down with him and bedroom communities of San Ber- ` see what his ideas area He might find nardino and Riverside Counties. some land in Anaheim that he Our Northeast Industrial Area is could-use. closer to those communities than Howard Ahmanson's group owns any other.part of Orange County. the La Palma Avenue property on Also—with the exception of which the Hughes facility is located, Buena Park—Anaheim is Orange and they're excited about Anaheim. County's doses(city to Los Angeles. They have another project going It's a great advantage to have a busi- across the street.They really like ness in a place where you.can go to doing business here and the way the L.A.and San Bernardino and River- city deals with them.I see develop- side Counties without having to go ers who have made their reputation through Orange C-dunty's traffic in the beach area doing the same bottlenecks,which are constantly thing here. getting worse. [ LMEVELOPAGNTS is published quarterly by the Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 76 S.Claudina St. Anaheim,CA 92805 Don Roth,Chairman Iry Pickler,Vice Chairman Ben Bay,Member Miriam Kaywood,Member E.Llewellyn Overholt,it,Member Norman 1.Priest,Executive Director Meetings we held every Tuesday at 9:30 a.m.in the Cky Counel Chambers at 200 S.Anaheim Blvd. Anaheim's Three Redevelopment Areas: 3 1 Downtown Area/(200 acres) 2 2 Northeast Area/(2,366 acres) 3 River Valley Project/(160 acres) Maps Are Not To Satre Scale CYVMSL 1 R enttal� � Co. �ng t Mae"0 ; 1 I ■ I Unooln Ave. 1 Restdendat _Ch41%W sc Lodge Wood 1 ie Nistoe* Senior tMeneaen center ; � Oct �' , s«rorcN +.Now4w 1 liik—k- lboInecantershoppingit's aer St.Pukh sgmobire 1 . � —' aw lJnoWa Ave enter st. ; � .- f Cha n m of tleranrsnos Building 1 Oak sl 1 asnk Fakh sactm. 1 Aa.hshecrypnter oxylwi� c sl. R sItlentlal 1 Redlde flel AeNwha cnr center rn11dan A U& w ; Yt M Amth an Form Ttmft • ; Smadway Plan- Q Undarconawatioe C—vww '"` 2 3 4 pakha Ave. IL ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MAIN-PIER MIXED USE PROJECT Prepared for HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Prepared by KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. AUGUST, 1985 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS DISPOSITION AND DEWZLOPPU%1T AGREEMENT MAIN--PIER MILD USE PROJECT HJVTDNGTON BEACH, CALIFOFNIA Prepared for H NTINSTON BEACH REDEIIELOPhE NT AGENCY 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California By KEYSER MVW0N ASSOCIATES., INC. 550 South Hill Street, Suite 980 Los Angeles, California 90013 and 55 Pacific Avenue Mall San Francisco, California 94111 and 7690 E1 Camino Real , Suite 202 Carlsbad, California 92008 August, 1985 ' &y gfflarstonAssok i, slnc. Richard L.Botti 550 South Hill Street,Suite 980 Calvin E.Hollis,11 Los Angeles,California 90013 213/622-W95 SAN DIEGO619/942.O.W) Heinz A.Schilling SAN FRANCISC 0 415/39R;N)SO Timothy C.Kelly A.Jerry Keyser Michael Marston Kate Earle Funk Robert].Wetmore MWboitni2n, 1985 Mr . Doug LaBelle Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr . LaBelle: ` In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. is pleased to submit this economic analysis of the proposed Disposition and Development Agree- sent for the Walnut-Main hotel/retail complex and the Pier Side Retail complex to be located in downtown Huntington Beach. The purpose of our analysis was to determine whether the proposed ground lease terms and level of Agency assistance contained in the proposed DDA is warranted on the basis of the expected project economics, including the impacts of the ex- traordinary restrictions required by the Agency. The following report details the development restrictions required by the Agency that impact the project economics, the estimated costs and revenues generated by the proposed projects, and the estimated return on total investment being provided to the developer. On the basis of our analysis of the economic terms included in the DDA, it is. our opinion that the proposed Agency assistance reflects fair and reasonable compensation to the developer considering the Agency restrictions on the scope and quality of the development, and the requirement to incur extraordinary development costs that would not typically be incurred with similar projects. Our conclusion, however, is based on strict adherence to development restric- tions and conditions contained in the report, and in the event the Agency restrictions or requirements are changed significantly, or construction is not commenced on both projects within twelve months of the signing of the DDA, the findings of our analysis are subject to reevaluation. d Real Estate Ptedevelopment&EvaluationServices We appreciate this opportunity to assist you, and will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Yours very truly, KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 Richard L. 8otti Kathleen H. Head RL9/KHH:mp KmeNarston_Associatesinc TABLE OF CONTENTS COVER LETTER page I . SUMMARY OF SALIENT 'FACTORS AND CONDITIONS. . . . . . .. . . . . 1 II . NATURE .OF THE ASSIGNMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 7 v III . DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONS. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. . . . . 10 V. - DEVELOPMENT ECONOMICS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 13 VI . CONCLUSIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 VII . CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 I SUrP4ARY OF SALIENT FACTORS AND CONDITIONS Assignment To analyze the economic terms contained in the croposed Dis- position and Development Agreement. (DDA) between the developer and the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency for the Walnut- Main hotel site, and the Pier Side Retail Site, and conclude . whether or not these economic terms represent fait- and ap- propriate consideration given the required scope of develop- ment and the restrictions contained in the proposed Disposi- -t.io-n. :and. D'eve1opmen'a_: Agreement. Pr-o.iec.t' Description' :. The scope of the proposed development encompasses two projects that will be built concurrently. The total development , in- r< " eludes ,:the-_f:o.l1owiin.g' major components..:;4 - ote--l/"Reta.i-1-00ma.lexa; KA, fi•r_-st: quality :ho:te1,-contadnli-n,g 300• rcaoms,.;y�r w 2 ;1:5.,,0.00 s.qu.a.rye .,.fe,e,t.. ,.of retail shop.,, spa;c,e fronti.n.g Main ,Q,,.S..tr.e.e,t s t3.. ;Par king,;fo.r.;/:330..cars: to serve the .needs;:of, ;t,he.- otel . 4. A public plaza along Main street of 5,000 . square feet. .. :tip -Pier •Side._Retai1 , °.;i: - 1 .: -.. A minimum of,50;000:,squar,:e feet : of „,,rentable,;area on an +. elevated-strauctur-e. W.be :.buii,t;-0y-1the(dgygl.pper : :2. ; :Ai:, mi•nimum:: .o.f._ :::25;.000 . square feet; of_,restaurant space lo- cated on-the expandedcHuntington .Beach Pier. 3. ~500 on site parking spaces for use of retail/restaurant customers. Land Area The Walnut-Main site to be purchased by the developer consists 1 of 1 .65 acres, and the Pier Side Retail site to be leased from the Agency consists of approximately 4.0 acres. Location The hotel/retail development parcel is located between Main and Third Streets, and between Pacific Coast Highway and Wal- nut Sreets. The Pier Side Retail is located on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway between Main Street and Lake. The site plan on the facing page illustrates the location and con- figuration of the proposed development. Zoning The hotel/retail site is currently zoned within the Downtown Specific Plan District 3 classification. This district allows mixed use development. The allowable uses which can be in- eluded in a mixed use project on the subject site are office, visitor serving commercial and hotel . The Pier Side Retail site is currently zoned within the Downtown Specific Plan Dis- trict 10. This district allows commercial development. The allowable development for the Pier Side Retail site must be visitor and pier related uses. Present Use The vast majority of the hotel/retail development parcel is currently developed with small underutilized retail establishments, and a minor amount of residential use. A res- taurant and major lifeguard station is currently located on the Pier Side Retail site. It is assumed that the improvements on the hotel/retail parcel and the Pier Side Retail site will be demolished upon conveyance of the fee interest or leasehold interest to the developer. It is further assumed that the developer will be responsible for the costs required to reconstruct the lifeguard station at another location. Development Restrictions The DDA specifies the minimum size and quality level of eacr; of the projects. These standards are summarized in the development restrictions that follow. These restrictions as- sume that the construction begins within 12 months of the signing of the DDA. If construction is not started as indicated, the minimum dollar standards required for the 2 I r I i I I *WALNUT-MAIN PORTION" ') C f 1 1 NOR E S 1 �.r• �> TH A T �. " OR O N P Tl / 1� t v f. RE :. AIN CI POBTION" 7 4C: ck: RETAIL/ .� i a �•D MRW MOTEL. . . - "CITY I yy MOTEL ;�r'Y�:Y•F' : .�:::<�:::><::;����� ,..� :::•;�•�� i PARCEL TIT•• ��:. r 11 "ADJACENT AREA" X. _ (is not a pert of the Site) "PIER SIDE PORTION" V*tl1 wA 4 - - - n � •.�1n ��.y 1; J�Q: �uw J�� i I OL-A N MAGI -PfER REDEVELOPIVENT PLAN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA .y L-L•.4 W1 ILfIfNGfON PACFICA DEVEIOPLAEIR OHOIP proposed development will need to be modified. Hotel / Retail Project Standards ,1 The hotel must contain at least 300 rooms and at least one major first quality restaurant. 2. The hotel must be of high quality standards, conforming - to the following guidelines: a. The furnishings, fixtures and equipment expenditures, exclusive of electronic equipment, phones and cash registers must equal at least $16,000 per guest room. b. The cost of furnishing the actual guest rooms must .to- tal at least .$5,000 per guest room.. ` C. The guest rooms must be at least 15 feet wide from the center line. The guest rooms must have a total area of at least 420 square feet per room. d. The gross building area. must be at least 205,000 square* feet for the 300 room hotel . In the event the number of rooms is increased from 300 rooms, the total gross building area per room must average 685 square feet including the lobby, the restaurant and coffee shop space, and other common areas. 3. A hotel franchise and operator must be identified and ap- proved by the Redevelopment Agency .before the construction begins. 4. A minimum of 15,000 square feet of retail space must be provided adjacent to the hotel complex. 5. A 20,000 square foot plaza must be provided in conjunction with the hotel/retail development , and 5,000 square feet of this space must be a public plaza along Main Street. 6. 330 parking spaces must be provided by the developer- to serve the hotel/retail complex . Pier. Side Retail Project 1 . The Pier Side Retail complex must contain a minimum of z 3 r 75,000 square feet of retail space to a maximum .-o.f 100,000 square feet. . 25,000 square feet: of this --space must be -lo- cated in restaurant space on the pier addition t-o—be built by the developer . :. 2. The Pier Side Retail space must be of high quality similar in nature to the developer's retail project in Long Beach . The structures must cost at least $75 per square foot to construct, exclusive of land. The tenant improvements costs must be at least 325 per square foot of' buildin.g area - Le 3. 500 parking spaces must be provided on site to -"meet the needs. of the retail complex . Additionally th`e'"developer must pay to 'replace 300 beach parking spaces tha-i will be eliminated ''as a result of this project. This requirement is being met by a $100,000 annual payment to ttie City of Hu-rftingtoh Beach. 4. The" d"6ilbper .must contribute' $2.5 million to t,he', costs of expanding the Huntington Beach"Pier . �t' � -T.h,e,. 1ifeguae--d'-. station and .office space tha ' will be ;nated, as a result of this project must be rtepl.aced at. _ the..develap'er 's expense. General---Cortd'i_tions_._. ---- 1 . Construction .-on the project must commence within' 12 months .of _th'e si:gning,-of_.th'e DDA In. the event that con-struction .� has- not begun ='wi-th-i_n_�- this period,.,_Y,the,,,,conclusion with respect -, .:to the .;appr.opriateness= of :the_economic terms of the: DDA• a.re ,subject to =reeval-uat1o.n 2. The -developer--must construct -a -pede-str� an --= r_--d-ge spanning _ Pacific Coast Highway, c.onnecti:ng-- Mai.n -S-t-reet to the Hun- tington Beach -.Pier,.. ` 3. The -deyelop:er .-is _responsible for.- all on-and off- site im- provement.s '.:r.equired by - the development . These improve- ments include sid:ewalks, ,street lighting, curbs gutters . �. ° street impro.vemen'ts., undergrounding of utilities, improv- ing water -delivery systems, and- surface and structured parking - improvements. The . City and or Agency will make available up to $1 .35 million to' meet the costs of improv- ing the water delivery system .and undergrounding utilities. 4 4. The developer is responsible for- providing landscaping that meets the established Huntington Beach city ordinance for the project setback areas and the public: right of ways. 5. the developer is responsible for all tenant relocation costs and the City or Agency will make available uo to $1 .0 million to offset these costs. Agency , Obligations 1 . The Agency will acquire those parcels within the Walnut- Main site which the developer is unable to acquire, fo►- subsequent resale to the developer . The developer is to pay for all costs associated with acquisition of any par- cels by the Agency. 2. The Agency will rebate 100% of the transient occupancy taxes generated by the Walnut-Main site during the first. ` 10 years of hotel operation. 3. The Agency will rebate 77% of the tax increment revenues generated by the Walnut-Main project during the 10 years following construction. In the event that the developer 's return on total investment is not higher than 17.0% in the loth year , the rebate will continue until the 15th year . 4. The Agency will rebate 77% of the .tax increment revenues generated by the Pier Side Retail project during the 10 years following construction. In the event the developer has not achieved a 15.0% return on total investment in the 10th year, the rebate will continue through the 15th. year . 5. The Agency will enter into a ground lease with the developer containing the following terms: Minimum Ground Percentage % Period Lease vs. gross income Construction $286,000 --- Yrs 1-3 $286,000 12X Yrs 4-6 Greater of 12% $300,000 or $4 per sq. ft. total GBA 5 Minimum Ground Percentage % Period lease vs. gross income After Yr. 6 Minimum ground 15% lease increased annually by 75Z CPI Date of Analygis The property was last inspected on July 29, 1985. The date of this analysis is August 1 , 1985. e " 6 I i I I NATUF E OF THE ASSIGN E NT A. Purpose The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Hunt ingt.on Beach, in carrying out the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown Huntington Beach , Main Street area has embarked on a multi- phased development program. The major objectives of this program are to revitalize the retail uses along Main. Street and to add uses that will increase the diversity and environmental quality of the area. This will enhance the image and economic strength of both Main 'Street and the existing Huntington Beach Pier . In meeting these objectives, the Agency is in the process of initiating several major projects in the downtown. These include a major residential/retail project along Main Street, a major first quality hotel and a specialty retail center which includes expansion of the Huntington Beach Pier. The purpose of this report is to analyze the ., disposition terms related to two of these projects: the 300 room first quality hotel , and the specialty retail center. B. Approach A review of the economic/disposition terms contained in the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement was undertaken in order to deter- mine the impacts of these terms on the economic feasibility of each of the projects. The expected costs and revenues of each of the projects, including the extraordinary costs required by the Agency, were analyzed in conjunction with the estimated Agency assistance in order to deter- mine whether the restrictions and assistance proposed in the DDA were reasonable considering the risks associated with each project. This analysis assumes that the Agency is interested in establishing dis- position terms that will result in near term development meeting the Agency 's standards established for the projects, i .e. the DDA will not. allow land speculation or development quality of average or below average. In addition the basic assumptions behind this analysis are as follows: 1 . The developer will adhere to the schedule of performance included as Attachment 5 of the DDA. 2. Both parties are well informed and well advised and each acting pru- dently in what he/she considers is his/her own best interest . 3. The property will be assembled and cleared in a reasonable time so 7 , as to preclude a major change in market conditions. 4. Financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the c:ommunit.y for the use proposed at. the date the property is ready for construction. No tax exempt financing is assumed. 5. The seller is a public agency having definite controls over the development. Due to the complexity of the overall plan of development, the developer must contend with a series of regulations and controls which are not common in the conventional real estate market. The Agency must maintain a continuing surveillance with respect to the ability of the developer to perform within the prescribed conditions. 6. The DDA can •impose extraordinary development restrictions and/or requirements. Accordingly, the anticipated return must reflect the advantages created by the project as well as the requirements and limitations on land uses to be imposed on the developer by the public agency. 7. The property, when assembled, is free and clear of all encumbrances, special assessments and liens. 8 i III DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONS i ti.. The subject sites are located in downtown Huntington Beach, which histori- cally served as the civic and commercial center for what was then a small , somewhat isolated coastal community . In the late 1960's and early 11470's as coastal Orange County was in a period of rapid urbanization, Huntington Beach was one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. However , the bulk, of the growth occurred on the large tracts of available vacant land widely dispersed throughout the inland portions of the City. Recent commercial and residential growth has been oriented inland not only as a reflection of the availability of land, but also of the impact that the freeway systems have had on land use patterns. As rapid growth oc- curred throughout Huntington Beach during this . period, the downtown area experienced little commercial activity, and downtown Huntington Beach declined in relative importance as a major commecial center . Moreover , the existing facilities are, even with its coastal enviroment, of insufficient size or uniqueness to create the regional impact necessary to successfully compete in Orange County. The downtown area has the major advantage of a coastal location offering excellent ocean views and beaches in one of the most diverse and desirable areas in the nation. However, given the lack of strong commercial activity in the downtown and the emergence of other commercial centers, development of the size and scope being proposed clearly represents a pioneering venture, and is not without significant risk. The inherent risks are mitigated to a certain extent by the lack of available competitive coastal locations for new retail and hotel development. However, with the possible exception of restaurants, there is not an established market base for these new uses. As such, the new uses must create their own market, and be of such a quality level as to establish a base of support from the Orange County region as a whole. 9 IV DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE AND PROPOSED DEVEI-OPrENT d A. Description of the Subject Property 1 .. Ownership The sites included in the hotel/retail parcel are currently owned by a number of private entities, including the developer . Additionally, the City of Huntington Beach owns approximately 2/.3 of an acre of land which is adjacent to the development parcel and could .be made available for up to 3 years to meet the parking needs of the hotel/retail project. At the present time, the developer is in the process of acquiring the remaining privately owned sites that are a part of the development parcel . It is the assumption of this analysis, that the the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency will assist, where necessary, in the acquisition of the remaining portion of the site, but that the developer will be responsible for payment' of the full acquisition costs. The Pier Side Retail site consists of beach property that is owned by the City of Huntington Beach. It is assumed the Agency will lease the property from the City for subsequent release to the developer on the basis of a long term ground lease. 2. Legal Description No legal description of the property , was furnished to us. Therefore, we are assuming that the hotel/retail site consists of 1.65 acres, and that the Pier Side Retail site consists of 4.0 acres. lop 3. Soil No soil bearing tests have been furnished for the subject site. No soil problems are known to exist on either the-hotel/retail site or- the Pier Side Retail site. However, a contingency allowance has been provided in the financial analysis to account for the uncer- tainty. inherent in building a deck for the retail structure on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway . 4. Utilities It is assumed that all public utilities are available to the site in capacities adequate for the proposed uses on the sites, with the ex-. ception of water delivery facilities for the Pier Side Retail site. The Agency will provide a maximum of $1 million to construct the necessary water delivery facility . The developer must also under- ground the utilities that are required for each of the projects. 10 o The- Agency .' :wi-ll provide funding to a- maximum` of $350,000 to cover y the costs of undergrounding utilities. 5. Z o n i n g The hotel/retail parcel is located in the Downtown Specific Plan District' ' 3:..-. - -This - district allows for 'mixed''use development. which can. include- office, - hotel ,- visitor serving'reta-il 'and` residential uses. ' The Pier ' Side Retail parceV is Tocated='in Downtown "Specific. Plan District 10. -This' district 'allows` pier related^retail`-uses. B . Description of Improvements ,or The proposed hotel/retail complex_ in conjunction with. the Pier Side Retail ':complex , ' '"represents- a ' large . scale effort'==`to' rev'it.aIize the oceamfront" section of'downtown Huntington Beach"into a'major oceanfront serving comberciaVde-nter: - - In ahL.attempt- to ensure that the objectives of the Agency are met with ` the construction of these two projects, the DDA requires that each of the ':uses=•contain . a minimum size and quality standardland -that each of theeprojects- are -built in 'one 'phase. The minimum sizes of each of the uses are summarized in the development restrictions included in this report . However , at the present time there is a degree of uncertainty regarding the size of the pier side retail component of the overall project. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis of the project economics, the Pier Side Retail components will be evaluated on the basis of the minimum size allowed by the DDA of 75,000 square feet, including 25,000 square feet of restaurant space on the pier . The total proposed development of the two projects consists of the following uses: Hotel / Retail Complex 1 . A 300 room first quality hotel with at least one first quality restaurant. 2. 15,000 square feet of retail space adjacent to the hotel and front- ing on Main Street. 3. 330 parking spaces to meet the needs of the hotel and retail space. 4. 20,000 square feet of open space, of which at least 5,000 square feet must be a public plaza along Main Street. Pier Side Retail Complex 1. A minimum of 75,000 square feet of gross building area of which a minimum of 25,000 square feet must be restaurant space located on .. 1 1 the Huntington Beach .Pier , with the remaining space to be built on a deck above ground, adjacent to the Pier . 2. 500 parking spaces located below the retail deck structure. 12 v DF-WELOPMENT ECCNOMICS An analysis of the development economies of the proposed hotel/retail and Pier Side Retail complexes was performed to .determine if the economic terms nf the disposition agreement provide a return on total investment that j. . adequate to compensate the developer for the risk inherent in developing the projects of the magnitude proposed. To determine the developer 's return on total investment, the expected development costs including land and construction costs were determined in conjunction with the extraordi- nary costs required by the Agency . These extraordinary or unusual costs include the requirement that the developer fund a portion of the restora- tion of the Huntington Beach Pier , the construction of a pedestrian bridge spanning Pacific Coast Highway, the construction of a public plaza along Main Street, the replacement of a major lifeguard station, and the require- ment to pay for a portion of the costs. of replacing the existing beach parking. The warranted return to the developer in each of the projects is a function of the projected net operating revenue gener.ated by the project, including assistance by the Agency, and present and anticipated money market conditions. These factors are considered in conjunction with the level of risk involved in each of the projects to determine if the developer returns are sufficient to warrant undertaking the project. The developer return is measured using an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) as the basic measure. The IRR is a measure based upon the present value of future revenues. Based upon current money market conditions, current inflation assumptions and the assessment of project risk, the appropriate IRR for the specialty retail project is 15 to 15.5%, with a 17 to 17.5% return required for the hotel/retail project. The following subsection outlines the expected costs and revenues to be ' generated by the proposed hotel/retail and Pier Side Retail complexes in-, cluding the extraordinary costs required by the Agency, and presents the expected developer return on the total investment required in the. project . 'A. HOTEL / RETAIL COMPLEX 1 . Agency Assistance to Project Recognizing the fact that the construction of a major first quality hotel in downtown Huntington Beach represents a pioneering venture that carries a high degree of inherent risk, the Agency has agreed to provide financial assistance to the development. This assis tance is in the form of a rebate of property taxes and transient occupancy taxes generated by the hotel/retail complex . The terms of the rebate are as follows: 13 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS HUNTINGTON BEACH MIXED USE PROJECT - HOTEL/RETAIL COMPONENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA LAND 72,000 SF 155.00 /SF $3,960,000 DIRECT ON-SITES 10,000 SF 110.00 /SF $100,000 OFF-SITES ALLOWANCE 50,000 BUILDING SHELL HOTEL 300 ROOMS $50,000 /ROOM 15,000,000 RETAIL 15,000 SF $45.00 /SF 675,000 BRIDGE ALLOWANCE 75,000 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS - FFE 300 ROOMS $17,500 /ROOM 5,250,000 RETAIL 15,000 SF $10.00 /SF 150,000 PARKING SURFACE 0 SPACES S2.00 /SF 0 STRUCTURED 330 SPACES $7,500 /SF 2,475,000 SUBTERRANEAN 0 SPACES $9,100 /SF 0 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS S23,775,000 INDIRECT ARCH,ENG,PERMITS i FEES SHELL 5.001 DIRECT COST LESS FFE'S $926,000 FFE DESIGN 8.001 DIRECT COST FFE'S 420,000 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION 31009,000 FINANCING FEES 0.03 POINTS 963,000 LEGAL/CLOSING 0.501 DIRECT COST 119,000 LEASING COMMISSIONS (RETAIL) 15.001 RETAIL GEI 51,000 WORKING CAPITAL ALLOWANCE 500,000 PREOPENING EXPENSES ALLOWANCE 250,000 FRANCHISE FEES ALLOWANCE 50,000 TAXES/INSURANCE 1.00i DIRECT COST 238,000 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2.001 DIRECT COST 476,000 CONTINGENCY 5.010i DIRECT COST 1,189,000 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $8,191,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS 135,926,000 (LESS) TAX INCREMENT REBATE 77.001 TAX INCREMENT 292,D00 MET DEVELOPMENT COSTS 35,634,000 OR SAY S35,630,000 a. The Agency- w.il.l rebate 100% of. the, transi.ent occupancy tax gen- erated"by: the..development over the' first 10 years of hotel operati'on�. b. The ' Agency will rebate 77% of the4 property tax increment revenues generated by the hotel/retail project over the first 10 years of operation. C . In the event that the developer has not received an overall IRR of 17.0% return on total investment by the end of the loth year of operation, the property tax increment rebate will continue for another years. 2. Development Costs Table 1 , on the facing page presents the projected development costs for the 300 room hotel and 15,000 square foot retail area proposed for the Main-Walnut site. These costs are .based in part on recent construction of similar uses in the Southern California are, and in part on the basis of interviews with developers who are currently in the process of constructing similar uses in various locations throughout Los Angeles and Orange Counties. As illustrated in Table 1 , the net development costs are estimated at $35.63 million. The major assumptions used to determine this development costs estimate are as follows: a. Land acquisition costs are estimated at $55 per square foot of land area. It is assumed that 72,000 square feet of land will be required for the hotel and retail project. b. Direct construction costs are broken down as follows: i . Shell costs . for the hotel are estimated at $50,000 per room. This cost level is representative of the minimum costs required to build a hotel to the Agency mandated quality standards. ii . Furnishings, fixtures and equipment costs are estimated at. $17,500 per unit including electronic equipment, of whil-1, $5,000 per room is allocated for furnishing the gue:- rooms. These costs are reflective of the quality level required for this type of hotel . iii . The retail shell costs are estimated at $45 per square foot. This level of cost is indicative of typical retail construction costs with an additional allowance to reflect the exterior upgrades required by. -the Agency . 14 TABLE 1 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS HUNTINGTON BEACH MIXED USE PROJECT - HOTEL/RETAIL COMPONENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA LAND 72,000 SF S55.00 /SF $3,960,000 DIRECT ON-SITES 10,000 SF $10.00 /SF $1001000 OFF-SITES ALLOWANCE 50,000 BUILDING SHELL HOTEL 300 ROOMS $50,000 /ROOM 15,000,000 RETAIL 15,000 SF $45.00 /SF 675,000 BRIDGE ALLOWANCE 75,000 TENANT IMPROVEMENTS FFE 300 ROOMS $17,500 /ROOM 5,250,000 RETAIL 15,000 SF $10.00 /$F 150,000 PARKING SURFACE 0 SPACES $2.00 /SF 0 STRUCTURED 330 SPACES $7,500 /SF 2,475,000 SUBTERRANEAN 0 SPACES $9,100 /SF 0 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS S23,775,000 INDIRECT ARCH.,ENG,PERMITS I FEES SHELL 5.001 DIRECT COST LESS FFE'S $926,000 FFE DESIGN 8.001 DIRECT COST FFE'S 420,000 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION 3,009,000 FINANCING FEES 0.03 POINTS 963,000 LEGAL/CLOSING 0.501 DIRECT COST 119,000 LEASING COINIISSIONS.(RETAIL) 15.00f RETAIL GEI 51,000 WORKING CAPITAL ALLOWANCE 500,000 PREOPENING EXPENSES ALLOWANCE 250,060 FRANCHISE FEES ALLOWANCE 50,000 TAXES/INSURANCE 1.00i DIRECT COST 238,000 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2.001 DIRECT COST 4761000 CONTINGENCY 5.00i DIRECT COST 11189,000 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $8,191,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $35,926,000 (LESS) TAX INCREMENT REBATE 77.001 TAX INCREMENT 292,000 NET DEVELOPMENT COSTS 35,634,000 OR SAY $35,630,000 iv. Retail tenant improvement costs are estimated at $10 pet- square foot. This level of tenant improvements is con- sidered sufficient to attract the small users who will be attracted to the 15,000 square feet of retail space. v. The direct construction costs fur the 330 required parking spaces is $7,500 per space. This cost per space includes the pro rata cost of the land area required for the garage, plus the direct costs attributable to constructing structured parking. vi . On sites expenditures are estimated at $10 per square foot. This estimate includes the cost of constructing the 5,000 square foot public plaza. vii . One half of the estimated expenditures attributable to constructing the pedestrian bridge across Pacific Coast Highway are assigned to the hotel/retail complex . The pro rata share of the direct construction cost is estimated at. $75,000. C. Indirect construction costs are broken as follows: i. Architecture, engineering, permits and fees expen- dituresare broken down into categories. The basic A & E fees which are attributable to the hotel and retail are estimated at 5% of direct costs, less the direct furniture, fixtures and equipment fees which are estimated at 8%. This reflects the increased design costs required for the interior portion of the hotel . ii . Interest during construction is calculated on the basis of construction financing at 12.5% interest on 100a of the development costs including land acquisition. It was assumed that the project would be under construction for 16 months, and the average loan balance outstanding would be 60%. Interest costs during construction were es- timated at slightly more than $3 million. Financing fees at 3% of the total loan are estimated at $963,000. iii. Typically, a hotel development requires an infusion of cash during the later stages of the development proces-s and during the initial opening period, to cover preopening expenses, working capital requirements, and franchise fees. These costs are delineated in the form of an allowance, which for a hotel of this size and quality level is estimated at $500,000 for working capital , I I 15 $250,000 for preopening. expenses , and $50.000 for fran- chise fees. iv. The balance of the indirect costs are found in legal/closing _costs, tames/insurance, development manage- ment and a contingency allowance. These costs are es- timated at approximately $2 million . d. As shown in Table 1 , land acquisition costs are estimated at $3.96 million, direct construction costs are estimated at. $23. 775 million, and indirect costs are estimated at. VS. P4 million, for total development costs of approximately $ 5.;a3 million. These total development costs are then reduced :)y $292,000 to reflect the property tax increment rebate during construction, for net hotel/retail complex development costs of $35.63 million. 3. Revenue Projection In arriving at the anticipated project revenues,- Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. reviewed the performance of recently constructed beach hotels in Southern California, as well as the expected perfor- mance of major hotels in proximity to the ocean which are currently under costruction or proposed for near term construction. It should be noted however that these .projections are made without the benefit of a detailed market study. On the basis of this research, KMA has estimated the revenue stream expected for the hotel/retail complex , as follows: a. Hotel i. Hotel room rates and occupancy levels will be at the following levels during the stabilization period. . Room Rate Occupancy 1 $ 80.00 60% 2 $ 9.1..00 65% 3 $102.00 70% 4 $113.00 . 72X ii . After stabilization the room rates will continue to esca- late annually at 6%. Occupancy will stabilize at 72% of capacity. 'Inflated dollars 16 ' iii . Room sales represent 62% of gross sales. Food and beverage sales represent 135% of gross sales , . and misc:el- laneous `re'venues including'`teTephone represent' th remain- ing 3 X of gross sales. iv. Parking revenues, net of expenses, are estimated at $200 per space.'- v. Departmental expenses are estimated at 38% of gross sales and undistributed expenses are estimated W 27%, o`f gross sales vi . Management incentive fees are.,e.stimated at 10% ;.of-_ gross opera ting_.-profi't ` b. Retail i . Retail rental .rates are estimated at $2.00 per''sq'uare foot per month. - "I`t'"is assumed'thai the 15,000 square-- feet of space will be leased for an average of 3 year terms; The absorption of the space is expected to take place over the first two years of operation, with 70% average occupancy for the first year , 901 average occupancy for the second year, and ful.l.,:occ.upancy ;fr,om the third year forward. i .. The allowance f'or vacancy and collection is. 5%.: 'iii. Retail r r tal.`r.ates escalate at 100% of the CPI 'compounded every 3 Y'e:dr.'.s:. :.-._ .. iv. Cos ts.--asso:c.iated with the management of the retail.. space are 'est'io.a.ted at 5% of gross effective income.. Costs as socialed'-4fth reserves for capital improvements'.'. are es- timated a.t-$.'.10_;pe:r:,square foot of building area..- C. Agency Assistance i. The Agency will provide the developer with a rebate of 100X of the transient occupancy tax for the first ten years of hotel operation. The transient occupancy tax is equal to' 6X'oVes`t-i-0ated room sales. ii . The Agency will provide .the developer with 77X -of the tax increment generated by"' the project during the first ten years of operation. The taxable value of the-- development was assumed to be 100% of the development costs including land acquisition. This taxable value was assumed to in- crease by 2% annually. The tax rate is assumed to be . 17 fIi'11 U1111SIAM1 Will 10 of 000'OITK ISO INVAIIA)1 11111 000'OK't If1116 1Mi1 11111 Qa'11t'ft 1501 0111aMISMOI will 01100'll KO'[N't I91'IK'1 K1'9004 011'9194 169'11t'1 ul'1[0'S 1191I6Vt III'l[t't 961'116'1 100 KI'St) 371A3 loll Iloilo 4011 AM tll tSl'Itt'1 twlnall Sot AMnl Al Sim Ooo'OOS S)1f1A11011 fO IIIS 91V I11'OL6'1 IT" >0 ISO ISSIll Ki'OlA'M S1mu 1)M t10'10/'9 /19'Itl'1 060116919 I9I1I1t'9 ItIl"19 A!191911 16S'HI'S ul'I10'1 ut'16CID 111't19'I 16►'196'1 111101 1 U1a1 )VAIN 101 3loill all V Ww tH191l 11I'90 601110 101:1119 IH'1" US'KS 160'61/ 9N'iK 19t'S1t Ilia Al 171161= I))ISMfeI am oulgit Ut'olt ON'itt 11s'11t /11'11t ISI'sit 011'601 oultot tlt'16i 1111IK )Ittli INp313NI"I am 111'[K 81111K U116st 1K'6S1 LS16S1 1111SK I911SK I911SK 001'tit OOI'90t Wits 111131-I91AI3 ltll Will bol o0S 1 10S 1 Isn't OK l mot mot o0S I o01 1 09511 00911 00911 S]MISA 1ftn1 ON'ti falls 1SL'/i 19'/i 1Si'K MIN 1K'Ii 9K1K 001111 o0i'11 00910 INNMMfe Isom OWUS 1101'11S KI'Sit KI'K/ KI'SII l VID IWO MILOI WO'Dt 000'Ut 00111W 3=1 3011131111$SOq Ifl'R It/'K 11319 US'SS allu Kt'11 Kt'li K►'li 000'll I 1 WMA 111)11 11g'IOf 111'101 1991011 WON 19/'111 "ilu1 19l'R1 Was, 00o'ott 000't1t 001'1St MIN 119'KI'S to['[K'1 111'ool's KS'1[0'► st0'1K'► 161160t'► KCIM10 16S'661't 6K'161't (10'119'i 1K'41111 UION-MAIN 10 110IN NMI ttilm 1f6'll1 Stt'S1t. U11111 511161S OOL'ilt 110'Klr Ul'Lit 11S'99tr 1611L6t 1A'Stir )3!31t1N)]1I1 L11MMMfe Iffm Ul'tOS'1 O[9111119 1St'9S1'1 Will's Ki'1f0'1 166191L'► 19f'on't 1111Iii'1 660'Stf't K6'11611 511'KL11 HOW 111111IIN SSOfe LW11% 66111% IIL'M KI'99 91640 IK'9O1. MGM 961119t 101%lt S16'1f1 Will )A NX WINN3 '0 IWO MINI 116'llt Will OK'111 K 01 1t1'LII O6L'6 IR I111t6t OK'9K 611'Ut Sint Utlf)b)1 - 6111//t 0"1861 611'96 L91'I6 161191 919119 ttl'9[ Ki'u 1i►'t9 t'es'11 !tilt► 11N111SLN `'' Sam 1n i It1I11 KL'l11 l p1196111 ut'610 1111SLt'1 1f9'tii'f KI'u1'S ttt'Nt'S t►t' W$ 1111GIVI SIO'01f't 16l'OK'i 31000i SN11r1I4 San 11i'91/01 ot9'tK'1 Ot/'6all 1111tt6'1 6RIK911 WIWI t'iS'tll1 116'0061t 19L'KI't Wall R['901'i 0111111314111 ui'o[i'1 111'201'l 111'oK'L ta'tK'1 111'K919 It1'0111/ 111'011'1 9Ll'06111 Ito'ot1'/ ttt'166't I61'tti't 111N)Y111411 sums]11fm Mltfl'li tn'Itslu 1111I9t'61 S1t'u1'il tt1'6ti'll Ki'tti'91 It9':ft'SI Ltelitt'll 611'119'tt, t19'f11'/1 61►'tK'1 sigh 16011 ►61'Oil 9K'III 161.1101 011166 1fl196 fit'" ttt'to M'u� KI'll— 096'69 0011f1 liflU I I I I 1 1 1 / 1 I 1 IINII IU'6M /19'111 K611s 11141% DOIS 11t'S1/ IU*I%► U1140 SKIM 00111t (WOW 3011113 6991MI'1 91011►of 10191A'I tl/'LII'I IK'IIl'l WIWI 916'Si1'I tu'Kt*l f10'1914 S9f'/t0'l 111'Of ]MIAll UVItl'S UI'S11'S 9114114 KS'tK'1 MI9014 6111tt0'1 iti'til't tOt'16S't onlailt tt1'I11'1 SSt161111 "of Ut'01111 1191f'tl 00' 101 196111'tl Ss1'K911 OVILI'01 002'19/'6 WOU'l 0011111 U440'9 0004M9'1 S)111I= SIMIAN Ufa W0'11 100'11 100'11 1100'11 1011'11 100'11 W U W0'11 W U t00'Sf 100'O9 IanS= Wulf K'01I1 01'1111 961011 tows 011111 10'1111 00't111 00.10il 00'161 orw life on It All of All .6 own 1 nil 1 flu .t All S flu -►flu t A11 i gill I sin II1130190 11 M R11a'NMI 10111J MIM ll131o1M07 lltlll/171111-I3NUA No into OM wigglum Mli NS13 fill It IIMI TABLE 3 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS HUNTINGTON BEACH MIXED USE PROJECT - RETAIL COMPONENT HUNTING70N BEACH, CALIFORNIA DIRECT COSTS OFF-SITFS ALLOWANCE S50,000 ON-SITES 0 SF $0.00 /SF 0 DECK STRUCTURE 90,000 SF $25.00 /SF 2,250,000 IMPROVEMENTS 40,000 SF $15.00 /SF 600,D00 SHELL RESTAURANT 40,000 SF 1100.00 /SF 4,000,000 RETAIL 3S,000 SF W.00 /SF 2,100,000 TENANT IMP (RETAIL SHOPS) 35,000 SF $20.00 /SF 700,000 PARKING 150,000 SF $2.00 /SF 300,000 BEACH LANDSCAPING ALLOWANCE 50,000 BRIDGE ALLOWANCE 75,000 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $10,125,000 INDIRECT ARCH,EN6,PERMITS 9 FEES 5.00i DIRECT COSTS $506,000 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION 1,152,000 FINANCING FEES/CLOSING COSTS 0.03 POINTS 425,000 LEGAL/ACCOUNTING 0.501 DIRECT COSTS 51,000 LEASING FEES 25.001 6EI 549,000 ADVERTISING/PROMOTION 25,000 TAXES/INSURANCE 1.001 DIRECT COSTS 101,000 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2.001 DIRECT COSTS 203,000 CONTINGENCY 5.001i DIRECT COSTS 506,000 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $3,518,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $13,643,000 (LESS) TAX INCREMENT REVENUE 77.001 TAX INCREMENT 171,369 PLUS PIER RESTORATION ALLOWANCE 2,500,000 PLUS LIFEGUARD STATION RELOCATION ALLOWANCE 1,250,000 PLUS GROUND LEASE PAYMENT ALLOWANCE 286,000 $17,507,131 OR SAY i11,510,000 (19) and the developer does not represent a gift. .of public funds to the developer . Further it is important to note, that the expected developer return at 16.93% is at the low end of the range of accept- able returns. Therefore, even if the economics of the project im- prove over the current projections, it is possible that. this Agency assistance would still be warranted. S . PIER SIDE RETAIL COMPLEX 1 . Agency Assistance to Development The Agency has required that the developer incur extraordinary development costs in the form of a contribution to the restoration of the Huntington Beach Pier, the construction of a pedestrian bridge spanning Pacific Coast Highway, and the replacement of the major lifeguard station that will be eliminated as a result of the Pier Side Retail development. Given the economic impact these ex- traordinary costs will have on the development economics, the proposed DDA indicates that the Agency will rebate the property tax increment generated by the Pier Side Retail complex. The terms of the rebate are as follows: 1. The Agency will rebate 77Z of the property tax increment gen- erated by the Pier Side Retail project over the first 10 years. AW 2. In the event that the developer has not received an overall 1SAX return on investment by the end of the loth year of operation, the property talc increment rebate will continue for another 5 years. 2. Development Costs Table 3 on the facing page presents the estimated development costs for the 75,000 square foot Pier Side Retail complex. This analysis is on the assumption that the developer ground leases the land from the Agency, with periodic rental escalations. The construction costs are based on cost estimates collected from other beach oriented specialty centers constructed in Southern California recently. As illustrated in Table 3, the net development costs are estimated at - $17.51 million. The major assumptions used to deter- mine this development cost estimate are as follows: a. The ground lease payment during construction is $286,000. b. Direct construction costs are as follows: i . It is assumed that the 90,000 square foot deck structure which will support the retail center can be constructed 19 for approximately $25.00 per square foot. It. is further assumed that the portion of the deck that is used for retail shops will have additional surface treatment at a cost of $15 per square foot. ii . Shell costs for the 40,0.00 square feet of restaurant space, which includes all the direct costs for construct- ing the exterior walls, and the costs. of providing the in- terior for the structure, ;are estimated at $lUU per square _ foot of- building area: iii :. The -she.11-.costs- for co.nst.ru`cting"the 35,000 ,siqua-re feet of r.etai.l space are- estimated at $'60 "per. =square- .f.00t . This level of cost. is indicative of typ-ical retail construction costs plus° an: additional a-laowance to :reflect the: exterior M up`grides required by the Agency. 4vs T.ehan.t .km0roV6ment costs are estimated at $20 per square foot of building area. This °high degree of tenant im- .. provements - .is:. in response to the- ma'rket conditions, and the type. of tenant that :. -thee '_pr_o•j t.ec.t is at.empting to ._ a.t.tr"act. The' aggregate total of the costs required to cons and improve the .d-eck st:r.ucture, and the shell an :aen-ant. ipprov.ement ccosts. of -the- restaurant 'and retail shop °space' equa°te to a direct cost of nearly . $130 per •� square toot—of ..gross building area. v. The , -500 requir-ed 'parking spaces are assumed to be provided i-n:=:a 150,00.0'�s4ua_re: foot surface parking lot. The direct costs t'o.-' construct this. parking lot:. are estimated at $2 per square foot. vi-. ' off�-'s`i.te improvements which .. are not - reimbursed by the Agency are;. given an Allowance of _.550;000. Additionally, an allowance of, $50,000 is provided to provide landscaping . on the beach around the perimeter of the Pier Side Retail complex.., vii. ' One half of the estimated expenditures attributable to constructing the pedestrian bridge across Pacific Coast highway are assigned to the Pier Side Retail complex. The pro rata share of direct costs are estimated at $75,000. c . Indirect costs are delineated as follows: i . Architecture, engineering, permits and fees expenditures 20 are estimated at 5% of direct costs. d • ii . Interest costs during construction are calculated on the basis of construction financing at 12.5% interest on 100% of the total development costs. It was assumed that the project would be under construction for a period of one year . However , it is necessary to build the deck struc- ture before any of the retail uses can begin construction. Therefore, the interest costs must reflect the additional holding costs incurred as a result of this structure. It. was assumed that the average loan balance outstanding would be 65% rather than a more typical 50 to 60%, to reflect these additional holding costs. The estimated in- terest cost. during construction is $1 , 152,000. The financing fees, at 3 points, are estimated to be $425,000. iii . Advertising and promotion expenses that will not be covered by the retail tenants are estimated at $25,000. Leasing commissions are estimated at 25% of the gross ef- fective income. These estimates are based on the assump- tion that the retail leases average a five year term. iv. The balance of the indirect costs are legal and closing costs; taxes and insurance during construction; develop- ment management; and a contingency allowance. These remaining costs total approximately $860,000. d. The cost proforma contains. the following extraordinary costs: i. The developer's share of the pier restoration costs are $2.5 million. ii . The estimated costs to replace the lifeguard station are $1 .25 million. e. Ground lease payments during construction are $286,000, direct construction costs are estimated at $10. 125 million , indirect construction costs are estimated at $3.510 million , and extraordinary costs are estimated at $3. 75 million. When these costs are decreased by the property tax increment rebate during construction, the net development costs are estimated at $17.51 million. ` 3. Revenue Projection KMA reviewed the sales volumes and rental rates achieved by waterfront specialty centers in a number of locations in Southern California, to be used as the foundation for the rental revenue 21 projections used in this analysis. On the basis of this field research , and the following assumptions, a 10 year cash flow projec- tion was prepared. a. Restaurant Income i . Restaurant tenants rental rates were estimated at. $30 per .. square foot per year or 7.25 % of gross sales , whichever is greater . It. was assumed that upon stabilization , the restaurants would be generating average sales volumes of $400 per square foot. The average occupancy and percent of sales volumes of $400 per square foot is presented as follows: Year occupancy $400 Sales Volumes 1 80X 75% 2 100% 100% ii . After stabilization, sales volumes are expected to in- crease annually by the CPI. iii. It is expected that 1/3 of the space will have to be leased to new tenants by the tenth year . The releasing expenses are estimated at 25% of the gross effective income. The refiting costs are estimated at $4 per square foot escalated by 100% of the CPI compounded over 10 years. b. Retail Shop Income i. Retail shops tenant rental rates were estimated at $218. 50 per square foot per year, or 10% of gross sales, whichever is greater . It was assumed that upon stabilization. the shops would be generating sales volumes of $235 per square foot of building area. The average occupancy and percent of sales volumes of $285 per square foot is presented below: Percent of Stabilized Year Occupancy $265 Sales Volumes 1 70% 60% 2 100% 75% 3 100% 90% 4 100% 100% ii . After stabilization sales volumes are expected to increase annually by 100% of the CPI . v 22 iii . It is expected that 1/3 of the space will have to be leased to new tenants by the third, the fifth , and the tenth year of operation. The releasing expense is es- timated at 25% of gross effective income. The refitting costs are estimated at $4 per square foot escalated by 1001 of the CPI. v C. Expenses i . . Management expenses are estimated at 6% of gross effective income. Reserves for capital expenses are provided, with an allowance of $.10 per square foot of building area. •r ii . Advertising and promotion that is not paid for by the tenants' is estimated at $25,000 per year . These costs are assumed to increase at 100% of the CPI annually. 40 iii . The developer must pay the city �$100,000 per year to as- sist in , the replacement. of 300 beach parking spaces which will be eliminated by this development. It was assumed that the majority of the usage of the 500 parking spaces provided as a part of .this development would be generated by patrons of the center who would be provided with free validated parking. However, it was also assumed that the transient parking . revenues generated by beach goers will- ing to pay a premium to park in close proximity to the beach will cover this $100,000 payment. iv. The developer must pay the City a ground lease for the use of the land. The terms of the ground lease are as follows: Period Minimum. Ground ground Lease Lease vs. As % of Income Construction $286,000 --- Yrs 1-3 $286,000 12% Yrs 4-6 Greater of 12% $300,000 or $4 per sq. ft. GBA After Year 6 Minimum lease 15% increase annually by 752 CPI d. Agency Assistance 23 a eu air aw MINION Km win 1K 1001 a . MINIM KAWARUNIN1 M19fgt m 1N1 1 IFM 2 0EM 3 IEr 0 - Km 3 IEM 6 U0 7 wa• K11 f KU a IN111 KIN VIEW KR10u01 90.11011 1.231.M 1.3l IM 1.>axt 1.1M.us I.wie 1.NS.tl2 I.u ni 1.111.0Sf 1.1K.S27 2.V7.3u KIUI SINS 600.= IX%4% /d1%4Z IAk= 1.7S9.R1 1.1111.3S3 1.014.M 1.4"An I.W.03 1.166.1% LM.311 =in a1.0M mx1 1/2.w MW n6jo win 141AW nk3a IS9.315 10.96 w1.11i lass tI1Dl1E 1.711.231 l.3B.ISS l.OL.ifl l.SpAS 2.1WW l.1w,i'D 3jw.3w 3.3N.445 3.3>1.10 3.361.769 4ila � GEfS191COt/S w 161 1 RUA" in.912 Il9.m 1u m 13S.a1 MAW win in.= UsAit M.IM am EF1Ett1OE tKOE! A.M.= :.tH i2 :.M.W 2;712.0I1 2.n3.1S2':.n1.11112 3.119.211 SJRJ41 3.06.13i 3.113.121 3.1N.ul MEulls EIIErSR 1111iEE0f 0.415 UL40 M"S AU.%9 " .W.031;' leAl" ,-112f37- M:931' .21S:S71' `N1A ..231m 1ESEIlES 7.501 7.511 ?A7.3M•'" p.m I;SIO:. ),iM-. 7.iw 7.s10 7;Sw 7.SM .. YIIIIISIK M MOMiIw tS.OM A.M. 21f.1l1 29.779° JUMV A.1SS-' WIWI` Si."f :-XI".. U. M:III Ia<IK am 1M.w1 Wm1M.w 1b.102;l WS.t1t` IA.113::. N1;1St-- W.1S1 I"!Su- IS1,9a= mus i11110 lEttSE 2K.1M 2M.0M 2K.N! mm 3K.1SS W.066 4i9.1a;' 1M:612 SIS;009- 475.921_ sn.m a141 OWNS[WI $ S".M SW4U SS1.M 59.W c, iSt.9l� lM;SNt• `Qi:ili. 175:111 921,111' MS,S% 1.01i;111' N. atla maw K/1 SEIIICE 1.231.23s 1.4111.111 I.M,ki I.M3.IU,,2Ae.1S6,:.119U12" l.2t2.41, 2.356.241 2.41.OSs'12.297.12 2.1w.>S3 Re lu IKIME IE111E in.7ss ws."I IA.491 M19W 115.473 I0.071- ;192.115_ I9i.171' 201;215;'„ M.171 V OW KIOK KII KWIC[ 1.105.111 I.M."I 1.13S,M 1.1S UD ..P.M.329 2.I56.372 2.413.10 2.04711'.2A".310 2,591.7% 2.1w.7S3. SAES IIOCEEIS 29.555,293 It1s3)Cal or SIIE 106,SS9 Its n lu{1CfE1[1t KutE 777.172 OMSS 1111E1"IMS 29.II6.5116 KI M f111 IEiIK Kit sEINICE 111,516.011) 1.406,111 1.1K."l 1.M.23S l.9SS.lu I.M.329% mu.312. 2.1156198 2.52:110 28,6I1.3S0'31.948.213: ' 11111 COISIlmis cm 11,511.100 . . 10111 11M I11K 1 :: T1111 K9ELOW11 C1S1 17;s11.1M in a loll IWESIKNI i . .The Agency will provide the developer with a rebate of 77% of the tax increment generated by the project during the �. first 10 years of operation. The taxable value of the development was assumed to be 100% of the development costs, plus the value of the possessory interest in the land under the pier and the retail deck structure. The total value of the possessory interest was estimated at $7.5 million. The taxable value of the development was as- sumed to increase by 2% annually. The tax rate range-s from 1 .055% to 1 .05% in the tenth year of project operation. ii. If the developer 's return on total investment has not reached 15.0% in the tenth year of operation , the tax increment rebate continues for the next five years. For the purposes of calculating the developer 's return on to- tal investment, the value of the additional 5 years of tax increment rebate is discounted back to its value in the tenth year of operation. 4. Cash Flow Projection On the basis of the assumptions outlined above, a 10 year cash flow has been prepared, and is presented in Table 4. This projected cash flow assumes that the Pier Side Retail project is sold in the tenth year of operation on the basis of eleventh year income capitalized at 9.5%. This capitalization rate factors in the strength of res- taurant and retail space with an oceanfront location. Additionally , the sales value of the project is increased by the value of the fu- ture property tax increment rebate in the tenth year , for a gross sales value of approximately $28.5 million. Table 4 indicates that the net income before debt service including the Agency assistance ranges from $1 .4 million in the first year of operation to $2.7 million in the tenth year . This can be explained largely by the fact that the retail shop space typically requires three to four years to reach the stabilized sales volumes, and the `Y effects of inflation on the sales volumes after stabilization. On the basis of the cash flow projected in Table 4 assuming the tax increment rebate continues for 15 years, and that total development costs equal $17.51 million, the project generates a 15.0% IRR on to- tal investment. On the basis of the current assumptions regarding project costs and revenues, including an Agency rebate of 15 years of property tax increment, the developer receives a return on total investment that is within the range of acceptable returns for this type of project. . However, it is our understanding that the developer may build the 24 project to a larger scale than required t,y the disposition agreement . on the basis of constructing 50,000 square fret of res- taurant space, and 50,000 square feet of shop space, and assuming the property tax increment is rebated for 15 years, the project yields and IRR on total investment of 15.21X. This level of return is also within the range of acceptable returns for this type of project but does not exceed the maximum level set forth in this report. (A detailed pro forma of costs and revenues are presented in Appendix A) . The above findings indicate that in the event the developer builds to the minimum standards required in the DDA or to the higher level currently. being proposed, the project will require 15 years of ... rebate of tax increment revenues. In the event that the project is built to a level higher than 100,000 square feet, it is likely that the property tax rebate would not have to be provided for as long of a period. 25 v VI . CX14C SICM M The preceding report analyzed the economics of the proposed Walnut-Main hotel/retail complex , and the Pier Side Retail complex within the context of the extraordinary restrictions placed on the quality and scope of develop- ment required by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency . This analysis also considered the impacts of the assistance provided by the Agency in the form of a rebate of 772 of the property tax increment for up to 15 years, and 100X of the transient occupancy tax from the hotel for a period of 10 years. Based on the terms contained in the proposed Disposition and Development Agreement, the development restrictions included in Section I of this analysis, and the expected performance of each of the projects, it is our opinion that the terms contained in the DDA are fair and reasonable given the risk of the proposed project, including the additional Agency require- ments and quality standards. However , it should be noted, that in the event the scope of development or the restrictions imposed by the Agency are significantly changed, or if construction on both projects is not underway within twelve months of the signing of the DDA, the findings of this analysis are subject to reevaluation. 26 VII CERTIFICATION We hereby certify that neither Keyser '.Marstori 'Associ'ates,, Inc . ,.,: .nor; any of - its officers have,,,any., pr.,esent or prospec.tve_int.erest in the properties being analyzed; that,•:our,Femploy�nent is not coiitingent :in -any" '.way - upon the value reported; that : we have personally inspectedtYie property and the enviroment; that theYstateaients made and the 'inform'6tion_conteined - in - this economic analysis are,'irue ,• to the best of our° knowledge'.'and:beiief. . , 4 Respectfully submitted, Ke Ma r s ton,-As sqq iat es, .Inc . , Richard L. Kathleen H. Head _ .- .. _,. � L t ... _.rs�' � �•.. .� �- .,. a ... . -. _,. ._ _ � ..�,i.�_. : ,. _ .. v r 27 A P P.E N D I X A 100,000 SQUARE FEET RETAIL SPACE WITH 670 PARKING SPACES TABLE A-1 ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT COSTS HUNTINGTON BEACH MIXED USE PROJECT - RETAIL COMPONENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA DIRECT COSTS OFF-SITES ALLOWANCE 1501000 ON-SITES 0 SF 10.00 /SF 0 DECK STRUCTURE 120,000 SF $25.00 /SF 31000,000 IMPROVEMENTS 45,000 SF $15.00 /SF 675,000 SHELL RESTAURANT 50,000 SF $100.00 /SF 51000,000 RETAIL 50,006 SF $60.00 /SF 31000,000 TENANT IMP (RETAIL SHOPS) 50,000 SF 120.00 /SF 11000,000 PARKING SURFACE PARKING 150,000 SF 12.00 /SF 300,000 STRUCTURED PARKING 50,000 SF $90.00 /SF 11000,000 BEACH LANDSCAPING ALLOWANCE 50,000 BRIDGE ALLOWANCE 75,000 TOTAL DIRECT COSTS S14,150,000 INDIRECT ARCH,ENG,PERMITS i FEES 5.001 DIRECT COSTS $708,000 INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION 1,610,000 FINANCING FEES/CLOSING COSTS 0.03 POINTS 594,000 LEGAL/ACCOUNTING 0.50% DIRECT COSTS 71,000 LEASING FEES 25.00= GEI 731,000 ADVERTISING/PROMOTION 25,000 TAXES/INSURANCE 1.001 DIRECT COSTS 142,000 DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 2.00S DIRECT COSTS 283,000 CONTINGENCY 5.00t DIRECT COSTS 708,000 TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS $4,872,000 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COSTS $19,022,000 (LESS) TAX INCREMENT REVENUE 77.00i TAX INCREMENT 21S,594 PLUS PIER RESTORATION ALLOWANCE 2,500,000 PLUS LIFEGUARD STATION RELOCATION ALLOWANCE 1,250,000 PLUS GROUND LEASE PAYMENT ALLOWANCE 286,000 $22,842,406 OR SAY $22,840,000 TABLE A-2 ESTIMATED NET INCOME HUNTINGTON BEACH MIXED USE PROJECT - RETAIL COMPONENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA' r, INCOME RESTAURANT 50,000 SF $30.00 /SF $1,500,000 RETAIL SHOPS 50,000 SF $26.50 /SF 1,425,000 PARKING ALLOWANCE 100,000 GROSS INCOME $3,025,000 (LESS) VACANCY i COLLECTION 5.001 GROSS INCOME 146,250 GROSS EFFECTIVE INCOME S2,678,750 . OPERATING EXPENSES MANAGEMENT 6.001 GROSS EFFECTIVE INCOME $172,725 .. RESERVES ALLOWANCE 10,000 ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION ALLOWANCE 25,000 PARKING LEASE ALLOWANCE 100,000 GROUND LEASE ALLOWANCE 286,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $593,725 NET OPERATING INCOME 12,285,025 OR SAY $2,285,000 TAKE A-3 !0 TEAR GSM FLU OAVTINION RUN 0llis USE MIECT 11111111LION IEICN,CAIFMIA CON511IN:TION TEAT 1 )EAR 2 1EA1 3 TEA)6 VEAS 5 1EAi 6 TEAI 7 YEAR 1 TEA1 9 TEAI 10 VEAI 11 )EASE KKMUES ------ ^— IESIOUTANT I,0A.000 1,527.000 1,629,220 1,726,973 1.130,592 1.940,027 2,OS6,853 2.180.264 2.111.090 2.153,180 2,5K.729 VAR SNOTS US,0O0 I,4S9,200 1,059.200 1.414,341 1.799.031 1.6".0" 2.021,390 2.142,473 2,211,234 2.094,563 2,SS1.951 NltiNi 100.000 106.001 112.360 119.102 126.261 133.023 141,052 IS0,363 159.385 168.918 179.08S DOSS INCOIE 2,105,000 3,092.200 3,200,780 3,260,023 3.n%169 3,713.340 4,220,04 4,473,300 6,41,699 4,3%,71S 5,327,712 (LESS)VACANCT I Id KIT 1 10.310 151,421 157,166 1811611 179.916 203,912 216,147 229,116 211,392 257,434 UOSS EFFECTIVE INCOIE 2,105,100 2,902,190 3,/K,339 3.103.351 3,571.381 3.US,36O 4.016.112 6.257.1$3 4.512,502 4,105.403 5,010,331 OWINi ENKNKS YN URN) 120.300 176.573 1821712 1861201 210.663 213.202 240,971 2SS.O29 270,755 251.124 300,220 Rums 10.000 10.000 10.000 11.100 I1.= 10,000 IDIOM I0,000 10,000 10.000 WON ANITHISIN&AND IIONOTION 5.0 261500 21,090 ".m 31.562 33,656 01O63 37,591 39,146 021237 44.771 WINS LEASE 1/0.00O 101,000 WOOD 119.112 I ,201 133,023 HIM? 150;363 159.315 166.94 171.015 am UASE 216,100 351,306 371,610 /10.001 4X.SSS 539.920 611.736 6O0.O41 617,347 636,117 M.303 111AL OKUTI1Ni E1KNKS 5111310 671,417 691,/12 move 117.10 930,400 11040,022 1,181.120 •1.167.333 1.106.486 1.311.379 Um WOK KIT SERVICE I,Ot3M 2,271,473 2,351,171 2,35/.278 2,2 .UO 2.622.956 2,976.160 3,ISS,330 3.3O5.249 3,071,911 3,7S9,758 I116 In INCREIENI KIAIE 215,651 219.6U 223.901 28" 9 296" 2A,177 261,712 246,054 251.239 2$6,111 VET INCONE IEFOIE KIT 3ERVICE l,679,151 2,49I,108 2.571,M 2.516,627 2,119.219 2,860,133 3,217.942 3,401,763 3,5%,189 3.33S.03A 3.759,951 SALES ItOCfEK 39,578,SO8 (tus)C031 1T SAVE 1,127,353 NN!9V TAt INCIEN[N1 Kum 975.771 EKOSS SALES IIOLEEs$ 39,366,923 KI CAN ILO1 1EFOIE KIT SERVICE WIN. 11679,151 2101,101 2.57117)1 2.516,527 2.919.219 2.060.133 3.2I1.162 3.6011m 3,S16,419 42.7011951 INAL CO1310IIC11oN COST II,810,p0 IOTA RANI VALVE 1 IOIAL KV[L119EN1 OOS1 22,160,1O1 It1.O1 11114 INVESTNM 15.21 3 Golden Gateway Commons 550 South Hill Street,Suite 980 7682 EI Camino Real.Suite 206 55 Pacific Avenue Mall Los Angeles,California 90013 Carlsbad,California 92008 San Francisco,California 94111 213/622 8095 619/942-038D 415/398 3050 ►w.►v.v�vr.w.:a►. a1.'ea.vf - .-�,. ..7:. — --�J w., iIVQ bV dLRC Jut 170 1 of the City of Huntington Beach r.•.' '} i Project Indentificacion• OAKVIEW t ' § Debt Original Interea Outstattidia�•Debt PrincipalAnwat Oft Amount icd:laA Data Principal Amount Term Rate- 6-3�- Due pulut Napo Dw' Duriq laic Year Year General Fund (a)Advances 23,020 VL --- 10% 44,860 ' (b) so 61A - --- 91 Advances MUM 12 _ Deferred Development ' (C)Fees Chart6r Center • General Fund (d) Deferred. 4 4 , E;ti , General Fun 1 0 1 -' ' (f) 7971ti. . Kg2� ) , J 9 4 9 • . 7 , 040 . �. nd ,otsls 1 ,712,111 otal lvailable '- Financina 54,216 ct 1 .657 ,895 Re uirneat rNex Purpose of Indebtedness t Other in) General Fund Advance 1979 (e) Deferred Development Fees' H .D AwenSPafprr RRiaamhf of tin , f(f) General Fund Advance 1986787 deferred Development Fees l � r...�ianfPr �tL) yI.Gene (h) al Officer Certification: Robert J. Franz Chief f Administrative Svcs, ; to Sec. 33675 of the Health and Safety Code, f ypid� . (Utie) _ tify that the above is a true and accurate Redevelopment Agency Report fear July 1, 19% to June 30, 19 8.7 ro�f the CitYY_�of Huntington Beach ect Ineentifieacion s 4 ftLAKE tbt Original Interest Outstanding- Debit Principal Amount lentifiaada Date Principal Amount Term Rate 6-30- 86 Due During Report Dua y0or _a Admin Year ()Advance 1979 1979 23 020 - --- 10% 44 ,860 )Admin 3ILA if Ant-, 0 8NM 58 Admin 1' 10 - - i wir- f J f, n . r n tale 01 48 34100 ailable nancinelo 6;870' t virevent 141,471 " 1 M2se of Indebtednese t ja) Admin Advance General Fund 1919 (e) (b) A Ain Advance General Fund 19 8 5/8 5 (f) II (c) Admin Advance General Fund 1986/87 (d) I thief Tiseal Officer Certification: obert J. Fran2 . Chief of Adminiatzatimc - Pursuant to Set. 33675 of the Health and Safety Code, (Title) (_hereby certify that the above is a true and accurrte71 1 Tf� t e t o unzingzon•neacn �:. Pro�ec! ndea ication: • R '6sbt Original Interest Outstanding Debt Principal Aw, �Idetititieatios� Date Principal Amount . Tenn Sate 6-30- Due During Upor Year year City Advance �4 0 85 •125 000 --- 10% 137,500 --- City Advance. 285 251 �'1. --- 108 301,089 --- --- c)Advance for Future �Z lD% 900,000 --- d) Cit Advance --- -_- 8 1 86 72 892 10$ 72,892 --T f) rand otals 1 411 481 ♦ailable Or tnancin 106,488 at virevent M1,304,993 u 0 a 0 L'71, • r . i se of Indebtednesst (a) Admin. Advance' 19 8 4/8 5 se__`_ (b) AdMin. Advance 1985/86 fie) Advance for Future Property Acquisition (d) Admin. Advance 1986/87 Chief ?iseal Officer Certification: M...§ygs . . Pursuant to Sec. 33675 of the Health and Safety Code, p (Utle) , I hereby ceriify that.the above is a true and accurate Statewa: of Indebtedncsr. --- (Date)(Sirn_tui4e1` _ v cxcr of Huntington Beach �C11C10Qt . TALBERT/BEACH Principal Amoun r, Original Interest Outstanding- Debt ` 6Y Delta Principal !Amount Term Rate' 6-30-86 Due Duz Aepor Year Y'ar Bala ?ees 6 30 85 4718896 --- =- 0 . Ttu�d ' L _.._ Of .* 12D 0, 7i 1 048 845 �Z --- - : 4' Fund � 44 8 6 0` -- f goo 6 { 6 L28 529 77 5,397 6,053 ,132 teheas t Deferred Sale of Land�,�f„„��o�rr� pp�^; {p� Genneral Fund. Advance 4 Tam. -ii�d� iprA Coyp.�ir i�iA^ter+gs iS1� .'Y��i-ni_�-Q, *�;U a A Defbrred Development Fees,y (f) General Fund Advance, 1979 W-wI11_lnrl r¢" jOeneral Fund Advance,' Administrative Cane at t 98d/85 SAL+ General Fund, Advance, 1986/87: } AM Advances for Right of Way s Robert Franz Chief of Adminiv&ratjve .I. _ `Rout Officer Cartifieationi, ftstutat to Sec. 33675 of the Health and Safety Code, m YP (Titlej_' 1 latsbyr ae tify that the above is a true and accurate but@04t of Indebtoducsr. Redevelopment Agency Report fear .duly s, 4790 cv Juuc jw, �.....- city of Huntington Beach S Hect-Indebtificaeion: MAIN PIER t Original Interest Outstauding' Debt Principal Amount ,Interest Amount Atification Date Principal Amount Term Rate 6-30-86 Due During leport Due During aapc Year Year General Fund �� ... i 6/30/79 $ 115,090 10% $ 188,491 --- --- [ Deferred Land 3 405,536 --- 10% 539,768 - r Loan - B 6/30/83 50,000 10% 66,550 General Fund 6 30 86 2.1 064 284 ' �Z --- 10$ 21194,139 General Fund ; kdvUce7 1 86 405,112 10% '405,112 • �1i " • �E-r[�[t i) ' NccU..+�C... s . •i i' • 66 . 5� i 3 394 060 --- o u 254 ,759in i fit f Indebtedness t General . Geaeral nd Advance 1979 (e�neral .Fund Advance, 1986/87. ' Defprred Sale of landsi a or Q) guhtington Breakers Project. (f) III �Loan .for Bluffton Park Rest ration (R) General Fund'Advance and Loan Admin and General . 8 5 �h) Officer Certification: Franz Chief of Administrative Svcs. �`q,Sac. 33675 of the Health and Safety Coda, P. (T�tle) NY that the above is a true and accurate - 8/6/'8 6 S%/C& I Ar CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 87-5 r HUNTINGTON BEAM _ A,Ode7Z. 10 4Z s P3& �S To From �m f/!/DE,Q (A-EAgc/f BLIP Honorable Mayor and Charles W. Thompson REDEV F4z!0()6CT/ City Council Members City Administrator _ Subject Date S Z DISCUSSIONS WITH OCEAN January 13, 1.987 min el/ lCe�/y VIFW SCHOOL DISTRICT — W69 REUSE OF ADMINISTRATIVE SITE Staff is continuing its conversations with the staff of the Ocean View School District in response to the District's announced plans for the relocation of its administrative headquarters from the site in the vicinity of Warner and Beach. Specifically, the Ocean View School District has solicited proposals for the lease of this property for private development. The school district provided the required "Notice to Governmental Agencies" offering property for lease on November 17, 1986. Staff has responded within the required sixty (60) day period expressing potential interest in the lease of this site (see letter attached). Simultaneously, staff has been engaged in negotiations with the Price Company. This company is interested in acquisition of this site on a leasehold basis for the provision of a Price Club. The City/Agency interest in the lease of the school district site would be contingent upon successful negotiations with the Price Company. A t the last meeting with the Price Company representatives, the . Major parameters of a transaction between the Redevelopment Agency and the Price Club were tentatively determined (see letter to Mr. Sol Price attached). This transaction would provide for the eba L of a share of the sales tax.generated by the Price Club to the Price Company at a fixed amount over a fixed term. The subject site is within the boundaries of the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Fnoject Area. Any agreement with the Price Company would also be contingent upon successful adoption of this project area. If this effort is successful, the provision, of these improvements could provide tax increment to the Redevelopment Agency as well as substantial sales tax revenue to the City. Again, only a portion of the sides tax revenue from this transaction is being discussed as assistance to the Price Company. ':We believe that there would be substantial economic gain for both the City and the Redevelopment Agency if this transaction is successful. I Rope this information will assist in keeping the Council/Agency Members apprised of the progress of negotiations for this potential project. If you should have any questions or require additional information, we will be happy to respond. Respect ubmitted, Charles W. Thompson City Administrator CWT/SVK:sar xc: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist Tom Andrusky, Redevelopment Project Manager Max Bowman, Director of Community Services James W. Palin, Director of Development Services Paul Cook, Director of Public Works REQUES FOR CITY COUNCIL �CTION 87-49 Date June 5, 1987 {a Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Development (� Subject: BEACH BOULEVARD PAC REQUEST FOR FUNDING Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception 6 CSC Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Project Area Committee for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area has requested additional funds to support its activities prior to the Joint Public Hearing on the Proposed Plan to be conducted July 6, 1987. RECOMMENDATION: Discretionary with Council. ANALYSIS: Section 33388 of the California Health and Safety Code requires that the legislative body provide assistance to a project area committee in the completion of its work (attached is a copy of Section 33388). The letter of June 4, 1987, from the Chair of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (see copy attached) requests financial assistance pursuant to this section of the Code, but raises several serious questions. The letter states that the purpose of the funds and services requested is "In order that the PAC can adequately prepare its report to the Agency . . ." However, the PAC's report to the City Council (PAC's report to the legislative body, NOT the Agency) was voted upon at the PAC's meeting of April 22, 1987, and submitted to the City Council office on April 24, 1987. Therefore, the PAC's report is complete and no funds should be needed for this task. Section 33388, specifically forbids that any funds granted under this Section be used for litigation. Filing suit against the City for approval of the Plan has been a major topic of discussion at recent PAC meetings, as has been subjecting the ordinance creating a project area to a referendum and the recall of City Council Members. A portion of the funds requested by the PAC are to be devoted to legal services and it is therefore difficult to determine if the tasks contemplated by the PAC are, appropriately, to represent the interests of residents in the proposed project area, or are, as would be forbidden by the Code, to be used to prepare litigation. There is also a question as to whether this legal fund is requested to represent interests of residents of the area or the individual interests of PAC members. PI O 5/85 BEAM BOULEVARD REDEMOPMENT PROJECT AREA C® ITTRR Communacataon roarIt-he »eputy City naainistrator/Comm)znitj Development tranamitt-1-rig a request from the Chairperson of the Beach Boulevard .Redevelopment Project Area Committee requesting additional funds to support its activities prior to the joint public hearing on the proposed plan to be held ZROO, angy 000 +cr I V-84 counsel ant # 700 ,for ona�lan�, r,o� -}� e g c e e d Vn a rQ ,inn bu rseYrM't basis C r+neAan�w� �c Costs ,AV s4tA- 4 a,nd. �e cc-AWC A)� o►hL �►t CGaty io p,covue �e►pa v -For 4,t rv'a%\�V\S) Cory m-5 ;0Y 4r%%.e tv�o►�\ n a v�vQ.lopts k-er '�1na_ V,%0:%VV%9r ar L \ o►ko.Q\t -For . rc�'a►�\ h 9 u�a�d.e� C a h� µea I 4 -d S dtety Code _ Svb lghLe she, rn��\�h9 -� be �ctree L2oVa n +� a��,y by legea 1 rt ntns 4ohnnro���ee� +ke 5'��4-4 of ed4valepmeni AbjQricy and `I G F Am agar• A tftcv Sb �} - CK&L l y tic) - - sIV — R H 87-49 June 5, 1987 Page Two Lastly, the public hearing for the proposed project area is scheduled for July 6, 1987, little more than one month from the date of the PAC's request. Should the proposed plan not be approved by the City Council/Agency at this hearing, the PAC will cease to exist. The amount of funds requested by the PAC appears excessive for activities to occur over such a relatively short period of time. IF the City Council should choose to provide assistance to the PAC, pursuant to its request, staff suggests the following (presented in the order of the PAC's letter): 1. Office Request: The PAC requested an office on the fifth floor of the Civic Center. Suggestion: Space is not currently available in the Civic Center, and if it were, preparation of the space (installation of phones, procurement of furniture, etc.) would transcend the time before the public. hearing. If the plan is approved, staff will assist the PAC in locating adequate space in an appropriate location if this is the PAC's desire at that time. In the meantime, the PAC has been offered one thousand square feet of office space within the proposed project area at no charge by one of its members. Staff recommends that the PAC accept this offer. 2. Supplies Request: The PAC has requested an unspecified amount of money ". for duplicating, postage, and printing." Suggestion: Based on the experience of staff in preparing the required notice to assessees, business owners, taxing agencies, and others, it is suggested that $700 is sufficient to permit the PAC to adequately notice interested parties of the public hearing. Further, it is recommended that staff review all invoices for such services to help assure that these are not devoted to the preparation of litigation. Staff would approve all invoices up to the approved amount, unless evidence indicated that the services were used in preparation of litigation. 3. Counsel Request: The PAC has requested $2500 for legal services. Suggestion: At the PAC's meeting of June 3, 1987, a representative of the law firm with which the PAC intends to contract was present. This representative made the statement that he did not anticipate having sufficient time available to provide services to the PAC that would generate billable hours in excess of $1000. Therefore, staff recommends that an amount of $1200, be considered in this category. As above, staff would review detailed statements from the law firm to determine that no funds were expended in the preparation of litigation. RH 87-49 June 5, 1987 Page Three Further it is recommended that any funds approved by the City Council be available on a reimbursement basis only. It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach currently expends thousands of dollars annually not only for the support of the City Attorney's Office but for Special Agency Counsel as well. The above suggestions are discretionary with the City Council and are based on acquiescence to the PAC's request and not upon staff's judgement of what is warranted. FUNDING SOURCE: Funds reimbursed to the PAC would be a City expense, and an unbudgeted item. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: 1. Do not approve funds for the PAC. 2. Approve the PAC request as presented. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Section 33388 of the California Health & Safety Code. 2. Letter from Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee dated June 4, 1987. CW T/DLB/SVK:sar 1619r Where the proposed amendment would enlarge the project area, the redevelopment agency shall call upon.the project area committee to expand its membership to include additional members on the project area committee in compliance with Section 33385. Such expansion of membership shall be submitted to the legislative body within 30 days for the body's approval within 60 days to assure that the project area committee is representative. The legislative body shall not hold the public hearing, required by Section 33454, until the enlarged project area committee has had at least 30 days to consider the proposed amendment. The committee, if it chooses, may prepare a report and recommendations for submission to the legislative body. If the project area committee opposes the adoption of the proposed amendment, the legislative body may only adopt the amendment by a two-thirds vote of its entire membership eligible and qualified to vote on such amendments. 33386. The redevelopment agency through its staff, consultants,. and agency members shall, upon the direction of and approval of the legislative body consult with, and obtain the advice of, the project area committee concerning those policy matters which deal with the planning and provision of residential facilities or replacement housing for those to be displaced by project activities. The agency shall also consult with the committee on other policy matters which affect the residents of the project area. The provisions of this section shall apply throughout the period of preparation of the redevelopment plan and for a three-year period after the adoption of the redevelopment plan, subject to one-year extensions by the legislative body. 33387. Minutes of all the meetings of the redevelopment agency with the project area committee, which meetings shall be open and; public, together with a record of all information presented to the project area committee by the redevelopment agency or by the project area committee for the redevelopment agency for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this article shall be maintained by the redevelopment agency. Such minutes and record shall be open to public inspection and a summary of such record shall be included in the report to the legislative body, submitted by the agency pursuant to Section 33352. 33388. Upon recommendation of the project area committee, funds as determined necessary by the legislative body for the operation of the project area committee shall be allocated to the committee by the legislative body. Such allocation shall include funds or equivalent resources for a committee office, equipment and supplies, legal counsel, and adequate staff for the purposes set forth in Section 33386. However, no funds allocated under this section shall be used for any litigation, other than litigation to enforce or defend the rights of the project area committee under this part. Article 7. Property Acquisition 33390. "Real property" means: (a) Land, including land under water and waterfront property. (b) Buildings, structures, fixtures, and improvements on the land. -38- MEMORANDUM �v e►+�` NOUS�NG'J"OPM COMM�N�SV OE1 TO: Huntington Beach City Council/ Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency FROM: Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee (PAC) DATE: June 4, 1987 SUBJECT: Request for Necessary Funding to Support the PAC California Community Redevelopment Law requires Redevelopment Agencies to provide funding for certain PAC activities. The PAC has voted to request funds to support the efforts of the PAC in preparing for the joint Public Hearing of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Redevelopment Agency scheduled for July 6, 1987. Article 6.5, Section 33388 of the Redevelopment Law states: "Such allocations shall include funds or equivalent resources for a committee office, equipment and supplies, legal counsel, and adequate staff for the purpose set forth in Section 33386." In order that the PAC can adequately prepare its report to the Agency by the July 6th Public Hearing, the following items need your approval by June 15, 1987. 1. An office at City Hall, preferably on the 5th floor near the Redevelopment Agency's offices. This office will be equipped with telephone, typewriter, desk, four chairs, file cabinet, adding machine and stationery supplies. 2. A budget for duplicating, postage, and printing. This money would be used for mailing within the project area to insure all affected individuals within the project area are properly notified. 3. A budget not to exceed $2,500.00 for funding legal counsel and a consultant. The PAC has voted to retain the Law Firm of Gronemeier, Barker & Huerta, 199 S. Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena, CA, phone # 213-681-0702. We will be employing Christopher Sutton of this firm. His fee is $90.00 per hour. This firm specializes in redevelopment law. Huntington Beach City Council/ Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency June 4, 1987 'Page 2 The Project Area Committee is taking this course of action because time is short and we were denied a postponement of the Public Hearing from July 6, 1987 to the week of July 20, 1987. The Agency denied this request from the PAC Chairperson on June 1,1987. The PAC may request additional funding after July 6, 1987. Your prompt action on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, ames A. Lane Chairperson Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee JAL:dc E wT P R O J E C T A R E A C O M M I T T E E C G .v June 9, 1987 ca �c>=+M c}�n� rn x t- His Honor the Mayor City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mayor Kelly: The Project Area Committee has asked me to write to you concerning what they view as a negative image held by certain members of the City's Staff regarding the PAC. This perceived negative characterization of being uncooperative trouble-makers is far from true. The PAC is more than a citizens' advisory committee. By law, the PAC is an independent adjunct of the Redevelopment Agency. It reviews major agency actions and proposals and makes findings and recommendations, much like the Planning Commission. In fact, the PAC and Planning Commission have coequal roles in the adoption of a redevelopment plan. The Committee members have been professional and deliberative in the discussions. Certainly, there have been emotions and strong concerns expressed in our meetings. The fates and fortunes of over 1,100 businesses, 400 property .owners, and 180 residents are at stake. The Committee membership is unique - with varied backgrounds, educational levels and ethnic groups represented. *Lou should be proud of this Committee. They have never forgotten that they represent literally thousands of residents, businesses and community organizations. Yes, the Committee overwhelmingly rejected the project, but only after six months of intensive study and discussion. We took our responsibility seriously and could not conclude that the City had proven to the Committee that there was a need for redevelopment. The Committee feels that the Agency was unable to prove that Beach Boulevard is blighted. State Redevelopment Law prohibits a City from including unblighted private property into a redevelopment project to divert property and sales taxes without other substantial justification. The Project Area Committee for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment area are not just a "bunch of people" who showed up for a redevelopment meeting at City Hall. We would like to bring to your attention that we are an integral part of the democratic process. One of the problems would seem to be the arrogance of the Staff regarding our deliberations. We hope you and the Council members will uphold the findings of our deliberations and reject a poorly conceived and costly redevelopment plan. Mayor Kelly June 9, 1987 Page 2 Finally, while the members of the PAC are new to this sophisticated process, we are committed to a better Huntington Beach. Only with all of the citizens of Huntington Beach working together, can we enjoy a quality of life unsurpassed in California. We look forward to meeting with you prior to the July 6, 1987 Public Hearing. Sincerely, awes A. Lane Project Area Committee for Beach Boulevard JAL do cc: City Council/Redevelopment Agency Planning Commission v. % -� REQUEST FOOREDEVELOPMENT -*ENCY ACTION �� RH 87-30 May 8, 1987 Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency embers Submitted to: �03 y� Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Offi f Submitted by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment Prepared by: CERTIFICATION OF BEACH BLVD. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPAC REPORT Subject: �1yy y. Yes New Policy or Exception Consistent with Council Policy? *TW� [ ] Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared regarding the adoption of a new Redevelopment Project Area for the Beach Boulevard Corridor. The Draft EIR was circulated for comment as required by State Law and the Final EIR is now ready for certification by the Redevelopment Agency. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Agency Clerk to execute the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Final EIR for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area and making Statements of Overriding Considerations. ANALYSIS: On February 17, 1987 the Redevelopment Agency received and authorized transmittal of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. With this approval the Draft EIR was ' transmitted to interested parties such as affected taxing agencies within the proposed project area, the Project Area Committee, and the Planning Commission and the State Clearinghouse. Copies of the EIR were also made available at the Civic Center and at the City's public libraries. To further solicit public comment on the Draft EIR, the Redevelopment Agency conducted a public hearing on March 16, 1987. The period for public review on the Draft EIR concluded on April 4, 1987. The Final EIR now presented for certification incorporates all comments received from any interested party on the contents of the draft document and includes clarifications to data as suggested by comments received by interested parties and at the agency public hearing. The attached resolution certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report has been prepared and reviewed according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), determines that all significant environmental impacts have been reduced to acceptable levels, and makes findings that any unavoidable significant environmental impacts are overridden by the benefits of the project (See Attachment A, Statement of Overriding Considerations). - see, ® , VA" PIO/1/85 R H 87-30 May 8, 1987 Page Two FUNDING SOURCE: Preparation of the Environmental Impact Report was an Agency Administrative expense incurred through a contract with Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates and Cotton/Beland as a sub-contractor for the preparation of the document. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not approve the attached resolution. This will pre-empt the continuance of the Beach Boulevard Project Area adoption process. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No./�. . CWT/DLB/SVK:sar 1419r RESOLUTION NO. 142 A RESOLUTION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 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 contained in the final EIR for the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency as follows : ;f 1 . The Agency certifies that the final EIR has been j completed in compliance with CEQA. , .1_ • 2 . The Agency 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 Agency, in accordance with State Guidelines Section 15090 . 3 . The Agency hereby finds with respect to the significant environmental effects detailed in the final EIR for the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard 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 Agency. 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 Agency finds and determines that measures have been required in or incorporated into the Huntington Beach Beach Boulevard Proposed Redevelopment Plan which mitigate 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 .transportation/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 Agency 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; and 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 Agency hereby approves and adopts said Section II of said Attachment "A" as a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the proposed Project . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a . regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of May , 1987 .. ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: Agency Clerk Agency Counsel ;,) -c f R IEWE AND APPRqVEIX INITIAT AND APPROVED: Depu y City Administrator Executive Director AJF/ -3- ATTACHMENT "A" SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS, MITIGATION MEASURRS, AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS RELATING TO THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Tntroduction 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 iR expected to encourage the development of new commercial retail and office uses along with residential - uses on vacant Rites 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-'A 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 (ETR pp. 25-39) 1. Environmental Impacts (a) Project 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 Page 2 conditions. However, these levels are still above State standards and the impact is considered significant. (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 Runtington Beach will be implemented in the Project. . Some of these improvements include restriping, intersection widening, bus turnouts and signal #nodification at selected Intersections. 1 Page 3 r 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 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. Transportation/Circulation: 1. Environmental 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 Page 4 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 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 generatV 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 R 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 FIR 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) Parking 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 Rix- 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 j. 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. Mitigation Measures: The Orange County Transportation CommisRion'R 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. Mitigation 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 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 buRineRs hourR. 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 itR high cost (estimated at $3.8 million in the Super Streets draft ELR) 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 he distributed to other arterials in the network. II. STATEMENT OF OVERRTDTNG 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 tsections 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 measurers 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 its 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 uRe of available land and to r6Rult in the elemination of unattractive, dilapidated, and poorly maintained structures- and land users 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 revenuers 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 No. 142 . i STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH) I, ALICIA .M. WENTWORTH, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of ad "ourn�d Huntington Beach at a meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 20th day of May 19 87 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Winchell , Mays, Finley, Kelly,. Erskine, Green NOES: Members: None ABSENT: Members: Bannister er o e e eve opment Agency-of the City of.Huntington Beach, Ca. f 2050 South Bundy'"Drive..• Suite 225" Los -Angeles California • .9002 tl I � M AY 11, 1987 CITY OF HONTINGTON'BEACH CITY.COUNCIL OFFICE :May 8,._A987 City counc,i l City. 'of :Huntirigton_.Beach -2000-. Main street Huntington Beach,, CA 92648 B BoRE: ulevard Redevelopment Pr-o iect : Ladies alid,'Gentlemen: = Spiegel Enterprises, is 'the . ownez of, ,the property located at . 19582"Beach Boulevard; which -h:as been used; as; the. bowling =;cente,r known: as >Huntington Lanes: Huntington •yL"anes. is ceasing operations. this ,month 'so.:t'hat: we can '-re6y.c1e the..ptoperty into ~a - higher ` and 'bettery .:use:, -but. no`'.deci'sion ._has yet `been;=made .as -to specific directions for- achieving that higher and. :better Luse We .understand. that you wi1'.1 be- cons i de'ring' the.,. environmental impact statement ; for the•'p•roposed, ,Beach 'Boulevard Redevelopment.=Pro-j.ect The. purpose of this le't.ter . Is: .to express - the -views ;.of: ,one- ,la.nd '.owner. in: 'support ,,o,f ;the ' Redevelopmena - Project Because we': haVe been :before you -'in th , e recent past:. We -assume you knowthat . any attempt- to upgrade : our ;pr_operty., or semi „ lar. properties along Beach Boulevar.d� mus overcome a, "number of obstacles .which are :the result. of 'inadeq'uate 'coordination . and the-'tremendous change along ;Beach Boulevard .over the.,-5-_to 10 years . Some .ac.tio'ns taken 10 15, or _ 20 years :ago now act 'to -inhi-bit growth and, d'evelopment:.along'"Beach .Boulevard. as. 'it now i's, or.,wi l,l 'be i_ n the` .coming years, .and `decades . The iiecess i'ty: for 'additional -public; improvements= to. upgrade Beach-Boulevard ' and " .e;concliat:ion" of conflicts. ,among =land 'users" .mus;t ;be ; addressed if ;.the- progr'ess 'already made. is .to continue Whrie growth might conainue without: the .proposed Redeve"lopment .�PTan, ;that .growth .would"take . appreci,ably longer, an& involve great deal, more pain,,than,- is necessary. Pubiic improvements -neededl to' support futu-re".,growth must be- properly 'funded, and the -ability of thee :Redevelopment. ;A_gency t,o kee.p .and` V City- Council 2,= May 8, :1987 u'se the .incremental tax revenues r.esulti'ng from `redevelopment' will certainly' accelei`ate the completion of :pub.lic, a'nd private ' nfrast,ructures necessary f:or the,;upgrading of Beach ".Bo.uleva.rd Furthermore, the ':Redevelopment, Plan`,woUld, peamit f lexible repon'ses needed to".overcome: a number of '.private pr'obiems==for. examp e, the unsafe ingress and;.egre.ss at the southerly .e:nd -of our property .`which� has been ad.drds'sed by 'you' :prev'iously-;- without the: City'.' s being.,,able,, to assist ';the= redevelopment of:, the :_-Beach Boulevard- corr.ido,r,'. inn 'many ways :not: now'.-available, `priva:te development 'can be' held ;hos.tage; to' ,prior actions or unreasonable . private interests. I. have heard certain complaints -about ;the ;pro`po.sed, ;Redeve;lopment,._Plan. -They •ap.pear to,,fal'1 into aliree ;ca'teg'ori-es (1) -:complsaints about how";.the City..now..acts ,without focu"s on, Redeve,l:opment (the _same pIroblem4s .exist; co,ncerni"ng zoning; genera,l , phan, o . g_rant_in,g of:- .con ".use ,permits,) , (2) fear ` - of ,the posy b ;li'ty``. of. eminent domain (which,,. I; understand, i-s an ext-remely' remote poss-ipility, and :'one. :which:.must be::accompanied by adequate compensation) ; or ,(3 ) miscomprehension'.of °the Redevelopment` an as ,a master ` plan which- the C,iay has already. : adopted providing". a very a;pecif is concept of what it apecif cally -wants, .to 'accomplish through pr;i.vate land gr-abs. whereas, in. reality, the :Plan'„only`-;:provides `a mechanism. for facilitating. development "over the next" 3D ,years or' so. ."The poiion tothe -coceptofRedvopmenhoo d b'e. c6nsidered ;Anjight-. of .wti"ether it-As.'ba_sed o,n .fac.t.s .or� .fears While there are probably '..'legitimate all 'thos.e which I have, heard `can be overcome by` proper ,administratio.n, none go `to: the. me ra is .of the Plan- itself This ,letter `is beingwritten ..to express the views of_,one landowner .wha .has .made`a tentative.:comm1 men t,o .-upgrade and..` recycle its property a;Lo,ng Beach Boulevard ' We'.believe ;that ` [[iuch can b'e.'accomplished _-more q.uickiy ,aridf with .much .[noie .the : benef.it. ,to. everyone ' :ifahe' Redevelopment .P1an: is implemented" F Ther.efore,,. we,,.-urge thee-City.'Council-,to.: act,:`favorably.:upon' the I plan. nce ely `you - ark A: Spi gel General, Partner MASnbc cc Tom; Andrusky; .Redevelopmeri -Agency, ; 0152-65 B&4oic el toe�grlrr— J• f1m' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �? COUNCIi_ ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 87-55 HUNTI,NGTON REACH To Honorable :Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson City Council Members City Administrator Subject BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT Date April.16, 1987 AREA COMMITTEE Attached you will find a letter with attachments that staff has transmitted to the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee as a follow-up to discussions at their last meetin-. Please feel free to call me at your convenience, if you have any questions regarding this material or the status of the adoption process for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Plan. Respe^_tfj submitted, ' s W. Tho y n :--itv Administrator CW T/DLB:sar Attachments 137lr 1 � 1 UNTINGTON � CRECEIVFp• r CLERK Hu'y rl is n iT i op- EACH 14 BEACH BLVD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJ1EC-T-AREA COMMITTEE(PAC) F MEMORANDUM 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 to dcn•.- 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 PAC believes that this project is unnecessary and that there are other ways to do the required 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. i UND 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, ?amenane Chairperson JAL/eb Attachments (4) • d 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 portion.; 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. 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. ra (a) That -the_.,use of eminent. domain (Section 308 of the Plan)wbe..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 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 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 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 Usn 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 "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) Chevron U.SA. Inc. 0 P. 0. Box 606, La Habra, CA 90631 Phone (213) 694-7570 February 10, 1987 Land Use Eement 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 truly yours, r O. McCamish LOM/sd cc: Mr. William D. Holman Project Representative Huntington Beach Company EXHIBIT (B DRAFT EIR REPORT TABLE 4 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS i 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 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 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 - 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 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 landuse 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. Redevelopment Agency April 2, 1987 Page 2 4 There are 509 acres in the;.project...area...,u_.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 Environmental Board EXHIBIT (D) CITY OF HUNTINGION BEACH rrl%n«.11 ulurr PC)5l Ofllc(' Box I C)U HUf)11(1(JIUO fjf�;lcll, C11111(m)III 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. 6. Noise Will mitigating measures adequately cover existing residential and commercial property? 7. Light and Glare No comments 8 . 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 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) . tf F> • • \ 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 pollutants.. into the air. 17. Fire Protection The additional traffic caused by the development will cut down on response time. SUMMARY: l 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. OFFICE OF �•��.'�� CITY ATTORNEY P.O.BOX 2740 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CALIFORNIA 92647 GAIL HUTTON TELEPHONE City Attorney .1714)5364WS. 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 § 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 § 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 5 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 Huntington Beach: Fountain Valley - Board of REALTORS® Inc R E A LTO R• 8101 Slater Avenue • Huntington Beach, CA 92647 • (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 REALTORSG, 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, /J Lila Nowell, President LN/JAS (1 ' OFFICERS LILA NOWELL, President• FRANK C. HORZEWSKI, First Vice President JAN SHOMAKER, Second Vice President/MLS Chairman • JAMES RIGHEIMER, Secretary/Treasurer DIRECTORS R.L. "KIRK" KIRKLAND• BETH DUNCOMBE• PHYLLIS RHYAN• LOU STAN• TOM VAN TUYL j .:l a-:iliwir+C. . .:R�._ K' -'a:' a '• '7 �" -'� r'iCP �,�+;*^r:i,'Puh'iC :PfR'i. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 87-3 .P, a COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH V To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson f City Council Members City Administrator Subject REQUEST FROM PROJECT AREA Date March 13, 1987 COMMITTEE FOR THE PROPOSED I BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR SPECIAL CONSULTANT The Project Area Committee for the Beach Boulevard Project met on Wednesday, March 11, 1987. At the meeting the Committee voted to request funds for a special consultant. Attached is a Request for City Council Action. By having this item added to the agenda the Council Action would assist the PAC in meeting their goal of adopting a "Report on the Redevelopment Plan" by May 14, 1987. If you have comments or questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me at your convenience. Res lly submitted, Charles W. Thompson City Administrator CW T/TA:sar Attachment 1157r i REQUESil FOR CITY COUNCIL AG 11UN �. • RH 87-20 Date March 6, 1987 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Me464 Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administra Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment REQUEST FROM PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE PROPOSED Subject: BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR SPECIAL CONSULTANT Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes DI New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee has requested in their letter dated March 12, 1987 a sum not-to-exceed $1,000 to retain a consultant to work with the Project Area Committee regarding property rights and other issues. RECOMMENDATION: This is a discretionary action on the part of the City Council but should this be determined necessary by the City Council then direction would have to be given to employ such consultant assistance and to appropriate funds. In staff's analysis this action is not necessary in that the City presently has special redevelopment counsel who has been available to the PAC, in addition to staff, the plan preparation consultant, and our relocation consultant. ANALYSIS: The Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee has held five (5) meetings. These meetings were held on December 3, 1986, January 7, 1987, January 28, 2987, February 25, 1987, and March 11, 1987. The PAC is made up of 21 Members and represents residential owner occupants, residential tenants, business persons, and existing community organizations. The PAC Has received staff support since inception including agenda preparation and mailing, preparation of Minutes, and providing presentations as required to provide information to the PAC. Presentations have been provided by Redevelopment staff, Redevelopment Legal Counsel, and specialists in the area of redevelopment plan preparation and relocation. The major documents presented to the PAC and discussed have been as follows: Proposed Redevelopment Plan Report on the Redevelopment Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report Rules Governing Participation by Property Owners and Businesses P1^5185 R H 87-20 March 6, 1987 Page Two At the meeting of March 11, 1987 the PAC voted to request a sum not-to-exceed $1,000 to hire a special consultant to work with the Committee regarding property rights and other issues. The redevelopment consultant requested by PAC is Sherry Passmore. Staff spoke by phone with Ms. Passmore and she indicated that she does do redevelopment consulting at the rate of $60 per hour plus out of pocket expenses and she would be available for the 7:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 25, 1987 PAC Meeting. Staff did state to the PAC at their March 11, 1987 meeting that the answers to additional questions from PAC would and could be answered thoroughly by City staff, City Attorney, Redevelopment Special Counsel, and independent advisors currently under contract. PAC generally felt they would like to receive input from an independent source and also they would like to obtain input from the City Attorney's office regarding questions relative to redevelopment. The PAC plans to develop a list of specific questions for the special consultant and for the City Attorney's office. .Article 6.5 - Section 33388 of the California Health and Safety Code Community Redevelopment Law does allow funds, as determined necessary by the legislative body (City Council), to be allocated for the operation of the Project Area Committee. Currently, clerical and professional staff support is being provided to the PAC by the Redevelopment Agency/City Council. FUNDING SOURCE: Approval of the PAC request would require an appropriation in an amount not-to-exceed $1,000 for a PAC special consultant. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Approve the request of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee for funds to hire a special redevelopment consultant. ATTACHMENT: 1. Letter from PAC Chairman James Lane dated March 12, 1987. 2. Health and Safety Code Excerpt. CWT/DLB/TA:sar 1154r HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE EXCERPTS 33386. The redevelopment agency through its staff, consultants, and agency members shall, upon the direction of and approval of the legislative body consult with, and obtain the advice of, the project area committee concerning those policy matters which deal with the planning and provision of residential facilities or replacement housing for those to be displaced by project activities. The agency shall also consult with the committee on other policy matters which affect the residents of the project area. The provisions of this section shall apply throughout the period of preparation of the redevelopment plan and for a three-year period after the adoption of the redevelopment plan, subject to one-year extensions by the legislative body. 33388:• Upon recommendation of the project area committee, funds as determined necessary by the legislative body for the operation of the project area committee shall be allocated to the committee by the legislative body. Such allocation . shall . include funds or equivalent resources for a. committee office, equipment and supplies, legal counsel, and adequate staff for the purposes set forth in Section 33386. TO: Redevelopment Agency City of Huntington Beach FROM: Project Area Committee, Beach Boulevard James W. Lane, Chairman/Chuck Osterlund, Vice Chairman DATE: March 12, 1987 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL CONSULTANT TO THE PAC The PAC voted on March 11, 1987 to request a sum not-to-exceed $1,000 to retain a consultant to work with the Committee regarding property rights and other issues. The PAC Members believe this will be beneficial and important in making decisions and recommendations to the Redevelopment Agency. We have identified Sherry Passmore, a private redevelopment consultant from Los Angeles. Her telephone number is (818) 447-3986. Thank you. a. James A. Lane, Chairman Bea h Boulevard Project Area Committee I /02 C', April 2, 1987 TO: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency V, 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 :,P rojec.t Fdnal::'.Report :as .,approved `b.y Gounc l: The impact of and usFd 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. 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 rah �eULtA NOA �PPAOS�f i CITY OF HUNTINGTONtEACH CA 87-33 COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Honorable Mayor and Charles W. Thompson, To City Council Members From City Adni ni s tr a for STUDY SESSION ON DRAFT March 13,. 1987 Subject ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT -pp�t fiA REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE BER5 7I((,Pl$1 BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT A draft EIR has been prepared for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project in keeping with the State "Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act." The Redevelopment Agency is the lead agency for the EIR preparation. The purpose of the public hearing is to hear comments and answer questions from interested individuals and groups on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The EIR consultant will summarize written and oral responses for incorporation into the Final EIR. The 6:00 p.m. Study Session will provide an opportunity for the Agency to hear a presentation from a representative of Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. (EIR Consultant) and to ask questions prior to the public hearing. Our schedule for processing the Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project is as follows: March 16, 1987 - Redevelopment Agency holds public hearing on the Draft EIR. March 17, 1987 - Planning Commission provides report and recommendations. April 4, 1987 - Comment period on Draft EIR closes. April 13, 1987 - Consultant compiles all comments on Draft EIR and prepares Final EIR. May 4, 1987 - Agency adopts resolution certifying adequacy of Final EIR, making necessary environmental findings and if necessary, adopting statement of overriding conditions and authorizing transmittal to City Council. The Draft EIR has been distributed to appropriate public agencies, personal contact has been made with numerous agencies and persons and pertinent environmental documents have been reviewed in the preparation of the Draft EIR. The Project Area Committee has received copies of the Draft EIR and have heard and discussed a presentation from Pat Mann of Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. The Planning Commission has received copies of the Draft EIR for comment and recommendations and the Environmental Board's comments with responses will be included in the Final EIR. Res p y submitted, C arles W. Th pson City Administrator C W T/T A:sar 1153r �- Environmental Board - 1� CITY OF HUNTINGZ ON BEACH a Join> �//�� / a����. 'Post Oflice Box 190 HlillliligioI Be,wh, C,,Ahlowiii 1-06d(,3 March 11, 1987 eegsa/ kv/ Doug LeBelle, Director Redevelopment Agency/ O 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, • ekv � 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 . (Doi) . (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. 6. Noise Will mitigating measures adequately cover existing residential and commercial property? 7. Light and Glare No comments 8. Water Is the city Is 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 in 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. REQUEST FC16 REDEVELOPME , =T @3ENCY ACTION �', �� RH 87-02 Date January 23 1987 Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer I �� Submitted by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopme Prepared by: APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION RECEIVING BEACH BOULEVARD Subject: PRELIMINARY REPORT ON PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT PLAN Consistent with Council Policy? N Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception . , Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alt TURyap,xt 1)4hK CIL[ 0 STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The Preliminary .Report for the Beach Boulevard Corridor IT Ck ' �� recommended.that the Redevelopment Agency acknowledge receipt of the Report and authorize its transmittal to interested parties through adoption of the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the Agency Clerk to execute the attached resolution receiving the Preliminary Report on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area and authorizing its transmittal to the Planning Commission, Project Area Committee, and affected taxing entities and to the Fiscal Review Committee if one is formed. ANALYSIS: As we continue with the adoption of a Project Area for the Beach Boulevard Corridor, several significant steps have been achieved. The Planning Commission adopted a Preliminary Plan and established boundaries for the proposed project area in October, 1986. Subsequently, the Redevelopment Agency received this plan and the City Council called for the formation of a Project Area Committee. At its regular adjourned meeting of Monday, January 5, 1987, the City Council certified the representative nature of the Project Area Committee that had been constituted for the Beach Boulevard Project Area. On January 20, 1987, the Agency received and authorized transmittal of the draft Redevelopment Plan. The next step in this process of adoption of a new Redevelopment Project Area is the I distribution of the Preliminary Report on the proposed Redevelopment . Plan. The attached resolution officially acknowledges receipt of the Report by the Redevelopment Agency and authorizes its transmittal to those interested groups that will review the plan documents prior to the City Council/Agency .public hearing later this year. Those groups who are authorized to received the Preliminary Report through this resolution are the Planning Commission, the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee, and affected taxing entities. I ws5 RH 87-02 January 23, 1987 Page Two It is important to note that adoption of the attached resolution in no way endorses or approves the Preliminary Report on the Proposed Redevelopment Plan. The Agency's action acknowledges receipt of the report and authorizes its transmittal to interested parties. FUNDING SOURCE: Administrative costs of the Beach Boulevard Adoption Process is a Redevelopment Agency budget item. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not approve the attached resolution. This will impair the progress of the adoption of the Beach Boulevard Project Area. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2. Redevelopment Plan. CWT/DLB/SVK:sar 0903r RESOLUTION NO. 137 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING THE PRELIMINARY ' REPORT FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33345 of the California Community Redevelopment Law ( Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et sea. ) , the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has prepared a preliminary report for transmittal to the affected taxing agencies on the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : 1 . The Preliminary Report on the proposed Redevelopment Plan is hereby approved and adopted by the Agency, in the form attached hereto . 2 . The Executive Director of the agency is hereby authorized and directed to transmit the preliminary Report to each affected taxing agency . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency at a regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of February , 1987 . -/-old Chair(a ATTEST: ^ APPROVED /AS TO FORM: Clerk cy Counsel re,-'n,-.7 REVIEWED AND APPRO�ED: I ITI D AND P . City Administ atoir 0 De 'u y City Administrator I Re elopment 1847L/1-26-87 • �. No. 137 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) } COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH) I , ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a. meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 17th day of February 1987 , and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AYES: Members: Mays , Finley , Kelly , Erskine , Green , Bannister NOES: Members: W i n c h e I I ABSENT: Members: None Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. J REQ UESPFOR CITY COUNCIL40ACTI 1-16' RH 86-95 �a % n Date December 19, 1986',8 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrato Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevel Subject: RESOLUTION APPROVING REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT c� AREA COMMITTEE - BEACH BOULEVARD ~� Consistent with Council Policy? J?4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On October 27, 1986 the City Council adopted a resolution calling for the formation of a Project Area Committee for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. Attached is a resolution declaring the formation of a representative PAC for this proposed project area. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the City Clerk to execute the attached resolution approving a representative Project Area Committee for the proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. ANALYSIS: The California Health & Safety Code requires that, whenever a public body intends to create a new redevelopment project area that includes "significant" numbers of low or moderate income households, a project area committee be formed. On October 271 1986 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 5718 directing staff to call upon the residents, business persons, and community organizations present within the Beach Boulevard Corridor for the formation of a Project Area Committee. Staff met with representatives of these groups on December 3 & 17, 1986 to provide background information about the redevelopment effort in the Beach Boulevard Corridor and explained the role and responsibility of a Project Area Committee. At the conclusion of the December 17, 1986 meeting, a majority of those members present constituted themselves as a Project Area Committee for the Beach Boulevard Corridor. This process of interested parties determining the size, membership, and representative nature of a Project Area Committee is consistent with current redevelopment practice in the state. The roster of members (attached to the subject resolution, also attached) denotes the members of the Beach Boulevard Project Area Committee. The PAC as constituted fairly represents the residential owner, residential tenant, business person, and community organization categories suggested by the Health & Safety Code and adopted by this Project Area Committee. The Beach Boulevard PAC includes eight (8) PIO 5/85 RH 86-95 December 19, 1986 Page Two representatives in the residential category, twelve (12) persons representing business interests, and one (1) person representing community organizations. Mr. Jim Lane was elected by the PAC to serve as Chairperson, Mr. Charles Osterlund to serve as Vice-Chairperson, and Elnorina Brackens as Corresponding Secretary. Adoption of the attached resolution will permit the Project Area Committee to be duly certified as representative of the interests prevalent within the Beach Boulevard Corridor. The Project Area Committee has scheduled its next meeting for Wednesday, January 7, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not approve the attached resolution, stating that the membership approved by the Project Area Committee is not representative of the Project Area. This will require findings regarding the reasons the PAC is not representative as now constituted. FUNDING SOURCE: Provision of staff and legal services to the Project Area Committee is a Redevelopment Agency expense as part of the formation of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. Extent of these costs cannot be determined at this time. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. �77 2. Roster of PAC Members. CW T/DLB/SVK:sar 0726r RESOLUTION NO. 5746 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING A REPRESENTATIVE PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE IN THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 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 27 , 1986, wherein the Council called for the formation of a Project Area Committee for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Reaevelopment Project ; and WHEREAS, on December 3, 1986, 7 : 00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers , and on December 17 , 1986 at 7 : 00 p.in. in Room b-8 of the 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 ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : 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 staff are directed to consult with and obtain the advice of the Project Area Committee concerning those poiicy matters which deal with the planning and provision of . residential- facilities or replacement nousing for those to be displaced by project activities ana other matters which affect the residents of the Project Area while preparing a Redevelopment Plan and for a period of three years after adoption of the plan . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as a regular meeting thereof held on the ,th day of January 198.7 . Ma o ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: I ITIATED AND APPROVE too y Administrator Dep y City Administrator Rede elopment • Res. NO. 5746 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) E COMM OF ORANGE ) s a: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , 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 member• 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 EXHIBIT "A" HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE 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 P1. Residence: 54620 Risenhower 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. Residence: .17121 Sparkleberry Pearson, George A. Fountain Valley, CA Residence: 6082 Manorfield !give 963-5618 Huntington Beach, CA Business: ` 17502 Beach Blvd. 841-0120 Huntington Beach, CA Business: 16990 Beach Blvd. 842-5505 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: 18194 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. 640-7135 Residence: 20731 Hopetown Lane Business: 8071 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 854-9137 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: 2050 S. Bundy Dr. #225 Los Angeles, CA 90025 (213) 820-381 1 Ying, Ledy Business: 8032 Warner Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 841-3591 0722r Page 2 of 3 EXHIBIT "A" HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE RESIDENTIAL OWNER-OCCUPANTS: Ackerman, Thelma W. Files, Ila S. - ALTERNATE. Residence: 16911 "A" Street Residence: 16892 "A" Street Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 848-7104 847-4720 Banich, John G. Ho, Arthur Jan Residence: 7911 Newman Residence: 17220 Beach Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 92649 846-8470 Brackens, Elnorina Inda Business: 17456 Beach Boulevard Residence: 17421 Dairyview "A" Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 842-4160 / 847-8551 841-2485 Business: 167.83 Beach Boulevard Hunt., Margie Marcelle Huntington Beach, CA Residence: 16881 "B" Street 491-3365 - Huntington Beach, CA 842-4307 Buckingham, Lena P. - ALTERNATE Business: 8902 Hewitt Place Residence: 7942 Newman Garden Grove, CA Huntington Beach, CA 894-7201 847-3228 Richmond, Frank A. Edwards, Deanna L. Residence: 18163 Beach Boulevard Residence: 17071 B Street, Unit A Huntington Beach, CA Huntington Beach, CA 842-6782 842--5047 Business: 18151 Beach Boulevard Business: 2080 Anaheim Boulevard Huntington Beach, CA Anaheim, CA 842-1919 937-6200 Fernandez, Barbara COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION Residence: 16920 "A" Street Huntington Beach, CA Osterlund, Chuck 847-3737 Residence:' 5902 Nordina Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Fernandez, Beatrice A. - ALTERNATE 846-5384 Residence: 16932 "A" Street Huntington Beach, CA 841-1264 0723r__ Page 3 of 3 REQUEA FOR CITY COUNCIP ACTION RH 86-75 Date September 26, 1986 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members TY Go��GZL CI Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator C W\ �YYg Y !(3 Prepared by: Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redeve opme Y GL Subject: RESOLUTION AMENDING BEACH BOULEVARD SURVE AREA Consistent with Council Policy? DQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception S 7 yC Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments:-- STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The proposed Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area currently envisions the inclusion of areas not currently designated by the survey area established by the City Council in November 1982. Before the Planning Commission consideration of the Preliminary Plan for this proposed project area, it is necessary for the City Council to consider amendment of these survey area boundaries. RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the City Clerk to execute the attached resolution amending the Beach Boulevard Survey Area Boundaries to include all areas contemplated by the Preliminary Redevelopment Plan. ANALYSIS: The survey area boundaries for the proposed Beach Boulevard Corridor were initially established in September 1982 and subsequently amended by the City Council in November 1982. These survey area boundaries identified several discrete portions of the Beach Boulevard Corridor but did not include its entire length. As staff and the Redevelopment Agency's consultant have completed the research necessary to prepare the Preliminary Plan, it has become evident that to accommodate a truly comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Beach Boulevard Corridor it is necessary to include parcels throughout the Corridor's length. The Health and Safety Code requires that the Planning Commission may select boundaries for the proposed project area only from within a previously established survey area.. Therefore, to accommodate the Planning Commission's consideration of the Preliminary Plan for the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area it is recommended that the survey area boundaries be amended by the attached resolution to encompass the entire Corridor. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS: Do not approve the attached resolution. This will pre-empt Planning Commission consideration of the project area boundaries as now envisioned. P10 5/85 RH 86-75 September 26, 1986 Page Two FUNDING SOURCE: Amendment to survey area boundaries has no financial impact. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution No. 2. Exhibit A (map of new survey area boundaries). CWT/DLB/SVK:sar 0243r RESOLUTION NO. 5714 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE REDEVELOPMENT SURVEY AREA ESTAciLISHED BY RESOLUTION NO. 5164 AND DIRECTING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TO - SELECT THE BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR REDEVELOPMENT' PROJECT AREA FROM WITHIN THE ;MENDED SURVEY AREA, AND TO FORMULATE A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beacn designated a Redevelopment Survey Area pursuant to Resolution No . 5164 for study purposes to determine the feasibility of implementing a Redevelopment Project within such an area ; and WHEREAS, Section 33322 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that, as directed by the City Council , the Planning Commission shall select a Redevelopment Project Area comprisea of all or part of a Reaevelopment Survey Area ; and WHEREAS, it is hereby determined that a Redevelopment Project within the Survey Area is in the best interest of the City of huntington Beacn and should, therefore , be established ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : ' SECTION 1 . The Survey Area shown on Exhibit_. "A" is hereby amended to include all the areas delineated on Lxhibit "A" . SECTION 2 . The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach heret)y directs the Huntington Beach Planning Commission , in cooperation with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, to select the boundaries of a proposea redevelopment project from within the Survey Area and to formulate a Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of the proposea project ano to submit said Preliminary Plan to said Agency for purposes of facilitating the preparation of an official Reaevelopment Plan for the proposea area . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of October , 1986 . I,11ayor ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORE: �/�'{J/�/./I• i_�/A 1 ��J/!/�, ,�`_yam _�.._ � �-- City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: NITIATEIL. AND AP PIR E _74 City Ad inistrator / De u y City Aoministrator Re elopment 1620L umuu a c) ire � I�i,l1u���1 >> I i�l( IIININIMIII I� � IpII'. ',;�. .. � 'lllulllll'11'Irff I I I i ' S �i r�1•,," . `, � �; " '.li niullullullll l i l! � �cl~. ii 141111114111111 I; ItYI�I r IJd I I �� l.d l�l ll�ia��Il '�� ! �'�. 'il ii • I h� 111 Irnl I ! I IIIIII(III.WIIIIIIII Illf' i ► .I . �, , �I- I Ir�'i1?lilt� - ,:III ' � I � •I`II I�Y IIj1 III Ir,,f � � f4!41+ ��a } 11,. ll. IIl4 IIz T 1 i ,: I � I F ) .-__1_.._ fl I nlL bll A.nnun - I fllf.l I.I.. a�i�- "'I• -I I � T r` I- 1 I I'•I Ifbi 'I ,1 �LJ i l;1, I ��III IIIIIIfIIIII �i, I IjII l,( I,li''1 I,;rll�l i'�II IIII11 � _ I I �� Illl� ,��. �N il!I I IKII.. 1 J 1J Llpn Ave _ _ _ _ hl;,jtK;l I ,� I ,•III I II�III�I ro� _. (I I I,I I I�1I1611S�1 `Ir�yiJ l ; i 1i,l ill l IIIIIIIIII-:�III►IIJf� � , I ;��, ,III) 111JIII II+;,I .II Aflt 4�t-�q ��� -1V I°8 �, t° I •I�illllllll� ., ti I� i�f I�ii�l r r� {II r��Ill�l{1u1� �I a I 1� ,III'11:'.�rt cl c llllll ally` I� , �1 II 7111' 1�; 11' ,,. I�Ifll(rl I I r �IfI • ��, 1 �1�u l li►`ni.l I� � '��i'd;.1f� �I a Iliiii;l, �; 1_ IIII� IIIILIII �� �� I� L,ILILI !p'Sjll(�I"10;� 1 ) !tll�N:,I'I�:AI'I,rl "• •I I��.Ilullnilull� Avul,.lu >� 1E311 llLlll''llllr.l . pI'� I1Hi;tll � NllH' I1li4'' ;' 11 I°1 T �l.I f IItJ North I ���III�I 2000 • ncsln In lus° F..9,y ��..��::� 1... ..._._._ II . khCl1 Reach Botilevarcl Redevolopmont Project Amended Survey Area 10-6-86 EXulbI r; Its. No. 5714 STATE OF CALIFORNLA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) sa CITY OF EMINGTON BEACH ) I , ALICIA M. 1,TENTWORTH, 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 6th day of October , 19B6 by the following vote: AYES : Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllister, Finley, Bailey, Green, Thomas NOES : Councilmen: Mandic ABSENT : Councilmen: None Zee t✓ City Clerk and ex-offici'o Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California A �.a tl ,�."•"o w r r ,e �• +�7��:: ,:.. r..,,. ,:. .e�.. ,�a" , 4 ?h3 rh7 ;rs 3 '�;h 7 �-wt.j ♦, � � §r:ia. e 4, ,M1. T, � d � � ..15 �'i":`;k�jR:,1.v'iL`? f ti,r n 0010, r _ 1. a� �'.. ^ .t'v � ,� r ':t, k yy� C" , � } Y _�.� �5 � \d ���� {;, F E N ,.i ,��:F�. `R��:aF O R M,AUT" N 99 ,P/F""U BL h C MBE E T�1 NAG OF T s �r p���j"1t�"""y.f` �f•. ..yy��'i 'F, .Aysa $x„ t7'a �L . r ' .-'� ... . X,.'t� 't�.' `� �, 11' �'4 _.'.� e:c�7 �� � 4� t::� §f ,-;Y � ?'1 i, 1. J>wE C T �A�REA CYO M M T EaE FOR T HUNTINGeTON, BEACH BEA�C,H` +BOULEV,ARD y H' ;. R#E,' s E Vk -ZZWL'O.i E N T P`R O J E C T NOTICEIS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City Council of theGityyof4tH�unt�ngtonBeacli has authorized the setting ofr ,. 3rd ;ay,D,�ecember,,1986 at tffe hou,r�of 7 00 P.M:;as the time�antl.fixed`theFGouncil Chamb'er�s as the place for a ss public meeting jo beheld for the,purpose of forming a Profect AreaCpmm�it�te@,(P 4C)Lfor the p,ropo fed Huntington a' ti Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Prolect.`The Project Area.Commitfee is to)e',composed of.and selected byresidenhal owner occupants;• residential tenants, businesspersons'and members of existing dommunity } oeganizatioris within the proposed project area:' Y. P approve it as a representative project area o`�1NnecroyBF, �_ Z -he Crt Council wiII'review the'com posit of'the PAC in order to commit. O,be so approv ed,the`PAC will have the right'to review'the proposed red6velopmentplan for the project e, areaad to report and make recommendations on the plan to the City Council.The Redevelopment Agency will o cD — �� consult'withfand obtain the advid!b of the PAC concerning matters of policy which affect the residents of the.Project fy ,area dung the preparation of the^plan and;for a minimum of 3 years after adoption of the plan. Tthef C1ty Council has directed that a copy of this PAC notice'be mailed or delivered to each resident, place of °�� ' business and existing organization-within the proposed pro1ect.area. r I xrr # EDINGER Th`e Profect area'has'the boundaries illustrated in the map accompanying this notice.Interested persons may call f' the Office of the" Redevelo ment-A enc at the Civic Center between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. for X. y�otisa:.. p a' g Y additio�ynal infformatlon concerning't•he redevelopment project for,formation of the Project Area Committee—(714) WARNER 536-5583 s_ t Alicia M We�tw�or't.h,Clty Clerk,`City of Huntington Beach � AVI'SO DE'RE.UNION,P,UBLIC>A:PARAEL PROYEC.TO DE REURBANIZACTION DE T,1LBERT HUNTINGTON:BEACH-BEACH'BOU.L'EVARDcD POR MEDIOtlDE`L'A PRESENTS S�ERDA9VISA` ue el Concejo Municipal del la Ciudad de Huntington Beach ha GARFIELD M i. p. J q 1 P 9 utorizado fgar�!ll, ia:3 de diciembre de'1986 a:la hora de las 7 OO;1P.NI y ha;fijado la Camara del Concejo como el y ugar para,,.aAau �cia publica Ia cual% conducida para el proposito de,formar el;Comite.del Area del Proyecto ( AC)1`pa a el propuesto Proyecto de Reurban¢ac.jon de,Huntington Beach_-Beacfi Boulevarq..El Comite del Area Ay , duel P.royeetto sera compuesto de,ysA'46cion�ado por propietarios ocupantes residenciales,inquilinos,residenciales, �ic� AUAIiS epre'sanos y so'cios de organizacUones del la comunidad existentes dentro del area del proytecto:1 � t 1 COq N EIConcel�o;Munictpal rev sarata composicton de PAC para aprobarlo como un comjte representante del;area del �T bj� ATLANTA .:del yp o ecto vez sea aprobado,;PAC tendra el derecho de revtsar el plan d'e.reurbanizacidn.propuesto para el area y y,.reportar y hater, recommendaciones, sobie el•plan aG.Concejo:Municipal. La Agencia de -iReurbanizacion`consultara conlu obtendra el;consejo de PAC tocante a•asuntos de politica la cual afecta a los ` v, esidentes del area',del proyecto;durante'la'preparacion del plan y durante un minimo de 3 anos despues de is ' ! 'adoption del plan El Concejo Municipal ha dirigido quo una copia de este aviso de PAC sea enviado por correo o e.ntregado a cada r residente,lugar de riegocio u organization existente dentro del:area propuesta para el proyecto `r,. El area del proyectotiene limites.ilustrados en el mapa'acompanando este aviso.Personas interesadas pueden I r I[am ar a la Oficina de la Agencia de%urbanizacionen el•Centro Civico entre Ias horas de las 8:00 A.M.y las 5:00 P.M. n para,informacion adicional tocante'el proyecto de reurbanizaction para la•formacion del Comite del Area del Proyecto-(714).536-8853: ft Alicia M.Wentworth,Secretarla Municipal,Culdad,de'Huntington Beach c .au 4 s� Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September. 1961. and A-24831, dated 11 June. 1963. d,� STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Puottc Notice AOverliLng covered oy tets affidavit is "1 in point .ath to pica column width - U��'?7y Cat•`,, I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of \ o the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below `y n entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange ar Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange. State of California, and that a Notice of Public Meeting of which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for TWn consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of a. t November 12 198 6 November 20 198 6 198- 198- 198 1 declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 20 , 198 6 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION IMP w M J _74 7 -Air- a A., 41! 0 T I,& MA A ErFl X- ,�fr FOU' E-T]"N �'e 0 iF:�71' J Em "Ta S HU- 1, wv_�ff x- T G_ E , REE NT Beac has authorized th GIVEN THAT the iciiy1co Uridii"' t.t h 61.Itrt,� -uMingiop; e setting of A W'T f H t e as'the place.for a public'O'Q d�y,beomb6r, 1986,at the h6urof.A'0'o'P.M,1�a, h tfkp h pi Chqm,bet P �yrpj �A rojecl i!r the purp6s�g!J h" '�fing to be held for 5�,rriin .91p6sed,Huntirigtob n e 6 a c Boulevard Redevelopment Committee is to- com d qf,and'selected by residential owner occupants resi&OUP,.Abnants,. bu§inegspersons-ogn6 ei. 'eris omstino.,commuhity 's:within4he .'rgPGV8h proposed pr6j6d�f1r6- r: J City, -ounci 1'.v�ijl r!�yi e coin p r a PAC in,order to appr it as acre nrt"Y� pject are positl0wof thee Rve preSe� m 'te-q'_."bnce,po approved;the right to.review the proposed red661opment plgKfbr the project M area Tarid�'t&report and make recommendations on the plan to'.'the City'Council..The'�ed4�V61opJ ent:Agencywill consult with and obtain'the advice of the briber-h A'� c -6 4n g matters of pdlicyWhich�affgct the reside4its,of the Project ,A area'd-ri"the preparationi' 'bf the plaean'd'f'o'r''at"'mi'n'imumpf,.3,.�,ears after a'60'6tioq.6TOe p_la6. during lip 0 ''The°City'Council has directed that ?p 'd to each resident,place of �y of,,this'PAC notice mailed or delivered business and existing organization withinthe,pTpposO,,',O project area, N EDINGER The .rojbct,area,hasthe boundaries illustrAtb61n-the map,acpompanyipg-this notice.-Interested persons may call c Center the-.houni�df 8 NY1141NI between 'thb'�Offibe of the-.Redevelopment Agen"6yl nie :do A.M.'.and%5:00 P.M. for-'.�gd'di,ii66al;i6ibrr�alioh concerning the redevelopment project for formation of the Project Area Committee—(714) WARNER 536-5583.',` Beac 1AII6IaiM.,WOntworth City Clerk,Cfty,6f:HWi1Ifigt61h* h TALBERT AVISOMEAEUNION PUBLICA AN A.,EL OkOYECTO DE'AgUkg-�WZACTION-DE -H ' 'tiNdT6 BE I H, :btACH"BOULEVARM CD UN 0 GARFIELD. A," PO RiM EDIO DE�LA,P RES ENTE SE DA-A,VISL O-Up,el C' 'c6j6Muhic.ipqi'del"l'I'dC'iLidAd deHuntingtbn:Be,�tchha on . _Municipal t lr:i'zyaldo'Cii'a-r,'e'.I,,dia.3 de diciembre de,1986, '00,P.M.y ha'fijado-la arriaialdelCohbejocomoel luga16 fig -Q�,de.jas7.-. r para-una a'6666ia-pUblica la cua seratcohducida para ellorgopo§ito d I rirfi Uhili�rdgfkea el Proyepto r-- '-' �' . 1 - . �. .-, ..1 .11!A". . . A, j .; . . P'A .' e _" '.�'?i V.b to ite del Area C-)LO,4t�3',i�l propuiesto.P,rbyeict6de , ,,,��Ri! n de H6;n't6n`g'ton Beach E��y! ADAMS ppecto sera�compuestb`e y se eqi%rYd _Uilinosjesiden ciales, r r I tes,i�Os!.qOqciaI&s'j inq q,rrer, pietariosocupan P s66i d dad 6xistbntes dentrb.d,ellaeda-ddi"p'e6yte6i6.... os' e.organizactioi R, hii p,��al reiy'ip�ra r6composicion,de,RAC para--ap'r'b'barl6,,como un.coMle e,'eO,eesedtante del ar&461. ATLANTA 'j�"r-.�6��gnizacion�propuesi'o'O,�'i c ra el'�rlea zs 6 aprobado,VAL;tenqWg1,pMF%o dqr.reyJ,qar.e plan i al�'La'A6enti��,�de e n-enclaciones solprp;,';el p'.Iaq-_.a.i,i:conceIo uRic!p,, co rn,r 'Qde-politics:' ld,cual.afectd.61 ten ffln 6jtd�il?, ..,tocahte 6�asuntos; os residences ..... ...... g, , 1,,. _ _ d u anos d6sb'Uei*'de"la �adoqI prea.del:proyecto r n t 2,,,l Ac'; n. e pan y uranteun,;minimo.le p'% del plann C.10 PAC o entredado a cads Municipal ha dingi o ue un 1 copra e'este aviso. e sea envia o�por correo residence lugar,de egociouorganiz ciA".'xist ntei-entrb Oella'rea propuest'6 para el,proyecto. h I C) 0 members -V" t "i tl area de(-Oioyecto tiene limites ilustrad6s,en,,,el-"mapa acompanartdo.este aviso.PerSOhas,interesadas pue.den Ham ar a ha bfibina de la Ag6hcia de Reurbanizacion en-?l Centro Civic6entte las horas de las'8:00 A.M.y las 5:00 P*'M. proyp urbanlzaction'para la formacion del Comite del Area 'araOo`rma6o�adicional tocante el del oyect6-(7J4)536-8853. Alicia M.WentWorth,Secretaria Munlclpal,,.Culdad de Huntington Beach tt- Authorized to Publish Advertisements of all kinds including public _ notices by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, California, Number A-6214, dated 29 September, 1961. and A-24831. dated 11 June. 1963. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Orange Pubic Nonce Advernaing covered by MIS etlidevn 13 Mt in 7 pant wdh to pace column width I am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with which is combined the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Orange, State of California, and that a Notice of Public ' .Meeting of,which copy attached hereto is a true and complete copy, was printed and published in the Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, Fountain Valley, Irvine, the South Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for two consecutive weeks to wit the issue(s) of November 20 198 6 November 28 198 6 198 ;198 198 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on November 28 198 6 at Costa Mesa, California. Signature PROOF OF 'PUBLICATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR FORMATION OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH--BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has authorized the setting of 3rd day,December, 1986,at the hour of 7:00 P.,'.1.,as the time and fixed the Council Chambers as the place for a public meeting to be held for the purpose of forming a Project Area Committee(PAC)for the proposed Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project.The Project Area Committee is to be composed of and selected by residential owner occupants, residential tenants, businesspersons and members of existing community organizations within the proposed project area. <_ U l,J N The City Council will review the composition of the PAC in order to approve it as a representative project area {04;.t•••:;:.BF . committee.Once so approved,the PAC will have the right to review the proposed redevelopment plan for the project - �:'_ n area and to report and make recommendations on the plan to the City Council.The Redevelopment Agency will o $� consult with and obtain the advice of the PAC concerning matters of policy which affect the residents of the Project area during the preparation of the plan and for a minimum of 3 years after adoption of the plan. The City Council has directed that a copy of this PAC notice be mailed or delivered to each resident, place of �OF� business and existing organization within the proposed project area. r _N The Project area has the boundaries illustrated in the map accompanying this notice.Interested persons may call LII IfdGEk the Office of the Redevelopment Agency at the Civic Center between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. for additional information concerning the redevelopment project for formation of the Project Area Committee—(714) 536-5583. WARNER Alicia M.Wentworth,City Clerk,City of Huntington Beach AVISO DE REUNION PUBLICA PARAEL PROYECTO DE REURBANIZACTION DE r,��sERr HUNTINGTON BEACH—BEACH BOULEVARDCD m . POR MEDIO DE LA PRESENTE SE DA AVISO que el Concejo Municipal del la Ciudad de Huntington Beach ha hb:r I i Li! autorizado filar el dia 3 de diciembre de 1986,a la hora de las 7:00 P.M.y ha fijado la Camara del Concejo como el lugar para una audiencia publica la cual sera conducida para el proposito de formar el Comite del Area del Proyecto (PAC),para el propuesto Proyecto de Reurbanizacion de Huntington Beach—Beach Boulevard.El Comite del Area del Proyecto sera compuesto de y seleccionado por propietarios ocupantes residenciales,inquilinos,residenciales, �fi iilull;E: empresarios y socios de organizactiones del la comunidad existentes dentro del area del proytecto. El Concejo Municipal revisara la composition de PAC para aprobarlo como un comite representante del area del ,;, proyecto.Una vez sea aprobado,PAC tendra el derecho de revisar el plan de reurbanizacion propuesto pars el area del proyecto y reportar y hater recommendaciones sobre el plan at Concejo Municipal. La Agencia de Reurbanizacion consultara con u obtendra el consejo de PAC tocante a asuntos de politica la cual afecta a los residentes del area del proyecto durante la preparation del plan y durante un minimo de 3 anos despues de la adoption del plan. El Concejo Municipal ha dirigido que una copia de este aviso de PAC sea enviado por correo o entregado a cada residente,lugar de negocio u organization existente dentro del area propuesta para el proyecto. • z El area del proyecto tiene limites ilustrados en el mapa acompanando este aviso.Personas interesadas pueden a la Oficina de la Agencia de Reurbanizacion en el Centro Civico entre las horas de las 8:00 A.M.y las 5:00 P.M. para information adicional tocante el proyecto de reurbanizaction para la formation del Comite del Area del 'Proyecto-(7'`14)536-8853. Alicia M.Wentworth,Secretarla Municipal,Culdad de Huntington Beach NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR FORMATION OF PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT O E]INGER WARNER i;LDERT = '�FJr �1 ' U� W iNsto�� w PU y � o cn _ U LU CD MTY FG LD as z O Q - N - EDINGER WARNER .,` TALBERT a 0 GARF I ELI ADAMS fC CO, yfGy� ATLANTA 9y ,LMM.Plll[i^aSPi7s5 �I � -- Edinger Avenua v. T. IN HiPIIII�II I II I Ti. ll...l ..� I !Ter!.4venua it (J Illl!I!IiIIilGillll I �l 71.I.I ��?IidIullGiiGG. I I I III - if r --- p� Warnar Avenue I �I l.lm. Ll 'uJlLl Ipnmcii{Ilmmu +r. I 111 ULLllll 'Ifi' �III,I�I 1 1 1 +7}IIJLi,�� I �f sldlar Avenue • - 'n � 1rl R 1.1 l., I4' z2 Ls lbO J.lT... '�• Talborl Avenuo «:` 4�W 11 f'— HISAve S � }%• .4+I �I. GI III. I�;r, 'tdic .!{I"I^� �-- Garli 11 .avenua y cr[ II IJl I� 1T tf� ra . V. i ' Ugi(al Yorktown !.venue �\ Ril r r IIIII I I, Il,y' III HIf ]LI1C1 (�r i Jllj nmd c I IId1? 1.Llll� uGfS III{•. _. L�1 Adams Avenue 1[I]L ,—, [�InnIIIHAOMI ` lll!.1�, lrnmerx�lJ. I .e�i,.'r InUiandonlis Aven;re L. rrfllillm r ; 1S11j1 !' I `�`.p'.�lffi�lllllj}i r�',rr, t f 'rllliS'1'f%I L_1_JG[3..._ AUanla Avenue North ,, �`\...�"�� II �1I���:lfil�i Iglu. Ii �I►rI o2000 Ha melon Avenue scale In tnel Beach Bcjwr avard Redeveiopment Project REQI0ST FOR CITY COUW-AL _ REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACC 8 Oc OrebT 1986 Date a'tt Honorable Mayor & City Council Members � &yIJ Submitted to: Honorable Chairman & Redevelopment Agency tubers Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrat Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administr for (O Subject: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS FOR BEACH BOULEVARD RE EVELOPMENT PROJECT AREEA-_. ' el Consistent with Council Policy? Yes New Policy or Exception Y �xl � � cY P ReS. 13a. CC�c-y ) Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE Subsequent to the adoption of a preliminary plan, the Health and Safety Code requires that the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution receiving the preliminary plan and authorizing other actions and that the City Council adopt a reso N calling for formation for a Project Area Committee. Such resolutions are a or the Council / Agency's consideration, , RECOMMENDATION CQ / Approve and authorize the Clerk to execute the attached resolution p42 ANALYSIS ozTY L R With the approval of the Preliminary Plan and project area boundaries by the Planning Commission on Tuesday, October 14, 1986, its now necessary for the Redevelopment Agency and City Council to take separate actions to forward the project area adoption process for Beach Boulevard. Specifically the Redevelopment Agency must adopt a resolution receiving the approved Preliminary Plan, directing staff to prepare the Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Impact Report, establishing the base year for the Project Area, and authorizing transmittal of information to taxing entities-and officials. Because the project area as proposed includes residential uses, it will be necessary to form a Project Area Committee (PAC). After approval by the Planning Commission of a preliminary plan, it's necessary for the City Council to adopt a resolution calling for the formation of a Project Area Committee and establishing the date for the first organizational meeting. Such a resolution is attached for the Council's consideration. These actions are representative of the commencement of the lengthy process through which a new redevelopment project area is created. Attached for the Council / Agency's information is a detailed schedule of all the activities which would lead to the I adoption. of a Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area in July, 1987. Also attached is a summary of the dates upon which significant Planning Commission, City Council, or Redevelopment Agency Actions will be required. Most significant amongst all the public considerations of the proposed project area, is the joint public hearing by PIO 4/84 i Honorable Mayor & City Council Members Honorable Chairman & Redevelopment Agency Members Page 2 of 2 8 October 1986 ANALYSIS - CONTINUED the City Council and Redevelopment Agency on the proposed Redevelopment Plan and Environmental Impact Report. According to the schedule attached, this joint hearing would occur on June 15, 1987. In addition, residents and property owners within the proposed area are kept informed of the progress of the adoption process in a variety of ways. First, to initiate the formation of a Project Area Committee, each business owner, property owner, and residential tenant, and pertinent community group within the proposed project area will be notified by mail of the date, time and location of the first organizational meeting of the PAC. In addition notices will be posted in conspicuous locations within the proposed project area, and a display ad will be purchased in the local press. A similar procedure will be conducted to provide broad public notice of the joint public hearing mentioned above and at other appropriate times throughout the adoption process. ALTERNATIVES Do not approve the attached Resolutions. This will pre-empt moving forward with the adoption of the Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. FISCAL IMPACT Staff and consultant services paid from Redevelopment Agency Budget. Attachments: Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency Beach Boulevard Preliminary Plan Resolution of the City Council Schedule of Adoption Process I I i' - • city o{f Huntington Beach CALENDAR OF OFFICIAL MEETING DATES JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH SUNFMON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI BAT \ 2 3 \ \ 57 �, 9 \o \\ 2 '3 5 G• I � 2 3 �zIS \L \� \b 9 to \t \Z. 13 \� 1S `\ 10 \\ 1Z 13 1`�- 1S-Z3 L� Z r 1 t. 1l \ \1 20 2\ Z.Z 16 Il \ .\5 2S� -11 -L L"1 1Y APRIL MAY JUNE TNMON TUE WED THU ..1FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT Z. 3 \ 2 '3 `� S 6 ? Sy - o `\ \r 9 k c t\5 f tL t1 \S 1L 1-1 1 V \Ck w z\ vL 1-5 L+ L2 Z3 Z� zs �� z-1 zg . L1 2Y L� 30 Li Z7 1tc L`\ 3o 31 L5 30 JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED I THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU I FRI SAT I 1 t 3 4 5 V z 3 s L l It S t,0 \\ t'2_ 3 -� s '1 Y -7 $ 1 t o \\ t z. \-3 \3 14 \S 1L \-I t8 \g \o \t \L \3 \'L tS 1'- tl \4 Ng Zo 10 2.\ zL L'� 2 s� 1 J.L \l 'I-1 12 2`1 30 3\ 2.S ZL 17 zti zFN jo 2-v 25 30 31 P.C. Ac,4:vuy% I. act OCT BER NOVEMBER DECEMBER JUMON TUE WED THU FRI T SUN M N TUE WED THU FRI SAT JUON TUE WED THU FRI SAT \3 -12 Z"i -L+ ZS 1c. 1°\ LD 7_\ 1-Z1L i3 ZL4 t1 -I. L7 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (first and third Mondays) R, 4. CITY COUNCIL (first and third Mondays) C • C . AV PLANNING CW24ISSION (first and third Tuesdays) P. C . unT.Tr)AY 987 • City of Huntington Beach CALENDAR OF OFFICIAL MEETING DATES fZ.4. AG4,o^ A Ac,f /JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH JNJWED THU FRI SAT SUN O TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MO TUE WED THU FRI SAT I 2 3 ► y 6 6 7 1 Li S 6 7 7 8 9 10 8' 9 10 II 12 13 114 g to 11 12 13 1`t 15 16 17 15 16 It 19 20 21 IS 18 19 2021 21 22 23. 24 22 23 29 26 26 27 28 22 23 2y 1.25. 2C 27 28 25 26 27 28 29 30 81 29 30 31 R. R-.A. ext. A RIL MAY TUNE SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN ON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN M N TUE WED THU FRI SAT t 2 3 1 2 3 Li S t; 5 8 9 to it 3 6 7 $ 9 7 Cl to It 1� 1 12 13 ty IS Ie 1117 18 to I1 12 13 14 IS IG 114 17 t8 19 20 19 22 23129 25 17 20 21 22 23 2l 22 23 24 25 2c 27 26 27 28 29 30 2q © 2c 27 28 29 30 28' 29 3o 31 TJULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER SUN I MO TUE WED THU FRI 1 SAT SUN FMON I TUE WED I THU I FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 1 2 3 y 1 2 3 '1 .5 S 8 9 to II 2 5 6 7 8' . 6 7 9 10 it 12 . Iz is 14 is IC 17 to 9 to 11 12 13 14 Its ?3 1Li IG 17 18 19 19 22 23 29 25 16 19 -20 21 22 20 22 23 24 2S 126 2G 27 28 29 30 81 2� 2 s11 25 2G 27 2$ 29 27 2V 29. 30 OCTOBER NOVEMBER _ DECEMBER SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT SUN MON TUE WEE) THU FRI SAT 2 3 I 4 6 G 7 2 3 4 s #2-G 7 8 9 to $ 9 10 (t t2 t3 ly 6 8 9 to 11 12I14 I5 1G 17 I5 18 19 20 21 13 1-y 16 17 18• 19 121 22 23 29 22 23 1Y 25 2 27 28 20 22 23 2y 22 2.8 29 30131 a 130 2-1 28' 29 3o 81 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (first and third Mondays) CITY COUNCIL (first and third Mondays) . AW PLANNING COMMISSION (first and third Tuesdays) 0 HOLIDAY KatzHollis 082686'. 0755.hnt/f j HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REVISED SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS for the Adoption of the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach - Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project Date Date Accomplished _Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 1. CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution designating Redevelopment Survey Area. 1. Resolution 2. Survey Area Map 2. 10/21/85 CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution designating Amended Redevelopment Survey Area. 1. Resolution 2. Amended Survey Area Map 3. 10/23/85 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and 01/13/86 submits administrative draft of Preliminary Plan for Project Area. 1. Administrative draft Preliminary Plan 4. 10/28/85 AGENCY STAFF and legal counsel review and 01/30/86 forward to Redevelopment Consultant comments on administrative draft Preliminary Plan. 1. Administrative draft Preliminary Plan 2. Comments on draft 5. 10/31/85 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and 02/20/86 submits final Preliminary Plan. 1. Final Preliminary Plan 6. 08/25/86 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and submits administrative draft of proposed Rede- velopment Plan. 1. Administrative Draft Proposed Redevelop- ment Plan Katz H0l I is Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action,_and_Documents(s.) and Document No. 7. 09/22/86 AGENCY STAFF and legal counsel review and forward to Redevelopment Consultant comments on administrative draft proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Administrative draft proposed Redevelop- ment Plan 2. Comments on draft 8. 09/29/86 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and submits final draft of proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 9. 10/07/86 PLANNING COMMISSION. adopts resolution selecting Project Area, establishing boundaries, formulating and adopting Preliminary Plan for Project Area and authorizing transmittal of same to Redevelopment Agency for preparation of the Project Redevelopment Plan. 1. Resolution 2. Preliminary Plan 3. Project Area Map 4. Project Area Boundary (Legal) Description 10. 10/08/86 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF delivers adopted Preliminary Plan for Project Area to Redevelop- ment Agency. 1. Preliminary Plan for Project Area 2. Project Area Map 3. Project Area Boundary (Legal) Description 11. 10/08/86 AGENCY STAFF completes list of residential owner occupants, residential tenants, busi- nesses, existing organizations and last known assessees for all parcels within Project Area. 1. List of residential owner occupants 2. List of residential tenants 3. List of businesses 4. List of existing organizations 5. List of last known assessees 2 Katz Hol l is Date. Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY _Actions and Documents(s) and Document No. 12. 10/08/86 AGENCY STAFF orders publication of notice concerning community meeting to form PAC, from Huntington Beach News. 1. Meeting notice 2. Project Area map 13. 10/20/86 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution receiving adopted Preliminary Plan, directing staff to prepare Redevelopment Plan and Envi- ronmental Impact Report, establishing year of last equalized assessment roll proposed to be used for allocation of taxes, and authorizing transmittal of information to taxing agencies and officials. 1. Resolution 2. Preliminary Plan 14. By REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and 10/20/86 submits list of names and addresses of govern- ing bodies of taxing agencies which levy ad valorem taxes in Project Area (affected taxing agencies), and county and state taxing officials to whom adoption notices must be transmitted. 1. List of governing bodies of affected taxing agencies 2. List of taxing officials 15. 10/20/86 City Council adopts resolution calling for formation of a representative Project Area Committee (PAC) and establishing procedures therefor. . 1. Resolution 16. 10/21/86 AGENCY STAFF transmits Project Area bound- ary (legal) description and map of Project Area, a statement that a plan for the redevelopment of the Project Area is being prepared, and a statement advising of the last equalized assessment roll proposed to be used for the allocation of taxes to: 3 Katz Hol 1 is Date- Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 16. (cont'd) A. Governing bodies of all taxing agencies which levy ad valorem taxes in Project Area (affected taxing agencies); B. County Auditor-Controller; C. County Tax Assessor; D. County Tax Collector; and E. State Board of Equalization 1. Cover letters 2. Statement 3. Project Boundary (Legal) Description 4. Project Area Map 5. Filing fee (to State Board of Equaliza- tion only) 17. 10/21/86 AGENCY STAFF and REDEVELOPMENT CONSUL to TANT consult with affected taxing agencies 05/14/87 with respect to proposed Redevelopment Plan and allocation of taxes, and REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares summary of such con- sultations for inclusion in Agency's Report to City Council on proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Letters to and from taxing agencies 2. Memos to file re telephone conversations with taxing agency officials 3. Summary of consultations 18. By AGENCY STAFF/EIR CONSULTANT, with assist- 10/21/86 ance of REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT, complete preparation of Initial Study and project description per Section 15124(a)(d) of State EIR Guidelines to be used in preparing Project EIR, and identifies all responsible agencies. 1. Project description 2. Responsible agency list 3. Initial Study 19. By EIR CONSULTANT begins preparing Draft EIR. 10/21/86 1. EIR Initial Study 4 KatzH®llis Date. Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 20. 10/21/86 AGENCY STAFF transmits a Notice of Prepara- tion, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to each responsible agency and to each affected taxing agency stating that a Draft EIR will be prepared. STAFF receives and forwards replies to EIR consultant. 1. Notice of Preparation 2. Replies from responsible agencies (within 30 days of receipt) 21. 10/23/86 Huntington Beach _News publishes notice concerning community meeting to form PAC, and provides Agency staff with . affidavit of publication. 1. Notice of community .meeting 2. Project Area Map 3. Affidavit of publication 22. Within State Board of Equalization (SBE) and county approx. taxing officials notify Agency of acceptance of 15 days Project Area Map and Project Boundary (Legal) of 15 Description. above. (By 11/05/86) 1. Letter(s) from SBE and county taxing officials 23. Prior to AGENCY STAFF mails or delivers notice of Community community meeting to residential owner occu- Meeting pants, residential tenants, businesses, existing (Action 24 organizations and last known assessees in Pro- below) ject Area, and prepares affidavits of mailing or delivery. 1. Transmittal letter 2. Notice of community meeting 0 5 J y. Katz Hof 1 is Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY Action,_ and Documents(s) and Document No. 24. By AGENCY STAFF conducts community meeting for 11/06/86 purposes of: a) informing property owners, residents, businesses, and existing organi- zations of plans to establish a redevelopment project; and b) for formation of representative PAC for the Project Area. STAFF prepares minutes of meeting upon completion of meeting. 1. Agenda 2. Background information handouts and graphics 3. Minutes of meeting 25. 11/17/86 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT completes prepa- ration and submits preliminary drafts of following documents: A. Owner Participation and Preferences Rules B. Preliminary Project Report, including the following 5 parts: 1. Reasons for selection of Project Area 2. Description of conditions in Project Area (blight) report) 3. Preliminary assessment of method of financing and economic feasibility 4. Description of the proposed projects 5. Description of how projects will improve or alleviate blight conditions 26. 11/17/86 CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution approving representative PAC from Project Area. 1. Resolution 27. 11/18/86 AGENCY STAFF provides staff assistance to and to conducts regular meetings with approved PAC. 06/15/87 STAFF prepares minutes of meeting, and REDE- VELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares summary of PAC record for inclusion in Agency's Report to City Council on proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Minutes of meetings 2. PAC Summary 6 JKatz Hol lis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY_Actions and Documents) and Document No. 28. 11/17/86 EIR CONSULTANT completes preparation and submits administrative draft of Draft EIR, and AGENCY STAFF completes preparation of list of persons/groups with environmental expertise or who have commented on related past EIRs or who have requested copy of EIR. 1. Administrative draft Draft EIR 2. List of persons/groups 29. 11/28/86 AGENCY STAFF and legal counsel review and forward comments to Redevelopment Consultant on preliminary drafts of Preliminary Project . Report and Owner Participation and Prefer- ences Rules. 1. Preliminary draft documents 2. Comments on drafts 30. 12/09/86 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT completes and submits final drafts of following documents: 1. Preliminary Project Report 2. Owner Participation and Preferences Rules 31. 12/12/86 AGENCY STAFF and legal counsel review and forward comments- to EIR Consultant on admini- strative draft of Draft EIR. 1. Administrative draft Draft EIR . 2. Comments on draft 32. 12/15/86. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution receiving proposed Redevelopment Plan and authorizing transmittal to: a) affected taxing agencies and to fiscal review committee (if one is created) for fiscal impact consultations; b) to Planning Commission for its report and recommendations; and c) to Project Area Com- mittee for its report and recommendation. 1. Resolution 2. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 7 \1 KatzHolfis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s} and Document No. 33. 12/15/86 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution receiving Preliminary Project Report and authorizing transmittal to affected taxing agencies and to fiscal review committee (if one is created) for fiscal .impact consultations. 1. Resolution 2. Preliminary 34. Within 60 COUNTY FISCAL OFFICER (Auditor-Controller) days of prepares report of Project Area base year No. 15 values and other data required by Health and (By Safety Code Section 33328, and transmits to , 12/22/86) Redevelopment Agency. AGENCY STAFF for- wards copy of report to Redevelopment Consul- tant for preparation of analysis and for insertion of report and analysis into Agency's Report to City Council. y 1. County fiscal officer report 2. Analysis of report. 35. After 33 AGENCY STAFF, after receiving county fiscal above officer's report, transmits Preliminary Project 12/23/86 Report to governing bodies of affected taxing agencies. 1. Letters of transmittal 2. Preliminary Project Report 36. 12/26/86 EIR CONSULTANT completes and submits final Draft EIR. 1. Draft EIR 37. 12/30/86 AGENCY STAFF orders publication of notice of completion and availability of ' Draft EIR and public hearing thereon from Huntington Beach News. 1. Notice of completion and availability 8 Katz Hol i i s Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 38. 01/05/87 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution receiving and authorizing circulation of Draft EIR to public agencies and others for public review and comment, and authorizing publica- tion of notice of completion and availability of Draft EIR. 1. Resolution 2. Draft EIR 39. 01/06/87 AGENCY STAFF mails Draft EIR to public agencies including State Clearinghouse, affected taxing agencies, fiscal review committee (if one if created) and to Planning Commission, PAC, to persons/groups having environmental expertise or who have commented on related past EIRs or who have requested copy of EIR, and to libraries for public review and comment; and mails notice of completion and availability to other interested persons and groups. 1. Transmittal Letters 2. Notice of completion and availability 3. Notice of Completion and Environmental Document form 4. Draft EIR 40. 01/06/87 AGENCY STAFF receives comments on Draft EIR to and forwards to EIR Consultant for preparation 02/20/86 of responses thereto for incorporation into (public Final EIR. review and 1. Comments on Draft EIR comment 2. Responses to comments period) 41. Within Any affected taxing agency calls for creation 15 days of fiscal review committee to report on fiscal of 35 impact of proposed Redevelopment Plan, and ° above notifies Redevelopment Agency at same time. (By AGENCY STAFF forwards copy of notice to O1/07/87) Redevelopment Consultant. 1. Notice of call for creation of fiscal review committee 9 r h KatzHolfis Date. Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITYjAction, _and Documents(s) and Document No. 42. 01/08/87 Huntington _Beach News publishes notice of and completion and availability of Draft EIR, and 01/22`/87 public hearing thereon, two times and provides Agency Staff with affidavits of publication. 1. Notice of completion and availability 2. Affidavits of publication 43. Upon AGENCY STAFF commences consultations on formation proposed Redevelopment Plan with fiscal review of Commit- committee, prior to transmitting proposed Rede- tee (By velopment Plan to committee. STAFF keeps 01/09/87) minutes of meetings. STAFF mails or delivers proposed Redevelopment Plan to chairpersons of committee after consultations have begun. 1. Letter to fiscal review committee 2. Minutes of meetings with. committee 3. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 44. 02/02/87 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY holds public hearing on Draft EIR. EIR CONSULTANT prepares list of persons/groups commenting, summarizes V written and oral comments received, and pre- pares responses thereto for incorporation into Final EIR. 1. Draft EIR 2. List of persons/groups commenting 3. Comments and responses 45. After 25 FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE holds hearing on days but fiscal impact of proposed Redevelopment Plan. before Hearing may be recessed but must be com- 40 days pleted within 15 days of commencement. of 43 above. (Close by 03/05/87) 46. By EIR CONSULTANT prepares and submits draft 02/28/87 of Final EIR with summary of all written and oral comments received during public review and at public hearing, and responses thereto. 1. Draft of Final EIR a 10 Katz Hol l is Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 47. 03/06/87 AGENCY STAFF mails or delivers proposed Redevelopment Plan, Preliminary Report, and Draft EIR to Planning Commission and PAC for report and recommendations. (To be received at Commission's 03/17/87 meeting.) 1. Letter of transmittal 2. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 3. Preliminary Report 4. Draft EIR 48. 03/07/87 AGENCY STAFF and legal counsel review and forward comments on draft Final EIR to EIR Consultant. 1. Draft of Final EIR 2. Comments on draft 49. 03/11/87 EIR CONSULTANT prepares Final EIR and sub- mits to Agency Staff. 1. Final EIR 50. 03/16/87 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution certifying adequacy of Final EIR, making necessary environmental findings and, if necessary, adopting statement of overriding conditions, and authorizing transmittal to City Council. 1. Resolution 2. Final EIR 51. 03/30/87 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and submits preliminary draft of Agency's Report to City Council on proposed Redevelopment Plan, including the following 12 parts: 1. Reasons for selection of Project Area: description of proposed projects; de- scription of how projects will eliminate blight conditions; and explanation why private enterprise alone cannot accom- plish public improvements. 2. Description of conditions in Project Area (blight report) 11 J M KatzHolfis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 51. (cont'd) 3. Proposed method of financing 4. Plan and method of relocation 5. Analysis of Preliminary Plan for Project Area 6. Report and recommendations of Planning Commission and report required by Sec- tion 65402 of Government Code 7. Project Area Committee Record 8. Final EIR (from EIR Consultant) 9. County fiscal officer report 10. Fiscal review committee report 11. Neighborhood impact report 12. Analysis of county fiscal officer report; summary of consultations with affected taxing agencies; and analysis of response to fiscal review committee report 52. Within FISCAL REVIEW COMMITTEE prepares and 30 days adopts report on fiscal impact of proposed of 45 Redevelopment Plan, and transmits copy to above Redevelopment Agency and to State Director of (By Housing and Community Development. 04/06/87) 1. Letters of transmittal 2. Fiscal review committee report 53. 04/07/87 PLANNING COMMISSION adopts resolution approving its report and recommendations:. on proposed Redevelopment Plan, finding that it conforms to General Plan, and authorizing transmittal to Redevelopment Agency and City Council. 1. Resolution 2. Report and recommendations 54. 04/08/87 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF mails or delivers Planning Commission's report and recommenda- tions to Redevelopment Agency. AGENCY STAFF forwards copy to Redevelopment Consultant for insertion into Report to Council. 1. Letter of transmittal 2. Report and recommendations 12. KatZHolfis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE and Documents a) and Document No. 55. 04/10/87 AGENCY STAFF and legal counsel review and forward comments on preliminary draft Report. to City Council to Redevelopment Consultant. 1. Report to City Council 2. Comments on Report 56. 04/24/87 REDEVELOPMENT CONSULTANT prepares and submits final draft of Agency's Report to City Council on proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Final draft Report to City Council 57. Upon AGENCY STAFF forwards copy of fiscal review receipt committee report to Redevelopment Consultant of for preparation of analysis and response and report for insertion of report and response into Agency's Report to City Council. 1. Fiscal review committee report 2. Analysis of and response to report 58. 05/04/87 CITY CLERK, in cooperation with AGENCY STAFF, orders publication of notice of joint public hearing on proposed Redevelopment Plan in Huntington Beach News. 1. Notice of joint public hearing (including map of Project Area and legal descrip- tion of Project Area boundary) 59. 05/04/87 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution approving and adopting Owner Participation and Preferences Rules and authorizing trans- mittal to City Council. 1. Resolution 2. Owner Participation and Preferences Rules 13 KatzHollis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 60. 05/04/87 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution approving its Report to City Council on pro- posed Redevelopment Plan, authorizing submit- tal of Report and Redevelopment Plan to City Council, consenting to joint public hearing with City Council on proposed Redevelopment Plan, and requesting City Council to set time, date and place therefor. 1. Resolution 2. Report to City Council (including Final EIR) 3. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 61. 05/04/87 CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution receiving pro- posed Redevelopment Plan, Agency's Report to City Council, and Owner Participation and Pre- ferences Rules, consenting to joint public hearing with Redevelopment Agency on pro- posed Redevelopment Plan, and setting time, date and place thereof. 1. Resolution 2. Report to City Council (including Final EIR) 3. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 4. Owner Participation and Preferences Rules 62. By PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE adopts report on 05/07/87 proposed Redevelopment Plan, and AGENCY STAFF forwards copy to Redevelopment Consul- tant for insertion into Agency's Report to City Council. PAC also approves Owner Partici- pation and Preferences Rules. 1. PAC report on proposed Redevelopment Plan 2. Owner Participation and Preferences Rules 63. 05/14/87, Huntington_Beach_ _News publishes notice of 05/21/87, joint public hearing once a week for five (5) 05/28/87, consecutive weeks, and provides Agency staff 06/09/87, with affidavits of publication. and 06/11/86 1. Notice of joint public hearing (including map and legal description of boundary of Project Area) 2. Affidavits of publication 14 Katz Hol l is Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) . and Document No. 64. By AGENCY STAFF prepares updated lists of resi- 05/22/87 dential owner occupants, residential tenants, businesses, existing organizations and last known assessees within Project Area. 1. Updated lists 65. By AGENCY STAFF mails (certified mail, return 05/24/87 receipt requested) copy of notice of joint public hearing, map of Project Area and legal description of Project Area boundaries and cover letter (which includes condemnation statement) to governing bodies of affected taxing agencies, and to last known assessees of each parcel in Project Area. STAFF also mails or delivers notice, map, and cover letter to residential owner occupants, residential ten- ants, businesses, and existing organizations within Project Area. STAFF prepares affidavits of mailing and/or delivery. 1. Cover letters 2. Notice of joint public hearing ' (as published) 3. Map of Project Area and legal descrip- tion of Project Area boundaries 4. Affidavits 66. 06/11/87 AGENCY STAFF prepares and mails or delivers document binders to Redevelopment Agency/ City Council members containing documents 'to be considered or referred to at joint public hearing, including: 1. Binder transmittal letter, agenda, pro- cedure, question and comment form 2. Proposed Redevelopment Plan 3. Report to City Council (including Final EIR and PAC report) ' 4. Owner Participation and Preferences Rules 5. Resolutions and adoption ordinance 15 KatzH®llis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action1 and Documents(s) and Document No. 67. Prior to Any affected taxing agency which does not adoption enter into an agreement providing for the of Rede- Redevelopment Agency to make payments to velopment alleviate financial burden or detriment may Plan by adopt resolution pursuant to Health and Safety City Code Section 33676 electing to receive alloca- Council tion of taxes attributable to: 1) tax rate increases which would otherwise be allocated to the Redevelopment Agency; and 2) to annual inflationary increases (up to a maximum of 2 percent per annum) in. taxable value of Project Area as shown on base year assessment roll. Taxing agencies adopting such resolutions must transmit copies to Agency Board, City Council, and officials who levy and collect taxes for such agencies. 1. ResoIution(s) 68. 06/15/87 CITY COUNCIL and REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY hold joint public hearing on proposed Rede- velopment Plan. After all presentations have been made and responded to, and the hearing closed, the following actions/documents will be considered by the Redevelopment Agency and the City Council: A. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution finding the provision of low and moderate income housing outside of Project Area is of benefit to the Project. 1. Resolution B. If necessary, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY adopts resolution, with findings supported by substantial evidence, approving pay- ments to affected taxing agencies to allev- iate any financial burden or detriment caused by the Project. 1. Resolution 2. Substantial evidence supporting find- ings 16 KatzHollis Date Date Accomplished, Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Action, and Documents(s) and Document No. 68. (cont'd) C. CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution ruling on objections to the proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Resolution D. CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution certifying that Final EIR is adequate and, if neces- sary, adopting statement of overriding con- siderations. 1. Resolution 2. Final EIR E. CITY COUNCIL adopts resolution finding the provision of low and moderate income hous- ing outside the Project Area is of benefit to the Project. 1. Resolution F. If necessary, CITY COUNCIL adopts resolu- tion, with findings supported by substan- tial evidence, approving payments to taxing agencies to alleviate any financial burden or detriment caused by the Project. 1. Resolution 2. Substantial evidence supporting find- ings G. CITY COUNCIL gives first reading to ordin- ance adopting proposed Redevelopment Plan. 1. Ordinance 69. 07/06/87 CITY COUNCIL gives second reading to and thereby adopts ordinance adopting Redevelop- ment Plan. 1. Ordinance 17 Katz Hol 1 is Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY Actions_ and Documentajs) and Document No. 70. 07/07/87 CITY CLERK records a document (to be hand- carried to County Recorder's office) which states: 1. Boundary (legal) description of Project Area; and 2. Statement that redevelopment proceed- ings have been instituted in Project Area. 71. 07/07/87 CITY CLERK notifies City Building Department of the Redevelopment Plan and its ramifications upon their operations. 1. Cover letter 72. 07/07/87 AGENCY STAFF files with County Clerk EIR Notice of Determination concerning action taken by Agency on Project. (Notice to be hand- carried to County Clerk's office.) 1. EIR Notice of Determination 73. 07/07/87 CITY STAFF files with County Clerk EIR Notice of Determination concerning action taken by City Council on Project. (Notice to be hand- carried to County Clerk's office.) 1. EIR Notice of Determination 74. 07/07/87 CITY CLERK transmit copies of the ordinance adopting the Redevelopment Plan, the recorded document (see No. 70), and the Project Area Map to: A. Governing bodies of all taxing agencies which levy ad valorem taxes in Project Area (affected taxing agencies); B. County Tax Assessor; C. County Auditor-Controller; and D. State Board of Equalization 1. Cover letters 2. Recorded document 3. Project Area Map 4. Ordinance adopting Redevelopment Plan 18 KatZHollis Date Date Accomplished Scheduled RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, Actions and Documents(s) and Document No. 75. 07/07/87 CITY CLERK transmits copy of ordinance adopting Redevelopment Plan to Redevelopment Agency and causes the publication of the ordinance adopting Redevelopment Plan. 1. Transmittal letter 2. Ordinance 3. Affidavit of publication 19 J RESOL'UT I ON N0. 5718 A RESOLUTION OF THE- CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CALLING FOR THE FORMATION OF A PROJECT :AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES THEREFOR WHEREAS, pursuant to. the California Community Redevelopment . Law (Health and Safety Code, Section 33000) 8 the Planning ` Commission of the City of Huntington Beach has selected the boundaries and approved a Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project ; and WHEREAS:, the California Community Redevelopment Law requires that the City Council call upon the residents and existing community organizations in a redevelopment project area to form a representative Project Area Committee ( "PAC" ) , to be approved by z the City Council within 60 days after, the redevelopment project area is selected; s NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the. City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : I . The City Council hereby calls upon the residents , existing community organizations and businesses within the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project area to form a PAC and to attend a meeting on December 3, 1986 , at 7 : 00 P.M. , in the Civic Center Council Chambers , 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach for the purpose of forming a PAC. 2 . The Clerk shall give notice of the meeting by mailing or delivering a copy of the "NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR -FORMATION OF A PROJECT AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT" attached hereto as Exhibit "A" to each residence, place of business and existing community organization within the Project area , and shall cause a notice of- such meeting to be published in the Daily Pilot a newspaper of general circulation 3 . The PAC s I be comprised of not le han . 10 nor more :h,an. 25 members , an hall include, as requires* Section 33385 of . the Community Redevelopment Law, resident.ial . owner occupants , residential. tenants., businesspersons , and members' of• existing community . organizations within' the...Project area: Only` persons .'who k are. in: one, or.- more of the aforementioned categories--are eIigib.1e to. particFpate in the selection". of;. the PAC members: • r 4 The .PAC members shall be selected by vote of persons attending the above noticed meeting and one or. ,.more.. add i.t i o.na 1 ` reu ` themee i I ' members .shall select their own Chairman , Vice-Chairman. and other . officers. -.. The members shall serve without compensation: 5 ., The Chairman of the PAC shall attend the City Council meeting next following the organization of the PAC; and shall present a list of members and officers of the PAC together with such other information as is necessary to permit the City Council to conclude that a. representative PAC has been formed and is entitled to City Council approval . PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of adjourned Huntington Beach at a regular/meeting thereof held on the 27th day of October , 1986 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Agency Counsel REVIEWE APPROVE I TIA�ED AND APPROVED : City Administrator Debu y City Administrator Re elopment 2 EXHIBIT °A° NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING FOR FORMATION OF PROJECT. AREA COMMITTEE FOR THE . . HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD. REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT the City• Counci I : -of the Ci t.y, of Huntington Beach has authorized the setting of 3rd day, December 19.86, at the hour of 7:00 P.M. , as the time and fixed the council Chambers as the p l ace for a pub I i c. meeting to be held for the purpose of forming a Project Area Committee (PAC) for the proposed Huntington Beach-Beach. Boulevard Redevelopment Project. The Project Area Committee is to be composed of and selected by residential owner, occupants., residential tenants , businesspersons and members of existing community organizations within the proposed project area . The City Council will review the composition of the PAC in order to approve it as a representative project area committee . Once so approved, the PAC will have the right to review the proposed redevelopment plan for the project area and to report and make recommendations on the plan to the City Council . The Redevelopment Agency will consult with and obtain the. advice of the .PAC concerning matters of policy which affect the residents of the Project area during the. preparat i on of the plan and for a minimum of 3 years after adoption of the plan . The City Council has directed that a copy of this PAC notice be mailed or delivered to each resident , place of business and existing organization within the proposed project area . The City Council has directed that a copy of this PAC notice be mailed or delivered to each resident , place of business and existing organization within the proposed project area . The Project area has the boundaries illustrated in the map accompanying this notice . Interested persons may call the Office of the Redevelopment Agency at the Civic Center between the hours of 8 : 00 A.M. and 5 : 00 P.M. for additional information concerning t-he -redevelopment project. for formation of the Project Area Committee. City ,Cl er.k City of. Huntington Beach r ,. Res. !:,. 5718 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUM OF ORANGE ) s a: CITY OF HM INGTON BEACH ) 1, ALICIA M. WEMNORTH, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington beach, and ex-offici.o 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 adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day of October 19 86 by the following vote: AWES: Councilmen: Kelly, MacAllicta�FinlaV,RailaV, (,raan,Thnmac NOES: Councilmen: Mandic ABSEAZ: Councilmen: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California • RESOLUTION NO. 132 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RECEIVING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ESTABLISHING THE PROJECT BASE YEAR ASSESSMENT ROLL, AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECTIONS 33327 AND 33328 OF THE COMMUNITY RE- DEVELOPMENT LAW, AND AUTHORIZING PAYMENT OF A FILING FEE TO THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WHEREAS , by Resolution No . 1365 , adopted on October 14 1986 , the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach selected and designated the boundaries of the redevelopment project area for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project, approved the Preliminary Plan for the Project , and directed that the Preliminary Plan be submitted to the Agency . NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach as follows : 1 . The Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project , as formulated and approved a;, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , is hereby received by the Agency, and the Agency hereby directs that an official redevelopment plan and an environmental impact report for the project be prepared . 2 . ' The 1986-87 assessment roll is the Base Year Assessment Roll the Agency proposed to use for the allocation of taxes pursuant to Section 33760 and 33670 . 5 of the Community Redevelopment Law. 3 . The Executive Director of the Agency is hereby authorized and directed to file the information required by Sections 33327 and 33328 of the Community Redevelopment Law with the appropriate taxing agency governing bodies , taxing officials , and the State Board of Equalization . 1 . 4 . The Execu 0 Director of the . Agency hereby ,.,authorized to pay to the State Board of Equalizoon such fee for filing and processing said statement and map as may be required pursuant to Section 33328 . 4 of the Community Redevelopment Law . PASSED AND ADOPTED by t h e Huntington Beach "edevel oprnent A,ency an adjourned Huntington Beach at A regular meeting thereof held on the27th day of October Y � � Chairman ATTEST : APPROVED AS TO FORM: Clerk Agency Counsel ' REVIEWED AND APPROVED : INITIATED AND APPROVED : Admini rator Deputy City Administrator Redevelopment 2 . A NO. 132 # STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH) ; I ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing .'.resolution was duly. adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of an a Burn Huntington Beach at )a mee .ng o said Redevelopment Agency held on the 27th day of October 1986 and that it was so adopted by the following vote: AY"cS: Members : . kell Ma' 411jster. FjnlFL'. ?'] '�V - n TLtnm�^ NOES: Members Mandic ABSENT Members: None Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of The foregoing instrument is a correct : 'the City of Huntington Beach, Ca. copy of the original on file in this office, Attest ' City Clerk and. Ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, - Califomia. By Deputy.. Katz Hollis PLANNING COMMISSION of the City of Huntington Beach PRELIMINARY PLAN for the HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT Prepared by Katz, Hollis, Coren & Associates, Inc. for the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach in cooperation with the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency February, 1986 021886 180.hnt/cv Katz Hol 1 is PRELIMINARY PLAN for the HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS ...................... ___........_.....__......._..............__..__...._ Page ...................... I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................. 1 II. DESCRIPTION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROJECT AREA ........... 1 III. GENERAL STATEMENT OF LAND USES, LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL STREETS, POPULATION DENSITIES, AND BUILDING INTENSITIES ANDSTANDARDS ............................................................................... 1 A. Land Uses .................................................................................... 1 B. Layout of Principal Streets......................................................... 1 C. Population Densities..................................................................... 2 D. Building Intensities and Standards............................................. 2 IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT LAW ...................................................................... 2 V. CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY ..................... 4 VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT UPON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ............................................................................... 4 Exhibit A: Project Area Map Exhibit B: Legal Description of Project Area KatzHoll is PRELIMINARY PLAN for the HUNTINGTON BEACH-BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................ This Preliminary Plan has been prepared to fulfill the requirements of Section 33322 to 33325 inclusive of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California concerning the selection of a project area and the formulation of a preliminary plan. This Preliminary Plan consists of a text, map and legal description. II. DES . ___.......___............_._.......__...............__ . _.............__._.............._...__......._.........__......................._. _............_ __.._..............__..._._..... The boundaries of the Project Area are as shown on the Project Area Map which is attached as Exhibit A to this Preliminary Plan, and as described in the Legal Description of Project Area, which is attached as Exhibit B to this Preliminary Plan. III. GENERAL STATEMENTS OF LAND USES, LAYOUT OF PRINCIPAL .........__.......__.._.._...._..._._._................__......___ ......................_................_......................_......................_.......................__............_.......__............__..._....__......__._........._ STREETS, POPULATION DENSITIES AND BUILDING INTENSITIES ..............................................................._.........................................................................................................................................................................................................._................................ AND STANDARDS .___..____._____.........__.............. _.._. The following general statements regarding land uses, layout of principal streets, population densities and building intensities and standards are proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area. A. Land Uses ................................................ It is proposed that, in general, the land uses for the various properties in the Project Area shall be as described and defined in the policies, goals and proposed land uses of the General Plan. Such uses may include: - General Commercial - Office Professional - Public, Quasi-Public, Institutional - Public Rights-of-Way - Residential Such uses may, in certain areas, be implemented and further defined in specific plans approved and adopted by the Planning Commission. Within any area, alternative uses may be established to the extent and in the manner provided by the General Plan and local codes and ordinances. B. Layout of Principal Streets ._...__.......___._.....__.._._._._.____ _ __....__....._ ____......._ ._.. It is proposed that, in general, the layout of the principal streets for the Project Area be as shown on the Project Area Map. In accord with the General Plan and local codes and ordinances, existing streets within the Katz Hol 1 is Project Area may be closed, widened, realigned or otherwise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper pedestrian or vehicular circulation. C. Population Densities ._.__..____......__.....____......__._.______._._.___ .. It is proposed that, in general, the population density for any residential uses permitted within the Project Area shall be as described and defined in the General Plan as it is or as it may be amended, or as otherwise provided in local codes and ordinances. D. Building Intensities and Standards ............_............_............._.........................._........_.......................................................................................... It is proposed that, in general, building intensities be controlled by procedures and criteria established in the General Plan, specific plans, and local codes and ordinances. Such criteria may include limits on: (1) the percentage of ground area covered by buildings (land coverage); (2) the ratio of total floor area for all stories of the buildings to areas of the building sites (floor area ratio); (3) the size and location of buildable areas on building sites; and (4) the heights of buildings. Land coverage, sizes and locations of buildable areas should be limited as necessary and feasible to provide adequate open space, parking, access and other amenities. It is proposed that building standards conform to the building requirements of applicable state statutes and local codes and ordinances. IV. ATTAINMENT OF THE PURPOSES OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY _..._.........._.........._...._..___.......__..........___.....__...........___.....___......___ __._.....__........__.__....__..._.........._............_.....__..____....._..__.....__.__....____.....___....... REDEVELOPMENT LAW . ........................................................................................ Certain goals and objectives have been identified in connection with the Project, the accomplishment of which will attain the purposes of the California Community Redevelopment Law. In general, the goals and objectives of a redevelopment program in the Project Area are as follows: 1. The elimination and prevention of blight 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. 2 Katz Hol l i s 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. 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 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. Redevelopment of the Project Area pursuant to this Preliminary Plan and 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 3 KatzHollis 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. V. CONFORM.......... ........ ........__ ._._._ ......... ....._ The Huntington Beach General Plan, adopted in 1976, and revised in 1984, has been amended several times. In addition, specific plans have been adopted to further define and implement the General Plan. Further amendments and specific plans are anticipated. This Preliminary Plan fully conforms to the current General Plan as amended and implemented by specific plans and the Zoning Code. In general, this Preliminary Plan is intended to act as a flexible conceptual guide, and to continue to conform to the General Plan as it may be modified and/or implemented by future amendments and specific plans. VI. GENERAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECT UPON RESIDENTS THEREOF AND ._..._ .._.._ _ ._ ............._._.......................--._........._......._...._......._........._._..........................__._._......................_..._......._.............__.__.._.....___..............._................__-_......................._._ UPON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ._........._.__............__._..........................__....._........_...._.._....._........................._...........__......_..._........ It is proposed that the principal purpose of the Project be the elimination and prevention of blight through assistance and encouragement of private rehabilitation and development efforts; through selective land acquisition, clearance and disposition for private redevelopment; and through provision of new or replacement of existing public improvements, facilities and utilities within and serving the Project Area. Direct Agency activity will occur only when sufficient financial resources are available and such action will produce effective and immediate redevelopment results. The redevelop- ment project is intended to be phased with a limited scope of direct activity at any given time. The Project Area contains a limited number of residents to be impacted. The impact of the Project upon such residents and upon residents of the surrounding neighborhood, as well as upon business owners and tenants within the Project Area and the surrounding neighborhood, will, in general, be in the areas of increased and improved vehicular and pedestrian traffic circulation, enhanced shopping opportunities, increased employment and economic development opportunities, and improved environmental quality. To the extent that the acquisition of properties for redevelopment or for public improvements, facilities or utilities purposes requires the acquisition of occupied buildings located on such properties, the Project may cause displacement of occupants. Occupants so displaced would be entitled to relocation benefits and assistance, as provided under the State Relocation Act. The impact of the Project will be considered in detail by the Agency in the Project Environmental Impact Report. KatzHollis Exhibit A PROJECT AREA MAP Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project [Attach copy of Project Area Map to Preliminary Plan prior to submission to Planning Commission. Note that copies of ..._............... the same map, titled "Project Area Map" and labeled Exhibit A, are attached to both the resolution adopting the Preliminary Plan and to the Preliminary ................. Plan itself.] Katz Hol 1 is Exhibit. B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project [Attach copy of Project Area legal description to Preliminary Plan prior to submission to Planning Commission. Note that copies of the same description, ....._............. titled "Legal Description of Project Area" and labeled Exhibit B, are attached to both the resolution adopting the Preliminary Plan and to the Preli- ................. minary Plan itself.] KatzHollis DECLARATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7550 This Preliminary 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, 1985, 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 Fifty-Three Thousand Dollars ($53,000), including out-of-pocket expenses. i i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH SELECTING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH - BEACH BOULEVARD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FORMULATED FOR THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, by Resolution No. on , 19 designated a Redevelopment Survey Area for redevelopment study purposes, and, subsequently, by Resolution No. on 19 , designated an Amended Redevelopment Survey Area for redevelopment study purposes; and WHEREAS , the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq. ) provided for the Planning Commission to select a redevelopment project area from within the boundaries of a survey area, and to formulate a preliminary plan for the redevelopment of the selected project area. NOR , THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS : Section 1 : The Planning Commission hereby selects and designates as the Project Area for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard Redevelopment Project the area within the Redevelopment Survey Area shown on the "Project Area Map, " attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated .by reference herein, and more particularly described in the "Legal Description of Project Area, " attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference herein. Section 2: In the event that it is necessary for clarification purposes to make minor , technical changes to the boundaries described in Exhibit B, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that any such minor , technical change for clarification purposes does not materially affect the boundaries selected and designated hereby. Section 3 : The Planning Commission hereby approv.es the "Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach-Beach Boulevard ' Redevelopment Project" in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference herein. �I Section 4: The Chairman of the Planning Commission is hereby ? authorized and directed to submit the Preliminary Plan to the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency for the preparation of an official redevelopment plan for the project_ PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of 1986. ATTEST: Secretary, James Palin Tom Livengood, Chairman Planning Commission Planning Commission REVIEWED AND APPROVED INITIATED AND APPROVED TO FORM � r City Administrator City Attorney RCS:lp 1197L/l/27/86 a SHEET 1 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 CITY OF HUN'TINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD CORRIDOR PROJECT AREA EXHIBIT "A": 4 (LEGAL DESCRIPTION) _ V 8 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND BEING A PORTION OF SECTIONS 23, 24 , 25, 26, 35 i 10 AND 36 IN TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, AND A PORTION OF 11 SECTIONS 1 , 2, 11 AND 12 IN TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN 12 THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SAID SECTIONS ARE SHOWN ON THE MAP 13 RECORDED IN BOOK 51 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 13 AND 14 , IN 14 THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, 16 SAID PORTIONS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: 1G 17 BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, T. 6 S. , R. 11 18 W. , SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER BEING ALSO THE INTERSECTION OF THE 1y WESTERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 12 AND THE CENTERLINE OF ATLANTA j 2U AVENUE, AS SAID SOUTHWEST CORNER AND INTERSECTION ARE SHOWN PER 21 TRACT NO. 4649, RECORDED IN BOOK 162 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT I 22 PAGES 44 THROUGH 46, INCLUSIVE, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY' 28 RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; I 24 i 26 'THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ATLANTA AVENUE AND THE i 26 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, NORTH 89037 '24 " EAST" 20. 00 27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND 28 ENTITLED "MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, PROJECT 29 AMENDMENT NO. 1 , HUN'TINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA", PREPARED BY THE au HUN'TINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND DATED SEPTEMBER, 1983; I 81 ''HENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG 32 THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, NORTH I RMG ENGINRERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 i i SHEET 2 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 00022 '36" WEST 50. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER THEREOF; 2 'THENCE. ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, NORTH 89037 '24 " EAST 469. 56 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER 4 OF ''THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89037 '24 " EAST 10. 17 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CHANNEL, AS SAID V T WESTERLY LINE IS DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN BOOK 8582 A`1.` PAGE 497 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 00'45 '16." . WEST 124.1 . 09 FEET TO 10 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 67 OF SAID TRACT NO. 4649; THENCE 11 ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 4649, SOUTH 89015 '34 " 12 WEST 371 . 13 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 71 OF SAID TRACT 1a NO. 4649; 'THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 14 180. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 4649, NORTH 1G 00048 '09 " WEST 1194 . 01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 16 LOT 17 OF SAID TRACT NO. 4649; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY 17 LINE, SOUTH 89015 '00" WEST 11 . 97 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A 18 TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 19 30. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND LAST SAID 2U SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90,03 '09", AN ARC 21 DISTANCE OF 47. 15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 22 LOT 17; THENCE ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE AND THE NORTHERLY 28 PROLONGATION 'THEREOF, NORTH 00048 '09 " WEST 20-7. 40 FEET TO A 24 POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE, 84 . 00 FEET IN 26 WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 89048 '40 " EAST 127. 00 20 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY 27 LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 4649, NORTH 02012-'45" EAST 357. 68 FEET TO 28 AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID 29 WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 22034 '25 " EAST 328. 83 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 30 CORNER OF PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 35 OF 31 PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 26, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE 82 NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 89048 '38 " WEST 274 . 66 RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 • SHEET 3 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 11673, AS SHOWN ON THE 2 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. 11673, NORTH 00039 '39" WEST L 1571 . 80 FEEL' TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACI' NO. 11673; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 11673, THE U ,T FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 89048 '32 " EAST 99. 97 FEET, SOUTH 00039 '20" EAST 42. 00 FEET, AND NORTH 89048 '32 " EAST 317. 41 FEET U TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACI' NO. 11861 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 10 RECORDED IN BOOK 506 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 21 AND 22, 11 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A 12 NON-TRANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS 13 OF 1550. 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 14 87016 '01 " EAST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE 1G EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACI' NO. 11861 , THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE 1G OF 03023 '19 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 91 . 67 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO 17 LAST SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, 18 NORTH 00039 '20 " WEST 360. 36 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ly ADAMS AVENUE, 125 . 00 FEEL' IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID 2U CENTERLINE, NORTH 89048 '32" EAST 324 . 87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 21 SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 8957, .22 AS SHOWN ON 'THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 371 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS 2-3 AT PAGES 9 THROUGH 13, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 24 00011 '28 " WEST 245 . 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, 26 CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1027 . 00 FEET; 26 'THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND LAST SAID 27 WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 21036 '02", AN ARC 28 DISTANCE OF 387. 18 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND 2B ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 8959, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 392 OF 81 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 18 THROUGH 22, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF $2 SAID COUNTY, NORTH 21024 '34 " EAST 692. 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 SHEET 4 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 OF A 'TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE WESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2 473 . 00 . FEET; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND LAST 3 SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 28'04 '30 ", AN ARC 4 DISTANCE OF 231 . 77 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 427. 00 FEET, G A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH ,T 83020 ' 04 " EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 47'1711511, 9 AN ARC DISTANCE OF 352. 41 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY 10 LINE OF T'RACI' NO. 7742, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 459 11 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 48 THROUGH 50, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS 12 OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID 13 CURVE BEING CONCAVE WESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS 23. 00 FEET, A 14 RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 49022 ,41 " 1G WEST; THENCE NORTHERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND THE 16 SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT' NO. 7742, THROUGH A CENTRAL 17 ANGLE OF 83048 '25 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 33. 64 FEET TO A POINT OF 18 REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND 19 HAVING A RADIUS OF 527. 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF 2U REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 46'48 '54 " EAST; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID 21 CURVE AND SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 22 10050 '02 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 99 . 65 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE 23 CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A 24 RADIUS OF 473 . 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE 26 CURVE BEARS SOUTH 57038 '56" WEST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG 26 LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL 27 ANGLE OF 11027 '33 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 94 . 60 FEET; THENCE RADIAL 28 TO LAST SAID CURVE, NORTH 46011 '23 " EAST 27. 00 FEET TO A POINT 29 ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A 3U RADIUS OF 500 . 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 31 46011 '23 "EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND 32 SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13010 '41 ", RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 • SHEET 5 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 AN ARC DISTANCE OF 115 . 00 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID 2 CURVE .BEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 500.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 4 33000 '42" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND L SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56046 '40", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 495. 48 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID G l CURVE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7742, NORTH 00012 '38 " WEST 124 . 35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENT'ERLlNE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, 80. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID lU CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89047 '03 " WEST 368. 87 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 11 SAID. CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF 'TRACT NO. 6239, . 12 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 226 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS 13 AT PAGES 25 AND 26, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 6302, AS 14 SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 229 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT 1� PAGES 43 AND 44, AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 6123, AS 16 SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 231 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT 17 PAGES 4 AND 5, ALL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00038 '12" WEST 18 1987. 63 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID 19 TRACT NO. 6123; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE, NORTH 88°56 '08" 20 EAST 330. 01 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING 21 ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE, NORTH 00038 '12" WEST 660. 02 FEET TO A 22 POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF GARFI ELD AVENUE, 10 0. 0 0 FEET IN 23 WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 88056 '08" WEST 24 523 . 66 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE 2U WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 9327, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN 26 BOOK 391 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 10 AND 11 , RECORDS OF 27 SAID COUNTY, NORTH 0 0 0 4 0 '31 " WEST 6 6 0. 5 0- FEET TO A POINT ON THE 28 SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 9328, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED 29 IN BOOK 397 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 3 AND 4, RECORDS OF 3U SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 31 8 9 0 4 5 '12" WEST 1 . 91 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 32 NO. 9328; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 9328, RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 • SHEET 6 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 NORTH 00015 '17" WEST 325. 35 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 2 CONS1'ANTINE DRIVE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID 3 CENTERLINE, NORTH 89044 '43" EAST 18 .39 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID .4 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 G SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00039 '43 " WEST 165. 07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST. 7 CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 , SOUTH 89044 '31 " WEST 42 . 01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST J CORNER OF PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 75 OF 10 PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 32, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE 11 WESTERLY LINE OF LAST SAID PARCEL 1 , NORTH 00040 '56" WEST 100. 08 12 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE ALONG THE 13 NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 89044 '31 " EAST 17. 84 14 FEET; ''HENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 0 0 0 4 0 '55 " WEST iG 64 . 86 FEET TO 'THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5384 , AS SHOWN 1G ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 396 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 17 43 THROUGH 45, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG 18 THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5384 , NORTH 00'40 '55 " WEST 19 660. 39 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 5384; 20 THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5384 , NORTH 21 89043 '50 " EAST 330 . 01 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 22 NO. 5384 , SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF 23 TRACT NO. 4663, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 274 OF 24 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 21 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF 26 SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 89018 '19 " 26 EAST 20 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 27 ALLEY, 20. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 4663; 28 THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00°4141 " WEST 480.52 29 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID 3U EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 44 *18 '19" EAST 14 . 14 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 31 SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00c41 '41 " WEST 20 . 00 FEET TO A POINT 32 ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 • • SHEET 7 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 LINE, SOUTH 89°18 '19" WEST 30. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 2 LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 4663; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 4663, NORTH 4 00041 '41 " WEST 149. 84 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF ELLIS AVENUE, 60 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89043 '21 " WEST 0. 81 FEET; ; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE,- NORTH l 00016 ' 39" WEST 169. 97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89043 ' 21 " WEST 65. 25 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00'16 '39 " EAST 30. 00 FEET; ''HENCE SOUTH 89043 '21 " WEST 312. 14 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY IU PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7512, AS SHOWN ON 11 'THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 297 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 20 12 AND 21, RECORDS OF . SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY 13 PROLONGATION AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7512, NORTH 14 00038 '31 " WEST 887. 94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 15 TRACT' NO. 2558, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 115 OF 16 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 47 THROUGH 49, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF 17 SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 18 8 9°4 2 '4 8" WEST 174 . 60 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF 19 SAID TRACT' NO. 2558; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2U 1 AND ITS NORTHERLY PROLONGATION AND 'THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 57 21 OF SAID TRACT' NO. 2558, NORTH 03`20 '41 " WEST 292. 42 FEET TO A 22 POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 177. 00 FEET IN 23 WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 2416, AS SAID BEACH BOULEVARD IS SHOWN ON j 24 THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 84 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 26 26 THROUGH 28, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST 26 SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 03020 '33 " WEST 179. 46 FEET TO THE 27 BEGINNING OF A 'TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING 28 A RADIUS OF 9889 . 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 29 AND LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 3U 0 2°4 2 '1 6 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 466. 78 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO 31 LAST SAID CURVE AND CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, 32 NORTH 00038 '31 " WEST 14 . 20 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 i • • SHEET 8 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 2416; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE 2 AND ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89042 '37" EAST 1216.27 3 FEET TO T'HE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 2416, SAID CORNER 4 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 li AND 30, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY G j BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 2699, NORTH 89°42 '37" EAST 28 . 30 FEET TO NEE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 20 OF SAID TRACT NO. 2699; J THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 2699, 1U NORTH 0 0'4 0 '11 " WEST 659. 90 FEE!' TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 11 TALBERT AVENUE, 90. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID 12 CENTERLINE, NORTH 00040 '11 " WEST 40 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 13 NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID TALBERT AVENUE PER PARCEL MAP NO. 79-586, 14 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 147 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 15 28 AND 29, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID 16 NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89042 '15 " WEST 1269. 25 FEET TO AN ANGLE 17 POINT THEREIN; THENCE NORTH 4 5°2 8 '5 4 " WEST 28. 38 FEET TO A POINT IS ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 132. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; 19 THENCE ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00040 '03 " WEST 2U 596. 08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 21 89036 '19 " EAST 969. 63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00040 '42 " WEST 649. 28 22 FEE!' TO A POINT ON ISE CENTERLINE OF NEWMAN S'TREE'Tf 60. 00 FEET 23 IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89029 '58" WEST 24 9 . 88 FEET 10 THE INTERSECTION OF THE CENTERLINES OF NEWMAN 26 AVENUE AND VAN BUREN STREET PER TRACT NO. 6073, AS SAID 26 INTERSECTION IS SHOWN ON ISE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 226 OF i 27 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 23 AND 24 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; 28 THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID VAN BUREN STREET, NORTH 29 00'30 '02 " WEST 30. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID CENTERLINE 3U AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID NEWMAN AVENUE, SOUTH 31 89029 '58 " WEST 329. 89 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 1 OF 82 TRACT NO. 11603, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 536 OF i RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 • SHEET 9 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 4 AND 5, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; 2 THENCE . LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE 3 OF LOT 20 OF TRACT NO. 405 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 31 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, 6 SOUTH 00030 '02" EAST 10. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; G THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE S0U'THERLY LINE 7 OF SAID LOT 20, SOUTH 89029 '58" WEST 60. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SA10 SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 00030 '02" WEST . 10 . 00 FEET; U THENCE SOUTH 89029 '58 " WEST 120 . 00 FEE!'; THENCE SOUTH 00030 '02" 1U EAST 10 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 11 LOT 20; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89029 '58" 12 WEST 139. 42 FEE!' TO 'THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 20; THENCE 13 ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 20 AND 19 OF SAID TRACT NO. 405, 14 NORTH 0 0°4 0 '03 " WEST 25 7. 4 8 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER, OF SAID 15 LOT 19; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 16 NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 19, NORTH 89019 'S7" EAST 10. 00 FEET; 17 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 00040 '03 " WEST 18 256. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 17 OF SAID 19 TRACT NO. 405; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 2U 89019 '57" WEST 10 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 21 17; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 22 WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 16 OF SAID TRACT NO. 405, NORTH 00040 '03" 23 WEST 15. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 24 89019 '57" EAST 10. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°40 '03" WEST 305.00 i 26 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89019 '57"WEST 10. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 26 WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 14 OF 'SAID TRACT NO. 405; THENCE ALONG LAST 27 SAID WESTERLY LINE, NORTH 00040 ' 03 " WEST 64 . 00 FEET TO THE 23 NORTHWES'' CORNER OF SAID LOT 14; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID i 29 WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE Of SAID LOT 14 , NORTH i 30 8 9°19"5 7" EAST 10. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY 31 LINE, NORTH 00040 ' 03 " WEST 128 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE I 32 NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 13 OF SAID TRACT NO. 405; THENCE ALONG RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 • SHEET 10 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89719 '57" WEST 10 . 00 FEET TO THE 2 NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 13; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 12 AND 11 OF SAID TRACT NO. 405 AND ITS NORTHERLY 4 PROLONGATION, NORTH 00*40 '03 " WEST 276. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SLATER AVENUE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING (i SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 00028 '28 " WEST 20 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON 7 THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID SLATER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89031 '32" WEST 75 . 09 FEET TO A POINT ON U THE SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 10 7950, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 336 OF MISCELLANEOUS 11 MAPS AT PAGES 11 AND 12, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING 12 LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY 13 PROLONGATION AND THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID 'TRACT NO. 7950, NORTH 14 00'4 4 '05 " WEST 640. 25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 16 HOLLAND DRIVE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID 16 CENTERLINE, NORTH 89031 '32 " EAST 7. 64 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID 17 CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON 18 THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 36 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 34 , RECORDS 1J OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00044 '05" WEST 660 . 62 FEET TO THE 2U NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 3; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID 21 WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE ' NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, 22 NORTH 89026 '50" EAST 56. 99 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE 23 OF TRACT NO. 3953, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 140 OF 24 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 42 AND 43, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; 26 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 26 SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 3953, NORTH 45038 #37" WEST 27 42. 49 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 28 3953, NORTH 0 0°4 4 '0 5 " WEST 60 0. 73 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER 29 OF LOT 1 OF SAID TRACT NO. 3953, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON 80 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BLAYLOCK STREET, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; 31 ''HENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89026 '50 " EAST 12 180. 07 FEET 10 THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE I RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 SHEET 11 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 120. 00 FEET; THENCE 2 SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'01 '14 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 31 . 46 FEET TO A 4 POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, L AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 180. 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT G OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS NORTH 14028 '04 " EAST; THENCE 7 SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 8 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'01 '14 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 47. 19 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID 1U SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89'26 '50 " EAST 64 . 08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 11 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 00033 '10" WEST 40. 25 FEET TO A POINT 12 ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 3953; THENCE 13 LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY 14 PROLONGAT'10N OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF "B" STREET PER TRACT NO. 16 9586, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 408 OF MISCELLANEOUS 16 MAPS AT PAGES 27 AND 28, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 00044 '05 " 17 WEST 544 . 96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF 18 SAID TRACT' NO. 9586, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A 'TANGENT 19 CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30. 00 FEET; 2U THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 21 OF SAID LOT 1, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15'01 '3 6", AN ARC 22 DISTANCE OF 7. 87 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO LAST SAID CURVE, SOUTH j 23 75042 '29" EAST 4 . 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT 24 CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 26. 00 FEET, 26 A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 75'42 '29 " WEST; 26 THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID 27 NORTHWESTERLY LINE, 'THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 57021 '42", AN ARC 28 DISTANCE OF 26. 03 FEET; THENCE RADIAL TO LAST SAID CURVE, NORTH 29 18020 '47" WEST 4 . 00 . FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT 3U CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 30. 00• FEET, 31 A RADIAL LINE TO SAID BEGINNING BEARS NORTH 18020 '47" WEST; 32 THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID i RMG ENGINEERING, INC. JN. 86-0006 i SHEET 12 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 NORTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15*01 '37", AN ARC 2 DISTANCE OF 7. 87 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARNER 3 AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING ALSO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID 4 CURVE BEING CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 1665 . 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS 6 SOUTH 03'19 '10 " EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE 7 AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 03037 '33"1 8 AN ARC DISTANCE OF 105. 37 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID 9 CURVE BEING CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 10 1535. 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS 11 SOUTH 06'56 '43" EAST; THENCE NORTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE 12 AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 06024 '33 ", 13 AN ARC DISTANCE OF 171 . 71 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID 14 CURVE AND ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89027 '50 " EAST 18. 70 15 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID WARNER 16 AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 00032 '10 " WEST 7. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 17 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID WARNER AVENUE, 120 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH, SAID 18 POINT BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 6 OF TRACT NO. 19 4954 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 176 OF MISCELLANEOUS 20 MAPS AT PAGE 22, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE 21 NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND SAID SOUTHERLY LINE OF WARNER 22 AVENUE, NORTH 89027 '50 " EAST 372. 15 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER 23 OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 24 00032 '10 " WEST 60. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID 1 25 WARNER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 26 89027 '50 " EAST 657. 01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 27 5030, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 189 OF MISCELLANEOUS 28 MAPS AT PAGES 41 AND 42, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG 29 THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5030, NORTH 00-32 '10" WEST J0 735. 29 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5735, AS SHOWN 31 ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 208 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 32 10 AND 11, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 13 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5735 AND THE 2 SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7930, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED 3 IN BOOK 311 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 49 AND 50, RECORDS OF 4 SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 89° 27 '35 " WEST 1560 . 58 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST 5 CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 7930; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY 6 LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 7930, NORTH 7 00043 '29 " WEST 595. 30 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF TERRY 8 DRIVE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, NORTH 9 89027 '30 " EAST 290. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND 10 ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 11 RECORDED IN BOOK 55 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 4 , RECORDS OF SAID 12 COUNTY, NORTH 00043 '29 " WEST 650. 07 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER 13 OF SAID PARCEL 1 ; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG 14 THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, SOUTH 89027 '30 " WEST 384 . 13 15 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN ALLEY, 16 20. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 3429, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 17 RECORDED IN BOOK 124 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 1 THROUGH 4 , 18 INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY 19 LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00043 '13" WEST 20 645 . 18 FEET TO A POINT THAT IS 15. 00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT 21 RIGHT ANGLES, OF THE CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, 60 . 00 FEET IN 22 WIDTH; THENCE ALONG A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL TO AND 15 . 00 FEET 23 SOUTHERLY OF SAID CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, SOUTH 89028 '31 " 24 WEST 220 . 92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF BEACH 25 BOULEVARD, 132. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID PARALLEL 26 LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 00043 '32 " WEST 27 1335 .82 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON 28 THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 25 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 6, RECORDS OF 29 SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE i 30 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TRACT 31 NO. 6209, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 236 OF 32 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 34 AND 35, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 SHEET 14 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 NORTH 89028 '03 " EAST 630. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY 2 LINE, NORTH 00031 '57" WEST 20. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 3 NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN ALLEY, 20. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS 4 SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 6'209; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY 5 LINE OF SAID ALLEY, NORTH 45'49 '15 " WEST 14 . 21 FEET; THENCE 6 ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY AND ITS NORTHERLY 7 PROLONGATION, NORTH 00043 '32" WEST 435 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 8 NORTHERLY LINE OF STARK STREET, 100. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE 9 ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89°28 '03 " WEST 20. 00 FEET TO 10 THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL "C", AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED 11 IN BOOK 61 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 2, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; 12 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY 13 LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C", NORTH 00"43 '32" WEST 717. 39 FEET TO THE 14 NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL "C"; THENCE LEAVING SAID 15 EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL "C" 16 AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL "B " OF SAID PARCEL MAP, THE 17 FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 82047 '02" WEST 502. 11 FEET, SOUTH 18 89'28 '18 " WEST 62. 30 FEET, AND SOUTH 53011 '02" WEST 50 . 00 FEET 19 TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID BEACH BOULEVARD, 132. 00 20 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, NORTH 21 00043 '32" WEST 100 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 22 EDINGER AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89028 '18" 23 WEST 102. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 24 , 24 TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS 25 SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT 26 PAGES 13 AND 14 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO 27 A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND 28 DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED "HUNTINGTON CENTER COMMERCIAL 29 DISTRICT REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA", 30 PREPARED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS 31 REVISED NOVEMBER 19, 1984; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF 32 SECTION 23, T. 5 S. , R. 11 W. , AND LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 i SHEET 15 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 SOUTH 00*43 '33 " EAST 455. 24 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 2 ALDRICH STREET, 50. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 417, AS SHOWN 3 ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 47, .4 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE AND 5 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 6 89016 '28 " WEST 180. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND 7 LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 50 S OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, SOUTH 00043 '33" EAST 225. 12 FEET TO THE 9 NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 69 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417; THENCE LEAVING 10 LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 11 69, SOUTH 89'16 '28" WEST 50. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 12 SAID LOT 69; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 13 WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 69, SOUTH 00°43 '32" EAST 200. 12 FEET 14 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 69; THENCE LEAVING SAID 15 WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 69, NORTH 16 89016 '28 " EAST 50. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 17 69; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY 1S LINES OF LOTS 86 AND 105 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, SOUTH 00043 '33" 19 EAST 450. 24 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 105; THENCE 20 LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 21 105 AND 104 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, SOUTH 89'16 '28" WEST 100. 00 22 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY 23 LINE OF LOTS 124 AND 139, SOUTH 00043 '33 " EAST 500. 24 FEET TO 24 THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 149 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417; THENCE 25 LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 26 149 OF SAID TRACT NO. 417, NORTH 89016 '28" EAST 50. 00 FEET TO 27 THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 149; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY 28 LINE OF SAID LOT 149, SOUTH 00043 '33 " EAST 149.56 FEET TO THE L9 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 149; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY 30 LINE OF TRACT NO. 522, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19 31 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 49, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 32 89024 '28 " WEST 25 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 10 OF RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 i • SHEET 16 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 BLOCK A OF SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF 2 SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 00043 '31 " EAST 195. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST 3 CORNER OF LOT 10 OF BLOCK B OF SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG 4 THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LAST 'SAID LOT 10, NORTH 89024 '28 " EAST 5 115. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAST SAID LOT 10; THENCE 6 ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAST SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 00043 '31 " 7 EAST 135 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 30 OF BLOCK B OF 8 SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 9 30, SOUTH 89°24 '28 " WEST 115. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 10 SAID LOT 30; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 30, 11 SOUTH 00043 '31 " EAST 195. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 12 10 OF BLOCK C OF SAID TRACT NO. 522; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY 13 LINE OF LAST SAID LOT 10, NORTH 89024 '28" EAST 115 . 00 FEET TO 14 THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 10; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY 15 LINE OF LAST SAID LOT 10, SOUTH 00043 '31 " EAST 135 . 19 FEET TO A 16 POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, 80. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; 17 THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF HEIL AVENUE, NORTH 89026 '27" 18 EAST 28. 30 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00033 '33" 19 EAST 40. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID HEIL 20 AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89026 '27" WEST 21 79. 27 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHEASTERLY BOUNDARY OF TRACT N0. 22 3622, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 129 OF MISCELLANEOUS 23 MAPS AT PAGES 49 AND 50, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT 24 BEING A POINT ON A NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY, AND 25 HAVING A RADIUS OF 2050. 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID. POINT 26 BEARS NORTH 28006 '14 " WEST; ' THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 1 27 AND SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID SOUTHEASTERLY. LINE, 28 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17012 '45", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 615.85 29 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID 30 SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 45018 '59 " WEST 271 . 81 FEET; THENCE 31 LEAVING SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY 32 PROLONGATION OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 7334, RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 17 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 285 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS 2 AT PAGES 1 AND 2, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89°26 '18 " EAST 3 341 . 67 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF VIEWPOINT 4 LANE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH,, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON A 5 NON-TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHEASTERLY,' AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 6 33 . 00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID POINT BEARS NORTH 00033 '42" 7 WEST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID 8 NORTHWESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 104 *11 '59 ", AN 9 ARC DISTANCE OF 60. 01 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE 10 AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID VIEWPOINT LANE, SOUTH 11 14045 '41 " EAST 50. 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, 12 CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 50. 00 FEET; THENCE 13 SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, 14 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14'01 '50 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 12. 24 15 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID WESTERLY 16 LINE, SOUTH 00'43 '38 " EAST 627. 21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER 17 OF LOT 2 OF SAID TRACT NO. 7334 ; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID 18 WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00042 '40" EAST 29. 91 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 19 LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF TERRY 20 DRIVE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 10179; AS SHOWN ON THE 21 MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 434 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 26 AND 22 27, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89026 '40 " EAST 359. 01 FEET TO 23 A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT "WO. 10179; THENCE j 24 LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 25 00043 '23 " EAST 329 . 21 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 26 NO. 10179; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 27 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT' NO. 10179, SOUTH 89026115 " WEST 28 329. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID VIEWPOINT LANE; 29 THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89°16 '31 " WEST 30. 00 FEET 3U TO A POINT ;ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF. SAID VIEWPOINT LANE; THENCE 31 ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00043 '29 " EAST 95. 97 FEET TO THE 32 BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 18 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 A RADIUS OF 40. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE 2 AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 13043 ' 09", AN 3 ARC DISTANCE OF 9. 58 FEET; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST SAID CURVE AND 4 ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 12059 '40 " WEST 50. 00 FEET TO THE 5 BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY,, AND HAVING 6 A RADIUS OF 58. 18 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID 7 CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 8 90016 '51 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 91 . 67 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL 9 LINE `1'O SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 12°42 '49" WEST; THENCE LEAVING 10 SAID CURVE AND SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00033 '12" EAST 1 .85 11 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DAMASK DRIVE, 60 .00 12 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 38 OF PARCEL 13 MAPS AT PAGE 15, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 00033 '12" 14 EAST 75. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF 15 TRACT NO. 9671, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 472 OF 16 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 5 AND 6, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; 17 THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY, EASTERLY AND SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY 18 LINES OF SAID TRACT N.O. 9671, THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 19 89026 '50" EAST 345. 20 FEET, SOUTH 00'43 '16" EAST 144 . 24 FEET, 20 SOUTH 89027 '04 " WEST 150. 04 FEET, SOUTH 00043 '07" EAST 241 . 01 21 FEET, SOUTH 89026 '50 " WEST 274 . 84 FEET, AND SOUTH 00042 '45 " EAST 22 215 . 03 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 23 60. 00 FEET NORTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE 24 CENTERLINE OF WARNER AVENUE, SAID POINT BEING A POINT ON THE 25 NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE 26 DOCUMENT ENTITLED "OAKVIEW NEIGHBORHOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT 27 AREA, HUN`1'INGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA", PREPARED BY THE HUNTINGTON 28 BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY 29 LINE, NORTH 89026 '43" EAST 609. 99 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 30 EASTERLY LINE OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST; 31 THENCE ALONG SAID EASTERLY SECTION LINE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF 32 THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 00043 '29 " EAST 60. 00 RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • • SHEET 19 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID WARNER AVENUE; THENCE 2 CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINES, SOUTH 00°44 '05 " EAST 3 936. 54 TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY 4 LINE OF LOT 1 OF BLOCK F OF TRACT NO. 436, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 5 RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 28, RECORDS OF 6 SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY LINES AND ALONG 7 LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE 8 DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89026 '09" WEST 247. 42 FEET; 9 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINES AND ALONG THE EASTERLY 10 LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 00044 '05 " EAST 11 287. 93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 5 OF BLOCK F 12 OF SAID TRACT NO. 436; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 13 SOUTH 89026 '09" WEST 20 . 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID 14 NORTHERLY LINE AND CONTINUING ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, 15 SOUTH 00044 '05 " EAST 95. 98 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY 16 BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 436; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID 17 SOUTHERLY LINE AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED 18 PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89'26 '09 " WEST 62. 58 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 19 .LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINES, SOUTH 00044 '05 " EAST 320 . 71 FEET TO 20 THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF TRACT NO. 8916, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 21 RECORDED IN BOOK 369 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 23 AND 24 , 22 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 00043 '17" EAST 339 . 75 FEET 23 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5057, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 24 RECORDED IN BOOK 182 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 6 AND 7, 25 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 26 TRACT NO. 5057 AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00043 '56" 27 EAST 700. 26 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 , 28 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 36 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 29 36, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ALSO A POINT ON THE J0 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SLATER AVENUE, 80 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE 31 ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89°29 '22" EAST 48. 06 FEET TO 32 THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • • SHEET 20 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA j NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 , 2 SOUTH 00040 '03" EAST 620. 81 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 3 SPEER AVENUE, 55. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID 4 CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00029 '58 "EAST 25. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 5 NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3 OF TRACT NO. 411 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 6 RECORDED IN BOOK 16 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 26, RECORDS OF 7 SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89030 '02" 8 EAST 19. 05 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE 9 LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID 10 LOT 3, SOUTH 00'28 '58 " EAST 280. 40 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER 11 OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 12 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 3, SOUTH 89030 '02" WEST 132. 00 FEET 13 TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE LEAVING SAID 14 SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 17 OF SAID 15 TRACT NO. 411, SOUTH 00029 '58" EAST 355. 33 FEET TO A POINT ON 16 THE CENTERLINE OF NEWMAN STREET, 50. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN 17 ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 125 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 10 AND 18 11, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE, 19 SOUTH 00029 '18" EAST 25. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE 20 OF SAID NEWMAN STREET; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 21 89030 '42" EAST 127. 05 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY 22 PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE 23 MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 125 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 10 AND 11, 24 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID NORTHERLY i 25 PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00040 '03 " EAST 188 . 99 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 26 SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 89'30 '42 " WEST 100 . 00 FEET; 27 THENCE 00040 ' 03" EAST 184 . 01 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY 28 LINE OF RONALD ROAD, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID 29 NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89030 '42" EAST 50. 08 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 30 SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 17 OF 31 TRACT NO. 3478, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 141 OF 32 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 31 AND 32, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • . SHEET 21 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 SOUTH 00029 '18" EAST 216 . 84 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY 2 LINE OF SAID LOT 17, SOUTH 44022 '35 " WEST 14 . 18 FEET;. THENCE 3 ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 17, SOUTH 89014 '27" WEST 4 19. 43 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00045 '33 " 5 EAST 20. 00 FEET TO THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY ANGLE POINT IN THAT 6 CERTAIN ALLEY, 10 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 5322, AS SHOWN 7 ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 199 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 8 24 AND 25, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE 9 SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY, SOUTH 45043 '10 " EAST 14 . 13 10 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID ALLEY, SOUTH 11 00*40 '47" EAST 340 . 09 FEET; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE 12 OF SAID ALLEY, SOUTH 44019 '13 " WEST 14 . 14 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 13 SAID NORTHWESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00040 ' 47" EAST 20 ..00 FEET TO A 14 POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 11 OF SAID TRACT NO. 5322; 15 THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89019 '13" EAST 20. 00 16 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 11; THENCE LEAVING LAST 17 SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT 18 NO. 5322 AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00040 ' 47" EAST 19 230. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TALBERT AVENUE, 20 100. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 21 SOUTH 89014 '27" WEST 190. 09 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT I 22 CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED 23 "REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE TALBERT-BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT, 24 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA", PREPARED BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH 25 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS DATED SEPTEMBER, 1982, SAID CORNER 26 BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF A LINE PARALLEL 27 WITH AND 10. 00 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE 28 EAST LINE OF LOT 3 IN BLOCK C OF TRACT NO. 172, AS SHOWN ON THE 29 MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 22, 30 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND THE 31 EASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 32 00038 '31 " EAST 300 . 00 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, i RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 22 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 273. 00 FEET; 2 THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE, 3 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15 0 33 '4 9", AN ARC DI STANCE OF 74 . 16 4 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE, SAID CURVE BEING CONCAVE 5 SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 327. 00 FEET, A RADIAL .LINE 6 TO SAID POINT OF REVERSE CURVE BEARS SOUTH 73047 '40 " WEST; 7 THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG LAST SAID CURVE AND SAID EASTERLY 8 LINE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15033 '49 ", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 9 88. 83 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 32. 00 10 FEET EASTERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE WEST LINE OF 11 LOT 82 IN BLOCK C OF SAID TRACT NO. 172; THENCE TANGENT TO LAST 12 SAID CURVE AND ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE AND SAID EASTERLY LINE, 13 SOUTH 00038 '31 " EAST 248. 37 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY 14 LINE OF LOT 148 OF SAID BLOCK C; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY 15 BOUNDARY OF SAID TRACT NO. 172 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE 16 ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND, SOUTH 89015 '48" WEST 162. 31 FEET 17 TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 8197, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 18 RECORDED IN BOOK 452 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 42 THROUGH 19 48, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID 20 SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARCEL OF LAND AND ALONG 21 THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 8197 AND ITS SOUTHERLY 22 PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00039 '55" EAST 659. 55 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 23 CENTERLINE OF TA Y.LOR DRIVE, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG 24 THE WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN 25 BOOK 14 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 8, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 26 00038 '51 " EAST 494 . 86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 27 LINE OF PARCEL MAP NO. 79-555, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN 28 BOOK 138 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 29 AND 30, RECORDS OF SAID 29 COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID "U NORTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89017 '28 " EAST 311. 00 FEET TO THE J 31 NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 3 OF SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 79-555; 32 THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG THE RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • • SHEET 23 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 3, SOUTH 00038 '51 " EAST 395 . 98 FEET 2 TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL NO. 3; THENCE -LEAVING 3 LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 4 PARCEL NO. 3, SOUTH 89018 '58" WEST 311 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 5 NORTHERLY PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 8183, 6 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 329 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS 7 AT PAGES 46 AND 47, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID 8 NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00038 '51 " EAST 99. 10 FEET TO THE 9 NORTHWEST BOUNDARY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 8183; THENCE ALONG 10 THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 8183, NORTH 11 89018 '58" EAST 311 . 46 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 12 NO. 8183; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT 13 NO. 8183, SOUTH 00038 '31 " EAST 329. 90 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 14 CENTERLINE OF ELLIS AVENUE, 62. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING 15 SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00040 '03 " EAST 20 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON 16 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID ELLIS AVENUE PER TRACT NO. 7, AS 17 SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 9 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT 18 PAGE 8, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY 19 LINE, SOUTH 89019 '57" WEST 96 . 06 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID 20 SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00040 '03 " EAST 20. 00 . FEET TO A POINT ON 21 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID ELLIS AVENUE, 82. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; 22 THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89019 '57" WEST 23 25. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 24 00040 '03 " EAST 106 . 65 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 45042 '48 " EAST 102. 67 25 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MAIN STREET, 126 . 00 26 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 27 44017 '12" WEST 415. 68 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY 28 PROLONGATION OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF FLORIDA STREET, 60. 00 FEET 29 IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 7; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID i no NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID NORTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 31 0003944 " EAST 149. 34 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY 32 PROLONGATION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 5 THROUGH 9, i i RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 SHEET 24 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 598, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN 2 BOOK 24 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 44 , RECORDS OF SAID 3 COUNTY; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89020 '06" 4 EAST 359. 82 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOT 2 IN 5 BLOCK H OF SAID TRACT NO. 7; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE 6 AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 2, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, AND 7 25 IN BLOCK H OF SAID TRACT NO. 7, SOUTH 00040 '57" EAST 1928. 34 8 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 9 RECORDED IN BOOK 43 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 19, RECORDS OF SAID 10 COUNTY, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF 11 GARFIELD AVENUE, 100 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING SAID 12 EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 13 89021 '19 " WEST 300. 51 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 14 SOUTH 00038 '41 " EAST 50. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 15 SAID GARFIELD AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG 16 THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 17 97 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGES 14 AND 15, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, 18 SOUTH 00`39 '42 " EAST 659. 92 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAST 19 SAID BOUNDARY LINE; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG 20 THE NORTHERLY LINE OF LOT 3007 OF MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, 21 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT 22 PAGE 65, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89021 '28 " EAST 300.25 23 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 3007; THENCE LEAVING 24 LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 25 3007 AND 2907 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 26 00038 '12" EAST 689. 93 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 27 CLAY STREET, 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, PER TRACT NO. 837, AS SHOWN ON 28 THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 25 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 27, 29 RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 30 89021 '38 " EAST 125. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 26 IN 31 BLOCK A OF SAID TRACT NO. 837; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF 32 LOTS 25 AND 8 IN SAID BLOCK A AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 25 RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 25 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 AND B .IN BLOCK B OF SAID TRACT NO. 837, SOUTH 00038 '12" EAST 2 599 . 94 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF WILLIAMS STREET, 3 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID TRACT NO. 837; THENCE 4 ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, .SOUTH 89021 '47" WEST 100. 00 FEET TO 5 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 9 OF BLOCK B OF SAID TRACT NO. 837; . 6 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00038 '12" EAST 7 60. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID WILLIAMS 8 STREET; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89021 '47" 9 EAST 1 . 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 10 00038 '12 " EAST 299 . 97 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF 11 LOT 2608 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE ALONG THE 12 SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 2608 AND 2607 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE 13 VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 89°21 '52" WEST 126. 09 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST 14 CORNER OF PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 85 OF 15 PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 35, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING 16 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LAST SAID 17 PARCEL MAP AND ITS SOUTHERLY PROLONGATION, SOUTH 00039 '18 " EAST 18 299. 96 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, 19 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 20 89021 '57" WEST 200 . 01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2507 0 21 OF SAID .EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY 22 LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2407 OF SAID EAST SIDE 23 VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00039 '54 " EAST 360. 05 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST 24 CORNER OF SAID LOT 2407; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND 25 ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2407 AND THE SOUTHERLY LINE 26 OF PARCEL 3, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 109 OF PARCEL 27 - MAPS AT PAGES 9 AND 10, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 89021 '23 " 28 EAST 299. 98 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOT 2308 OF SAID MAP 29 OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND JO ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF LOTS 2308 AND 2208 OF SAID MAP OF 31 EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00°39 '54 " EAST 660 . 01 FEET TO THE 32 SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2208; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 26 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA j LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2208, NORTH 2 89020 '15 " EAST 150. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST BOUNDARY CORNER, AS 3 SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 43 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 18, 4. RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND 5 ALONG THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF LAST SAID PARCEL MAP, SOUTH 6 00039 '54 " EAST 299. 98 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST BOUNDARY CORNER OF 7 LAST SAID PARCEL MAP; THENCE LEAVING .LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE AND 8 ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF LOTS 2108 AND 2107 OF SAID MAP OF 9 EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 89"19 '41 " WEST 330 . 00 FEET; THENCE 10 LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00039 '54 " EAST 210. 00 FEET; 11 THENCE NORTH 89019 ' 41 " EAST 180. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 12 WESTERLY LINE OF LOT 2008 OF SAID MAP OF EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; 13 'THENCE ALONG LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00039 '54 " EAST 14 150 . 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2008; THENCE 15 LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY 16 LINE OF TRACT NO. 1916, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 56 17 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 9, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, NORTH 18 89019 '06 " EAST 150. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST BOUNDARY CORNER OF 19 SAID TRACT NO. 1916; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND 20 ALONG THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1916, SOUTH 21 00'39 '54 " EAST 286. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY CORNER OF 22 SAID TRACT NO. 1916; THENCE LEAVING SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG 23 THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 1916, SOUTH 24 89*18 '32 " WEST 150. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE OF ' 25 LOT 1908 OF SAID EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID 26 SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF LOTS 1907, 1807 27 AND 1707 OF SAID EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT, SOUTH 00°39 '54 " EAST 28 508 . 99 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF 29 LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED RECORDED MARCH 2, 1983 AS INSTRUMENT 30 NO. 83-092262 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING 31 LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID 32 DEED, SOUTH 89.017 '24 " WEST 40. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 SHEET 27 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 THEREOF; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 2 WESTERLY LINE OF SAID DEED, SOUTH 00039 '54 " EAST 145. 00 FEET TO 3 A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF ADAMS AVENUE, 100 . 00 FEET IN 4 WIDTH; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 89017 '24 " WEST J r 290 . 03 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00042 '36" 6 EAST 50. 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ADAMS 7 AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY 8 LINE OF PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 116 OF 9 PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 40, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00038 '30 " 10 EAST 209. 95 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1; 11 THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE 12 OF SAID PARCEL, NORTH 89°17 '24 " EAST 460. 06 FEET TO THE 13 SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 1 ; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY 14 LINE AND ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 , NORTH 15 00039 '39" WEST 10. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 2, 16 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 59 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 17 38, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID WESTERLY 18 LINE AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2, NORTH 19 89'17 '24 " EAST 150. 00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 20 PARCEL 2; 'THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 21 EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 AND THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF 22 TRACT NO. 10226, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 433 OF 23 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGES 20 AND 21 , RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, 24 SOUTH 00039 '39 " EAST 1066. 25 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT 25 CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY, AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 25 . 00 FEET; 26 THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE AND ALONG SAID 27 CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90'01 '27", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 28 39 . 28 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF MEMPHIS AVENUE, 29 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID NORTHERLY LINE, 00 SOUTH 89021 '18 " WEST 614 .98 FEET; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID 31 NORTHERLY LINE, SOUTH 00038 '12". EAST 30. 01 FEET TO A POINT ON 32 THE CENTERLINE OF SAID MEMPHIS AVENUE; THENCE LEAVING SAID RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 • SHEET 28 OF 29 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 CENTERLINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF FLORIDA STREET, 60. 00 2 FEET IN WIDTH, PER MAP OF VISTA DEL MAR TRACT, AS SHOWN ON THE 3 MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AT PAGE 36, RECORDS 4 OF SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00'39 '39 " EAST 691 . 32 FEET TO A POINT ON 5 THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF KNOXVILLE STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF 6 VISTA DEL MAR TRACT; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, 7 NORTH 89020 '21 " EAST 515 . 00 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 8 PARCEL 1 , AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 115 OF PARCEL 9 MAPS AT PAGES 35 AND 36, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING 10 SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 11 1 , SOUTH 00039 '39 " EAST 120. 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 12 SAID PARCEL 1; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINE AND ALONG THE 13 SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1, NORTH 89020 '21 " EAST 10. 00 FEET 14 TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF . LOT 1008A OF SAID MAP OF 15 VISTA DEL MAR TRACT; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND 16 ALONG LAST SAID EASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 00039 '39 " EAST 179. 98 FEET 17 TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF JOLIET AVENUE, 60 . 00 FEET IN 18 WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 89020 '21 " WEST 19 165 . 00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF GEORGIA STREET, 20 60. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 21 00039 '39 " EAST 329. 95 FEET TO A POINT ON THE CENTERLINE OF 22 1NDIANAPOLIS AVENUE, 70 . 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE ALONG LAST SAID 23 CENTERLINE, NORTH 89020 '21 " EAST 165. 00 FEET; THENCE LEAVING 24 LAST SAID CENTERLINE, SOUTH 00038 '11 " EAST 30. 00 FEET TO A POINT 25 ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID INDIANAPOLIS AVENUE; THENCE ALONG 26 LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, NORTH 89021 '49 " EAST 115. 09 FEET TO A 27 POINT ON 'THE WESTERLY LINE OF BEACH BOULEVARD, 138. 00 FEEL' IN 28 WIDTH; THENCE LEAVING LAST SAID SOUTHERLY LINE AND ALONG SAID 29 WESTERLY LINE AND THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1, AS SHOWN ON THE 3U MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 21 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 24 AND THE 31 EASTERLY BOUNDARY LINE OF PARCELS 1 AND 2, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP 32 RECORDED IN BOOK 48 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 31, BOTH RECORDS OF RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 SHEET 29 OF 29 BEACH. BOULEVARD PROJECT AREA 1 SAID COUNTY, SOUTH 00048 '09" EAST 2629. 77 FEET TO A POINT ON THE 2 CENTERLINE OF ATLANTA AVENUE, 105. 00 FEET IN WIDTH; THENCE 3 LEAVING LAST SAID .EAS`I'ERLY LINE AND ALONG LAST SAID CENTERLINE, 4 NORTH 89047 '24 " EAST 50. 00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 5 6 CONTAINING 508. 60 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. 7 8 9 10 11 LAWRENCE L. TRUMAN, L.S. 5346 DATE 12 ° LAN D SU 13 14 T \ LS 5346 15 ' 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 RMG ENGINEERING, INC. J.N. 86-0006 1 DRAFT EIR 81-1 1 1 Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Office Commercial Complex 1 � City of Huntington Beach � June 1981 DEPT. JUN 16 1981 1 pbr P. o. Box 190 Huntington Beach, ^' ^2548 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �• P.O. BOX 190 DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CALIFORNIA 92648 BUILDING DIVISION(714)536-5241 PLANNING DIVISION(714)536-5271 June 17, 1981 To Whom it May Concern: The enclosed draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR 81-1) has been prepared for the City of Huntington Beach, Depart- ..ment of Development Services, and is being distributed for a 45-day public review period ending August, 5, 1981. The .report assesses the potential environmental effects of a proposed commercial office complex consisting of two (2) 16-story twin towers (261, 504 square feet each) loc- ated on the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. In order to determine all possible environmental impacts . associated with the project, we .are soliciting your com- ments in writing no later than August 5, 1981. If your comments have not been received by that date, we will assume that you concur with the adequacy of the draft. EIR. Very truly yours, ames R. Barnes Associate Planner JRB:nb Enclosure: EIR 81-1 l� r DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 81-1 for CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH BOULEVARD-WARNER AVENUE COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMPLEX r r rPrepared for: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Contact Person: James Barnes Telephone: (714) 536-5554 r_u r r ' Prepared by: PHILLIPS BRANDT REDDICK 18012 Sky Park Circle ' Irvine, California 92714 Telephone: (714) 641-8820 r rJune 1981 TABLE OF CONTENTS Sect ion No. Title Page No. List of Exhibits List of Tables 1 .0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1-1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2-1 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3-1 3.1 LAND USE 3-1 3.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS 3-3 3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 3-7 3.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 3-13 3.5 AIR QUALITY 3-16 3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 3-19 3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 3-20 3.8 AESTHETICS 3-24 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 4-1 4.1 LAND USE 4-1 4.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS 4-5 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 4-8 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 4-12 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4-22 4.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4-29 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4-31 4.8 AESTHETICS 4-42 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT 5-1 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS 6-1 7.0 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE A D ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 7-.1 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND OTHER RESOURCES 8-1 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS 9-1 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 10-1 11 .0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 11-1 APPENDICES (UNDER SEPERATE COVER 'AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT) t LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Title Following Page No. ' 2-1 Site Vicinity 2-1 2-2 Site Plan 2-3 3-1 Onsite and Surrounding Land Use 3-1 3-2 General Plan and Zoning 3-3 3-3 Site Photo Index 3-24 3-4 . Site Photographs 3-24 �} 4-1 Building Shadows 4-3 4-2 Traffic Distribution and Intersection Capacity Utilization 4-13 4-3 Noise Contours 4-18 4-4 Maximum Noise Contours 4-18 4-5 Architectural Rendering 4-42 LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page No. 3-1 Growth Projections for CAA 33 and RSA 38 3-8 3-2 Growth Projecti.ons for Huntington Beach 3-8 3-3 Persons Per Total Dwelling Units 3-8 3-4 Civilian Labor Force, Employment and Unemployment, Orange County 1978-1981 3-11 3-5 Orange County Labor Supply 1 1980-1981 3-12 3-6 Employment Projection for Huntington Beach 3-12 3-7 Income Levels in 1980 3-13 3-8 Existing Fire-Fighting Facilities 3-20 4-1 Forecast Direct Employment Opportunities 4-8 4-2 Forecast Annual Wage Profile 4-9 4-3 Ten-Year Summary Comparison of the Proposed Office Complex 4-11 4-4 Project Trip Generation 4-14 4-5 Peak Parking Demand 4-16 4-6 Projected Mobile and Stationary Source Emissions - Commercial Emissions 4-24 4-7 Regional Emission Inventory Comparison 4-25 4-8 Maximum Eight-Hour Carbon Monoxide Concentrations at Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue Intersection 4-26 4-9 Noise Levels 4-30 4-10 Projected Water Consumption 4-32 4-11 Wastewater Generation Rate 4-33 4-12 Natural Gas Demands at Ultimate Development of Proposed Land Uses 4-35 4-13 Electrical Demands at Ultimate Development of Proposed Land Uses 4-36 1 .0 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 .1 INTRODUCTION In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , this ' draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective environmental impacts associated with the development of a proposed multistory business commercial center of approximately 562,208 square feet, located in the City of Huntington Beach. Specifically, this EIR addresses the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the development of twin 16-story towers, two restaurants, a five-and-one-half level parking structure ( 1 ,814 .stalls) , plus additional provision for surface parking (79 stalls) , a four-plex theater and a helistop. The City of Huntington Beach is the Lead Agency responsible for prepara- tion of environmental documentation in compliance with CEQA, and will also have responsibility for approval of the project. Environmental consulta- tion has been provided by Phillips Brandt Reddick, Inc. The EIR process requires the preparation of an .objective "full disclosure" document designed to inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the direct and indirect environmental . effects of a proposed action; to provide mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts; and, to provide alternatives to the proposed project. The envi- ronmental analysis contained in this document addresses each of these primary EIR objectives. A Draft Initial Study ( see Appendix Al ) prepared by the City of Huntington Beach determined that the following areas required a detailed discussion of .impacts and mitigations: Land Use Relevant Planning Programs Socioeconomics Transportation/Circulation Air Quality Acoustic Environment Public Services and Utilities Aesthetics 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 1-1 Below is provided a brief discussion of the topical issues concerning the proposed project, which either have been found not to have a significant effect on the environment or for which mitigation measures have been set ' forth that would avoid potentially significant effects. In conformance with CEQA guidelines, topics which have been found not to have a signifi- cant effect on the environment are authorized to discuss briefly, the basis upon which such determinations were made. Landform/Topography The site does not contain any unique . landform features. Due to the relatively flat and urbanized nature of the study area, significant environmental effects are not anticipated. Geology/Soils The study area is geotechnically feasible to accommodate development. No hazards of landslides, tsunami, land subsidence or earthquake faults are located on the site. The study area is primarily rated as . a Risk I area or "normal risk - minor problems" by the Geotechnical Land Use Capability Map,l with a small portion classified as Risk II ("provisional risk - minor to moderate problems") . This map is intended to be a general guide for planning purposes, rating land in the city from Risk IV to Risk I as geotechnical problems decrease, based on the following considerations: fault rupture, peat deposits, liquefaction potential , beach erosion and tsunami hazard. A report on a foundation investigation of the study area was prepared in April of 1981 by LeRoy Crandall and Associates.2 Most borings onsite encountered shallow fill soils, with moderately firm to firm natural soils of clay, silt, silty sand, and sand. These soils are not considered suitable for support of the proposed development. Driven friction piling in conjunction with specific recommendations by the geotechnical consultant for formation design, grading, floor slab and paving support, would establish conditions under which development of the study area is feasible. The findings of the geotechnical , consultant are included as Appendix C of this report. Copies of the report are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Hydrology No water bodies occur onsite. Development of the study area will not alter absorption rates, drainage patterns or the amount of surface runoff. Additionally, no alteration to the direction or rate of flow of groundwaters is anticipated through project implementation. 1 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Geotechnical Inputs, prepared by Leighton-Yen and Associates, February 2 LeRoy Crandall and Associates, Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed Mola Office Complex, Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, Huntington Beach, California, for the Mo a Development Corporation, April—1981 . 1-2 Archaeological/Historical According to the City of Huntington Beach Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory prepared by Archaeological Research Incorporated (1973) , there are no historical , archaeological or paleontological sites located in . the study area. Therefore, development of the- study area will not result in an alteration to any known significant archaeologi- cal or historical site, structure, object or building and no impacts are anticipated. Biological Resources Dr. Eric . Hansen, PBR biologist, conducted _ a site survey in April 1981 to confirm the absence of significant biological resources on the site. The findings are contained in Appendix B.1 Due to the urbanized nature of the study area no significant adverse impacts are expected to result from the implementation of the proposed project. . No officially recognized rare, endangered, or threatened plant or animal species were observed, have been reported, or are expected to occur in the study site. The proposed Beach-Warner office commercial complex is located within an area of the city which has been the subject of considerable study. In such circumstances, the State EIR Guidelines encourage "incorporation by reference" (section 15149) , in which previously prepared information (where still accurate) is incorporated o porated by reference into current studies and not printed anew in each successive EIR. To incorporate by reference, it is required that the EIR clearly state the location where all referenced documents are available for public review. The information contained in such documents must be current and adequate in content. The current project evaluation' is well suited to the use of incorporation b reference. Three document have b - y s h e been prepared over the past two-year period which provide valuable information relevant to the current projection. These documents, along with a brief synopsis of their scope, are identified below. All reports are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 1 . A Traffic Report on the Proposed Beach and Warner Professional Plaza, L prepared for the Mola Development Corporation, UC o er 1960. e scope of the traffic report by PBQ&D focuses on five topic areas: trip generation, . existing level ' of service, trip distribution, trip assignment analysis and impacts, parking, and mitigation measures. 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 1-3 This report forms the basis for the traffic analysis as prepared for this EIR, by Greer and Associates, discussed in Section 3.4 (TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION) . 2. Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3 adopted December 1980. This EIR, prepared by the Huntington Beac Department of Development Services, analyzes five land use amendment requests in the City of Huntington Beach. One of the amendments was a request to place the study area plus 70+ additional acres in a Multi-Story Node. This EIR provides historical background and existing conditions formation for the study area. 3. Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed Mola Office Co lex, Beach IToulevard and WarneF Avenue, Huntington Beach, Calitornia, tor the Mo a Deve o ment Corporation, prepare by LeRoy Crandall and ssociates; April 1981 - This report presents the results of a foundation investigation at the site of the proposed development. The investigation was authorized to determine the static characteristics of the soils beneath the site for design purposes, liquefaction potential and to provide recommendations for foundation design and floor slab support. The scope of this investigation does not include geologic and seismic studies or detailed site response studies. Corrosion studies (performed by M.J. Schiff and Associates) were submitted under separate cover. 1 .2 SUMMARY The following discussion provides a brief but concise distillation of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project, touching on only those issues which are considered to be of special significance. The reader is referred to other sections of the EIR for more detailed informa- tion which supports the major findings offered below. The development of approximately 562,208 square feet of office/commercial floor area represents a significant intensification of urban development within the study area. This development also represents a commitment to the continued growth and development of the 80-acre multistory _ node (centered at Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue), one of the six so designated nodes in the City of Huntington Beach. Inasmuch as the study area has already been developed for urban uses, the impacts- on the natural environment (i .e., topography, geology, hydrology, biology, and cultural resources) are expected to be minimal . Impacts to the urban .environment, however, have been determined as more significant. ' 1-4 The two most potentially significant impacts . posed by the project are the projected demand increase on local transportation and circulation systems, and perhaps more importantly, the compatibility between the proposed 16-story twin towers and adjacent residential uses to the study area. Development of the project would significantly alter the visual character- istics of the study area. In place of, and surrounding one-, two-, and three-story buildings, will be the twin 16-story towers and a 5-1/2-level parking structure. The towers will rise 232 feet in height, while the parking structure will rise 35 feet above ground. The architectural style of the twin towers and proposed park-like landscaping concept both will serve to soften the transition from residential land uses to commercial and office uses. However, potential significant impacts will occur to surrounding land uses as a result of implementation of the proposed project. These impacts include the following: 9 Increased vehicular traffic in the vicinity of the study area, particularly during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. (Section 4.4) Incremental increases in air emissions and noise. (Sections 4.5 and 4.6) Periodic increased noise level due to the heliport. (Section 4.4) An increased demand for public services and utilities. (Section 4.7) Change in the visual milieu, from a weedy, overgrown lot to a landscaped, high-rise office commercial use. (Section 4.8) Building shadows, new lighting, possible glare and possible disruption of local antennae reception. (Section 4.8) Implementation of appropriate mitigation measures (see sections noted above) will reduce most of the impacts to a level of insignificance. Upon project buildout, the business commercial complex is estimated to cre- ate 2,152 long-term employment opportunities. Since at least a portion of this employment may be drawn from outside the local labor market, an incre- mental . increase in demand for housing (particularly within the affordable range) can be expected in Huntington Beach and surrounding cities. '� 1-5 The proposed expansion, upon completion, is projected to generate an additional 9,800.. vehicle trips per day to the roadways surrounding the .site. The project traffic report analyzed three local intersections identified by the City traffic engineer as those most likely to be impacted by the traffic increases. The Beach-Warner intersection will drop from Level of Service E to Level of Service F, while the Beach- Edinger intersection will drop from an Level of Service C to Level of Service D. The level of service for the Warner-Magnolia intersection remains the same. However, with full improvement of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, the level of service will rise to almost D. (The Beach- Edinger level of service drop is not significant as the drop was in response to 60 additional vehicles.) While the proposed project is not expected to impact levels of service significantly at the intersections studied, the project-related traffic will add to the cumulative impact of potentially decreased levels of service associated with future expanded growth in the multistory node. Upon project buildout, use of the facilities will add incrementally to the cumulative impacts of decreased air quality (local and regional ) and increased ambient noise levels. The proposed expansion will result in increased demands for public services and utilities. In particular, the project will place an additional incremental demand on regional energy resources, water supply and wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. The fiscal impact analysis prepared for the project shows that the proposed project will generate a net surplus of $20,900 over the 10-year period of study. 1-6 �, 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 PROJECT LOCATION The 10+-acre study area is located at the southwest corner of the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue intersection in the City of Huntington Beach. The study area contains abandoned Ocean View School District school buildings .(a former school site, sold as surplus) . Immediately north of the study area is Warner Avenue with highway commercial and medium density residential uses adjacent to Warner Avenue; south of the study area is a mix of older, multi- and single-family residential units; southeast of the study area and adjacent to Beach Boulevard is a continuation of the high commercial uses; immediately east of the study area is Beach Boulevard and strip commercial uses adjacent to it; and west of the study area are older single family residential dwellings. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the study area in a local context. 2.2. PURPOSE, SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES The purpose of the proposed project is to develop a multistory business and commercial center alongside Beach Boulevard, a major functional and visual corridor.l It is intended that the center provide two 16-story twin towers (261 ,504 square feet each) , two restaurants (10,000 square feet each) , a four-plex theater (19,200 square feet) , a 5-1/2-level 1 parking structure to accommodate 1 ,814 parking stalls and 79 outside parking stalls. In addition, a helistop facility will be constructed atop tower #1 . It is the purpose of this environmental assessment to determine the natural and urban systems impacts which will occur should the project be implemented. This EIR addresses the eight issues of primary concern: Land Use, Relevant Planning 'Programs, Socioeconomics, Transportation/Cir- culation, Air Quality, Acoustic Environment, P Ut ili- ties, y, ent, Public Services and Utili ties, and Aesthetics. In addition, all CEQA-mandated topical issues will 1 City of Huntington Beach, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 21 biidx`ay„city r r a , T 1 I. .su :t i r ISTER��IVE&W 7 ov A 4 ¢ 'z ; a71aT1 iY;. '1 A li" Ira I .• - .I � �. - .- - -_, \;• ._.-. _-Cr L.V^ •`..J"`��.\�P�I.r.M;: NYu �TI.anO I'Y DINGER i .d I (, i '1 to I� ,: �,!• _ ',b.. ' ,_i - �--.��'kru..(-� ;1 d,l ,:WARNER.,, oAVENUE' , � _. Vit � <,—, �-...... � .•tir a-b� _ I:� -. - o _ ?; ( � °6a,rcl� 91•a' i .....��uLd+.,¢�i_,wi _�'ar1 Alt :......_ I=1UNINGTON BEAC�i. IN I •'. t .1 i; -' _-- - ,i �• , ':rA::�,:� h::A1:N �L`QRY"--•,l-�; Iltti;.�'11�hY�. � JZ ' I - !,-� ` _•u.AI. ....,t r -Q .. '''.ai;w9�n�ry `..__nuaut.�-aS .� .. .: : :,I ',.•y ,. 1,. _ :.fir.; '.•,` -J t — ,. PA'WIG .COAST •4 1 v .:�I :GJ2 r.i�9n'. HIGHWAY Wo y' 0 1718 3438 616j W Beach Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 2-1 be discussed, including unavoidable adverse impacts; the. relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; any irreversible environmental changes which will occur if the proposed project is implemented; and the growth-inducing impact of the proposed project. The project sponsor has. developed a series of objectives to give direction P to the planning and design effort and to provide a means for evaluating design alternatives. - To develop a quality multistory use that is both aesthetically pleasing and architecturally notable along a major functional and visual corridor. To create a financial core for the City of Huntington Beach. To provide visual relief and architectural interest to a predominantly strip commercial , garden office corridor. To encourage similar high quality development in the remaining area multistory node. To minimize .and mitigate potential environmental impacts. To provide a revenue generator for the City of Huntington Beach. \ Development guildelines are outlined in the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance for highway commercial uses (Chapter 94) , multistory districts (Chapter 93) and other applicable city codes and regulations. 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The project proposes a total of 562,208 gross square feet of building, consisting of the following: Twin-tower buildings of 16 stories and 261 ,504. gross square feet each Two resturants of 10,000 gross square feet each; One 19,200 square-foot four-plex theater; and One helistop atop tower #1 . 2-2 In addition, the following support structures are proposed: One 5-1/2-story parking structure with 1 ,814 parking stalls; and 79 outside parking stalls. Exhibit 2-2, Site Plan, indicates the location and configuration of the elements of the project. As shown, tower #1 will be adjacent to Beach Boulevard, north of the property zoned highway commercial on Beach Boulevard and southeast of tower #2 and restaurant #1 . Restaurant #2 is located adjacent to tower #1 . Both tower #2 and restaurant #1 are located adjacent to Warner Avenue. The 5-1/2-story parking structure is adjacent to the existing medium density residential development. The proposed helistop will be constructed atop tower #1 . The uses anticipated for the towers include office and professional services such as accountant, architect, attorney, dentist, engineer, optometrist, physician, real estate sales, etc.1 The restaurants (dinnerhouses) and movie theater will complete the range of services offered by the development. 2.4 PROJECT PHASING Construction activities are planned to begin in February 1982. The major portion of the project (with the exception of tower #2) will be constructed in Phase I and is expected to have a 12-14 month duration. Completion of the project, therefore, can be expected in early 1983. Phase II will consist of the construction of tower #2, which will begin when tower #1 is fully occupied. 1 City of Huntington Beach, Zoning Code, Article 947, C4 Highway Commercial District. 2-3 too WARNER AVE. o = I I I I el•I --- _ l� a LI w REsTnuP.aNl l-_ - Itl,COO 1P F PARKING SiRUGTUfZE 1 ouILD1Ny No.2 ' I O IBI PARKI 'JTA49 i 261,504 sq.FT. U M,T I'_ m Y b Q: U F w i v o ( < I I •. _ DUILDING 1,10.1 I ' 2GI.W4.ZO FT. . SYCAMORE AVENUE' w f$oJE-= SULMASZY OPFIGE TOW€R Nu 1 26I,504 GR055 54 F.WtoE OFFIGE YOWER NO2 2GI.6 } meo,s e¢rmT,mE - 107AL 52�DJ6 R✓=5-fPLRPNf NO'( Io,o� 6�00'f.• 5cJ F07TKaE - .- � 1 I , FL45TAIRANT KJD•2 10,GCa G@,A 552 ee2,TI6G . TVTAL ?D,LCtO 64�5s -�2 fi-'TA,L- •F=- .___�_� - I._. , R 22e.11' - -- � - OFPICE TM/EK /.IO.1 241,200 NeT 5w ProfA4E - cr-FIGS ?Ow^R No.2 44l,200 qEi 5. -' R=-W E •J I j TOTAL 482,400 NET X TCDTfrr i I � PARKING RF�UIIZAn�t i f5 wM,6 �. I ;a CMr-Ica Tov✓ER N&1 804 OW NG '5MCEs OFf10E T0wE12 140.2 804 RARKINO SPACES 1 0 R&5,TAURhNT N0.1 142 PARKIIJG &F C-MS RE-3TAURA/JY Not 142 PAP_K1NG 5f?K_E5 TOTAL I8g2 PARKING 5PACE3 J Pf'\R:IGINI6 ACHIE�/Et7 � PAW4NG 5TRUGTUKE 5.,L�.� 1a14 SOURCE: ACMA 9URPAGE T9 ' Y TAL IB9S PARKING "�C i � _ - 19 NnNO1GAPTED 3TALI.r RE@O. 0 65 130 195 PhnnW Beach-Warner Commercial Complex , . Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 2-2 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1 LAND US E E S r, The entire 10-acre study area is a former school site, sold recently as surplus by the Ocean View School District. The site is an irregular shape with 475 feet fronting on Beach Boulevard, 815 feet on Warner Avenue, 335 feet on Ash Street, 425 feet on Sycamore Avenue and 280 feet on Elm Street.l Existing Land Uses Several boarded up structures, formerly school facilities of the Ocean View School District, are located on site. There are two existing, but currently unused, paved parking areas: one accesses onto Warner Avenue and the other accesses onto Beach Boulevard. Little League baseball diamonds ar e situated on the western half of the site. The majority of the site is overgrown with weeds. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the existing land uses of the study area. Surrounding Land Uses Land uses adjacent to the study area are mixed (Exhibit 3-1 ) . At the northwest corner of the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue intersection are small individual commercial developments (Honda dealer, Tio Taco, future Conroy's florist). The area behind these commercial operations, and fronting Warner Avenue comprises a new 129-unit condominium project, Mill Stream condominiums. The northeast corner of the intersection is occupied by an older shopping complex, service station and liquor store. Behind this development are older single family homes along with a Southern California Edison substation. The southeast corner is occupied by a car wash fronting Beach Boulevard while the property behind it is residential , ' consisting of a mix of old and new single-family homes and new apartment complexes. 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element 80-2, EIR 80-3, December, 1980. 3-1 11111111111111 1111111111111111/ �__ � _� • ' • • ■i.i.i:lllllll�lllllllllllllllll :_ — 1111111 ��1111 11111111111111111 • � . • - :1111� I�Ii:1111111111111111111 111 :� � _ =11NigIIIIiNN1111111111111111111 ■iiiii�1111:11111�:1111111111111111111 �_ _ � 111111�Ii�111'VINIi�llllllllllllllll NOW ' • • iiii:i�l111i:��li�llllli�lllllllllllll - �- • . 11111111i�lllli `IIIilo111111111 • � • �i:::i11111i:11 IIli�lllllll � • • 11111110111116 ,IIIIIIC� .- � • 1111111111"1111 ,1-111111� G • 11111111111�11/1 111/111/ � • Hill s c' ■ 1 � 1111 �I ■ ■■milli 1 OOnsite and Surroundin • , Land lJse g 1/ pbr Immediately south of the site is a 14,700 square-foot office complex. Land uses along the surrounding residential streets (Sycamore Avenue, Ash Street, Elm Street and Cypress Avenue) consist of a mix of older single- family units and newer multi-family units; the only exception occurs at the corner of Warner and Sycamore where a dental office is located. An older single-family abandoned structure is located on Cypress Avenue. r 3-2 3 2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS N A R S The following section of this EIR describes the relationship between the proposed project and the relevant planning programs of the City of Huntington Beach. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Elements cited below have been found to be relevant to the proposed Beach-Warner Commercial Office Complex. The Scenic Highways Element and Housing Elements are not discussed, as they do not apply to the proposed project. Land Use Elementl and Zoning2 The Land Use Element provides a generalized picture of anticipated physi- cal development as well as criteria for making land use decisions. The Phase II Land Use Element, along with the other General Plan Elements of the City of Huntington Beach, looks into the future to 1990. The General Plan Land Use Map designates the study area as General Commer- cial in a Multi-Story Node (Exhibit 3-2). Approved in December 1980, General Plan Amendment 80-2 proposed inclusion of the 10-acre study area within an 80-acre Multi-Story Node, centered at the intersection of Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard, while retaining the existing C-4 base zoning. The intent of the General Commercial designation is to provide land areas for the development of: convenience and neighborhood commercial developments; community shopping centers; regional shopping centers; highway-related commercial uses; and office professional uses. The study area is zoned C-4 (Highway Commercial District) with a Multi-Story (MS) Suffix classification (Exhibit 3-2) . 1 Huntington Beach General Plan, Land Use Element, December 1976. 2 Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, ivision my 6, 1965. 3-3 R RI i u- . RI J RI RI v i W C 4 `L_ RI i _J L! R 1 iTFRRwr! �u t -_ R1___ _ Y -- ---� lL____.__._-- R 2^ f` R2'QI" _ Iso I xC4 RI R1 RI RI RI R1 R3 - I� - L -���_._. I.. -- C4 Q 1 . j . 12,n1,flts - -- RI r ' AIIA- --— ----— —'--—--- —--- — o _ c r c ., ce-� W D -- — ..'x -'--'-• __._._. -ram—..---- I GfiO 7-- a0! a = G - =I o �;, ' .1 E .i c R 3 r� R 2 (ftAW Ii�, w I wa ;r n R2 ali.f _ t — WARNER AVENUE I, R2 3 R5 `''i l z r,. o � a J RI j ! FIR DR ! v AMSTERDAM R2x NLN C42' R2 R2 R2 R2 Ii N 10 tV R2 R2' ,• R I J ULO w R2 = .� Z D]z RI R1 ii f o , j s_ w o. I{I Z R I a ! -- -P•j 50 RI Q MARSEILLE OR z - '€- 1 Li w R2 IC4 ar RI 0 R 2 R 2 I l t 13D0 m x M i • �— i VALENCIA tt e 1 i ISO YO CF E , R3 (;r.4i VIEW 9Cr;k,L) ,r LL DR Kay de I FRIESLANO M.( R3 R3 I �� R I '� � �4 ; 1 i IC4 R 3 GUILDERS DR -- z RARTON DR 3 j I R I i J R3 ' �IOLLANO _ _ DR pl T _j R3 I z 'Z]0) 1 a� U RI M th M M M M M i Rx Z cr Cr CrI 25537 N R I R I R I I� !C4 13F yq Cr W W W Q O { � 3 R3 R5 a 3 0 R3 R3 x R3 R3 �LI — LEGEND i - AVEN�I E __.__NOTE: General Plan Di Instion ' Is General Commercial R 1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE COMMUNITY,FACILITIES (RECREATIONAL) Multi-Story Node. R2 TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE C—F-E� COMMUNITY FACILITIES (EDUCATIONAL) R3 LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE C4 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL R5 OFFICE PROFESSIONAL M 1 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 0 520 1040 166( C��� Mean �1�� ���0� O ul W . g - Commercial Complex Beach Warnr e Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 3-2 ' It is the r o purpose f the multistory suffix to establish areas wherein the building height limit may be exceeded. Furthermore, the MS suffix designation requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) prior to development. The goal of the multistory suffix zoning classification is to allow and regulate multistory development in a manner consistent with the General Plan and policies of the City.l The C-4 district is generally intended for land and structures to provide hotels, motels, churches, and professional services, with convenient access along heavily traveled highway frontage. 'In addition, all uses permitted in a C-2 district (COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT) are allowed uses in the C-4 district, subject to approval of a use permit. A C-2 zone allows theater and restaurant uses. Open Space and Conservation Element2 - This element focuses on the preservation of open space and the conservation of resources within the Huntington Beach sphere of influence. Issues, goals, objectives and policies . are outlined to provide basic guiding principles for future growth in open space and conservation resource areas. No scenic corridor, recreation area, resource preserve, neighborhood park, water area re source production, or planned open spaced development, as designated by this Element, are within the study area. Noise Element3 - The Noise Element of the City' s General Plan focuses on j. noise sources in Huntington Beach in the interest of protecting the public health, safety, and welfare. The study area is located within the 65-70 CNEL noise contour due to transportation noise generated from Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. These figures are within the optimum noise levels for an Office-Professional Land Use, which is 75 CNEL. l Huntington Beach Planning Department, Multi-Story/High-Rise Study, May 1973-October 1974. 2 Open Space and Conservation Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December 7 . 3 City of Huntington Beach, Noise Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976. . 3-4 i The majority of the site is shown to lie outside the 70 CNEL noise contour from existing surrounding roadways (as shown on the 1990 Ground Transporta- tion Noise Exposure Contours Map) . Circulation Elementl - The Circulation Element focuses on the City' s arterial streets and highways, public transportation modes and services, water transportation, and air transportation. Circulation issues are discussed, goals and objectives are established, and a course of action is set. The City Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways shows both Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue as major arterials with a street capacity of 45,000 vehicles daily. Seismic - Safety Element2 - This Element represents a comprehensive effort by the City of Huntington Beach to reduce loss of life, injury, and damage to property resulting from natural and man-induced diasters. The Element sets forth goals, policies and objectives in order to prevent or mitigate the impact of hazards on community , well-being. Additionally, the City Safety Element maps hazard potential with regard to geotechnical , flood and seismic considerations. The project site is characterized on these maps in the following manner: 1 . Geotechnical - The study area is shown as a Risk I area, which is characterized as relatively low geotechnical risk. Classification is based on the following considerations: fault rupture, noise, peat deposits, liquefaction potential , beach erosion, and tsunami hazard. 2. Flood - A major portion of the study area enters the expanse desig- nated as "special flood hazard areas" by the Safety Element, as a result of the Santa Ana River. 3. Seismic - The study area is not indicated in the Earthquake Hazard Special Study Zone. Other Relevant Planning Programs Southern California Association of Governments Growth Forecast Policy - The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) develops a 1 City of Huntington Beach, Circulation Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976. 2 City of"lTuntington Beach, Seismic-Safety Element, Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976. 3-5 �' Growth Forecast Policyever two to four ears .as art of its Development Y Y P P Guide Program. Growth forecasts are made at the levels of counties, cities and regional statistical areas. Among the policies that influence the forecasts are 1 ) encouraginf growth on a regional scale to occur in a balanced manner within existing urban areas and in currently unurbanized areas• 2 encouraging growth n a 1 g g g t o subregiona scale to take place in a concentrated, compact form; 3) balancing commercial , industrial , and employment growth with the population of each subregion; and 4) preserving the region' s natural resources and phase development according to an area's ability to accommodate growth. The study area is located in Region- al Statistical Area (RSA) 38. Refer to Section 3.3, SOCIOECONOMICS, for a more detailed discussion of growth projections relevant to the study area. -3-6 3.3 SOCIOECONOMICS Population and Dwelling Unit Projections The study area, located in the City of Huntington Beach, is contained in three different analysis areas: 1 ) U.S. Census Tract 994.02, 2) Orange County Community Analysis Area (CAA) 33, and 3) SCAG Regional Statistical Area (RSA) 38. Census Tract 994.02, in central Huntington Beach, consists primarily of , residential areas, parks and schools. In July 1980, C.T. 994.02 had a population of 5,228, representing 3.1% of the total city population of 170,505,1 and in January 1979, C.T. 994.02 had 1 ,694 dwelling units.2 Growth projections forecast by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) are made at the RSA level ; County projections are made at the CAA level . SCAG and County projections are consistent with one another, the only difference is that a CAA analyzes one portion of an RSA. CAA 33 is one of seven CAAs which comprise RSA 38. Table 3-1 summarizes the population and dwelling unit projections for CAA 33, RSA 38, and the County as a whole. As indicated in Table 3-1 , CAA 33 and RSA 38 have a relatively lower growth rate than that of the County overall . Citywide growth projections are provided in Table 3-2. It should be noted that the annual growth rate for dwelling units is about double that of the annual growth rate for population. This is attributed to the anticipated demographic trend of declining household size. The many causes of this (i .e., increased divorces, children moving away from home at an earlier age, senior citizens eschewing a room with their young to stay in a retirement community, etc.) creates a demand for additional homes to accommodate the same population. 1 "1980 Census Population Counts Count of Orange", Aril 1981 . 2 P � Y 9 � P Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center, "Report on the State of the County 1979-1980" April 1980. 3-7 Table 3-1 GROWTH PROJECTIONSI FOR CAA 33 AND RSA 38 Population 1980-1989 Simple Annual 1980 1982 1984 1989 Growth Rate CAA 33 69,656 71 ,975 71 ,995 74,315 .7% RSA 38 321 ,245 328,188 334,051 345,051 .8% County Total 1 ,936,600 2,027,000 2,114,900 2,323,000 2.2% Dwelling Units CAA 33 23,050 24,144 25,002 26,737 1 .8% RSA 38 118,000 123,000 128,000 139,100 2.0% County Total 724,000 766,400 809,500 917,300 3.0% Table 3-2 GROWTH PROJECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH2 1981-1988 Simple 1981 1983 1988 Annual Growth Rate Population 173,662 181 ,230 194,147 1 .7% Dwelling Units 66,962 60,731 80,223 2.8% The declining household density for RSA 38 is depicted by SCAG in Table 3-3. Table 3-3 PERSONS PER TOTAL DWELLING UNIT1 1976 1980 1990 2000 RSA 38 2.83 2.65 2.43 2.42 County 2.76 2.64 2.45 2.46 1 SCAG, SCAG-78 Growth Forecast Polic , January 1979. 2 City o Huntington Beach, Housing ement, November 1979. 3-8 There are signs, however, that the declining household size trend is 9 9 reversing. It is expected that average household sizes will undergo a sharp increase as families and households are motivated to share their living quarters and living expenses, largely due to the high cost of housing and a scarcity in rental units. Housing Trends Over the last decade housing costs have increased to the point of becoming a critical factor in the County's future growth. In 1971 , the median sales prices of a new home in the County overall was $311000; in 1980, in the City of Huntington Beach, new condominiums were averaging $120,000 in sales price, and single family detached units were averaging $163,000 in sales price.l High housing costs, combined with a marked residual demand for housing in the affordable range, have greatly restricted the housing market for most moderate and lower income families (those earning $25,000 per annum and less) . Most hard hit are first-home buyers who, lacking equity from previous home ownership, can neither meet prevailing down payment require- ments nor qualify for the outstanding mortgage values. Among the responses to these changing trends has been an increase in the proportion of personal income spent on housing. Until recently, the rule of thumb for homebuyers was that mortgage debt should not exceed 2.5 times annual household income and for renters, affordable rent was general- ly held to be 25% or less of personal income. Because of inflation, these objectives generally can no longer be met (particularly for first-time buyers) . many banks now approve mortgage values at three times annual income; and renters are more often accepted on a 30% of monthly income basis. Equally important, guidelines for affordable housing often employ the higher ratios in recognition of the fact that the cost of shelter has increased, perhaps on a permanent basis. First American Title Company, Residential Sales Survey, Orange County, Single Family Detached and Condominium and Planne nit Developments, 1980. 3-9 Huntington Beach Housing Element - The Housing Element of the Huntington Beach General Plan attempts to provide housing for all economic segments of the community. In specific terms, the Element inventories the issues which are central to the preparation of a Housing Element; identifies housing needs and problems; establishes goals and policies to guide City officials in daily decision making; and sets forth an action program. 1 Specific problems identified in Huntington Beach include: 1 . Twenty-five percent of all families in Huntington Beach are spending more than accepted norms for the housing. 2. ' Housing costs are increasing about twice as fast as incomes and will continue to rise rapidly unless means are found to reduce costs. 3. The majority of new housing is designed to meet the needs of families with incomes above the median income level . 4. There is an immediate shortage of approximately 5,500 housing units for low income families. 5. Huntington Beach faces large-scale renovation and replacement of housing units in the future unless adequate home maintenance is conducted. 6. New and used housing is not generally being provided for low income families. Employment Trends - Unemployment in Orange County, as shown in Table 3-4, dropped between 1978-1979 from 4.9 to 4.1 . Projected unemployment rates for 1980 and 1981 show an increase at 5.8 and 6.0. These rates are below the California average of 7.0 and 7.1 for 1980 and 1981 , respectively. Orange County supports a diverse economic base, including manufacturing, construction, finance, agriculture, real estate, services and trade. The two largest occupational groups anticipated in the county for 1985 are 1 ) professional , technical and kindred occupations and 2) clerical workers at 19.2% and 17.7%, respectively; the two smallest occupational groups for 1985 are farm workers at 0.6% and laborers at 3.3%. 3-10 Table 3-4 CIVILIAN LABOR FORCE, EMPLOYMENT, AND UNEMPLOYMENT ORANGE COUNTY 1978-19811 Item 1978 1979 1980 1981 Civilian Labor Force 1 ,006,600 1 ,063,400 1 ,123,000 1 ,115,800 Employment 953,700 1 ,019,300 1 ,058,000 1 ,048,800 Unemployment 48,900 44,100 65,000 67,000 Unemployment rate M 4.9 4.1 5.8 6.0 Table 3-5 presents the current labor supply in relationship to the demand for the various occupations in the County. Table 3-5 indicates that there is a large demand for labor in the technical-related occupations which the current labor supply in Orange County is not fulfilling. Table 3-5 ORANGE COUNTY LABOR SUPPLY 1980-1981 Occupation Surplus Deficit Professional and Technical Engineers, Draftsmen, Technicians, Programmers X Accountants X Clerical and Sales Secretary, Clerk-Typist, Bookkeeper II X Cashiers, Checker, Clerks, Receptionists-Sales X Waiters, Waitresses, Cooks, Security Guard X Teller, Bookkeeper I X Industrial Set-up Operators, Maintenance Mechanic X Electronics Assembler, Welder X Electrical Appliances Servicers, Service Station Attendant X Truck Driver-Heavy, Automobile Body Repair X Truck Driver-Light X Sheet Metal Worker, Automobile Mechanic X 1 EDD, Annual Plannin Information 1980-1981 , May 1980. ua 2 EDD, Ann Panning Information, Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove SMSA, 1980-787;-ay1980. 3-11 i Table 3-6 EMPLOYMENT .PROJECTIONS FOR HUNTINGTON BEACH # of # of # of # of Average Jobs Jobs Jobs Jobs Yearly Yearly Actual Forecast Forecast Forecast Change Change Wage-1977 1978 1979 1980 1985 '79-85 '79-85 ' Total-Orange County $11 ,780 757,400 811 ,800 838,600 967,000 155,200 25,680 Total Hunt unavail . 36,454 39.,072 40,341 45,870 6,798 1 ,133 Beach Agri- $ 7,857 1 ,136 1 ,218 1 ,258 1 ,160 -58 -10 culture Mining $21 ,151 350 375 387 299 -76 -13 Construction $16,608 764 818 825 952 +134 +22 Manufacturing $14,100 8,698 9,323 9,631 11 ,317 +1 ,994 . +332 Trade $ 8,802 11 ,026 11 ,818 12,208 14,301 +2,483 +414 Transportation/ Public Utilities $15,074 1,357 1 ,455 1 ,503 1 ,733 +278 +46 Financial/ Insurance/ Real Estate $11 ,977 1 ,650 1 ,768 1 ,827 2,138 +370 +62 Services $10,461 5,434 5,824 6,016 7,167 +1 ,343 +224 Government $11 ,900 6,039 6,473 6,686 6,803 +330 +55 Wage Profile - Based on average wages the income levels for 1980 are shown in Table 3-7. Table 3-7 INCOME LEVELS IN 19802 % of Total Average Annual Occupation Employees2 Income Range 3,4 Professionals 19.7 $18,500-22,000 Managers 12.2 15,700-20,100 Sales 10.6 11 ,400-16,600 Clerical 17.3 9,300-11 ,800 Drafts 12.0 14,400-18,100 Operatives 11 .5 12,900-17,300 Service Workers 12.3 11 ,400-16,500 Laborers 3.4 10,500-12,600 �- 1 City of Huntington Beach, Housing Element, November 1979. 2 Information, for this table was erive from the State of California., Employment Development Department, Projections of Employment by Industry and Occupation, 1980-1985, September and Orange County Employment Development Department, Labor Supply and Demand Orange County, April/June 1980; Orange County Development Department, Wage and Salary Study Orange County, May 1979. 3 To-unded to nearest IUU. 4 Means that one-quarter of employees earn less; one-quarter earn more. 3-12 3.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION Greer and Company completed a traffic analysis for the proposed development in May 1981 . The traffic report has been summarized below and is attached as Appendix Gl to this EIR. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the existing circulation of the study area. Existing Street System While other major streets provide several alternative routes to the site, only Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue provide direct and convenient access to the San Diego Freeway (see Exhibit 2-1 , Site Vicinity) . This freeway access is significant to the project since the majority of the office complex tenants and employees will likely reside sufficiently far enough from the site to make freewayuse convenient, it not necessary. Y Beach Boulevard. Beach Boulevard (S.R. 39) in the study area is a six-lane arterial street with a raised median that provides for side-street cross traffic and entry onto the roadway, and protected left-turn pockets. Beach Boulevard is not currently fully improved with curbs and gutters adjacent to the project site; however, it consistently maintains three through lanes of traffic in each direction. In the north- bound Beach Boulevard approach to Warner Avenue the curb lane is designated as a right-turn-only lane. There is no comparable right-turn- only lane southbound. Warner Avenue. Westerly of Beach Boulevard to Golden West Street, Warner Avenue is a four-lane arterial with two lanes in each direction. Several short sections of Warner Avenue within the study area are fully improved with the curb setback to the ultimate location due, in part, to street improvements by recent non-contiguous development. Easterly of Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue is widened to its full width and improved with a concrete barrier median. 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 3-13 Ash Street Sycamore e local y e Street, Elm Street and Cypress Street. These streets in an older residential area are adjacent to the westerly and southwesterly side of the proposed development site. None of the streets is currently constructed to modern residential street standards; roadways are generally narrow, lack curb, gutter and sidewalk and are generally uncontrolled. The land uses fronting on these streets are varied residential , being small and older single-family residences, duplexes, and multifamily structures on a small scale. Ash Street is controlled by a stop sign at Warner Avenue. Intersection analyses were conducted for the three designed study inter- sections: Beach Boulevard at Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, and Warner Avenue at Magnolia Street. The analyses indicate that one intersection, Beach and Edinger, is currently operating at a Level of Service KOS) "C", an acceptable level of operation. However the re- maining two intersections are currently operating in the lower ranges of LOS "E" having just exceeded the Level "D" cutoff value of 1 ,450 by values of 1 ,470 for Warner at Magnolia and 1 ,500 for Beach at Warner. The opera- tion of the Beach/Warner and Warner/Magnolia intersections have reached generally unacceptable levels of congestion and delay under existing traffic volumes and geometric conditions. Even before project traffic is added to the intersections for analysis, these two intersections are indicated as having reached the limiting capacity of the intersection and in need of physical and/or operational improvements to improve their current level of operation. Air Transportation The purpose of this discussion is to identify the regulatory agencies and site conditions relating to approval of a helistopl facility. The Federal Aviation Administration is responsible for making an airspace evaluation (Form 7480-1 ) . The County Airport Land Use Commission reviews and takes action on the approval while the City Council is responsible for approval of the helistop facility. The state Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics licenses the heliport through a Heliport Permit after review and consideration of the FAA and local agency actions. 3-14 As noted in Section 3.1 , the study area is in a urbanized setting, surrounded by residential and commercial uses. Aside of utility lines, there are no prominent structural or topographic obstructions. Wind direction is onshore, from the southwest. During the morning hours the winds are light and variable. By late morning the winds are well developed with wind speeds generally within the 3 to 10 mph range. 3-15 C 3.5 AIR QUALITY The general air quality of the 9 q y South Coast Air Basin, in which the project site is located, is determined both by the primary pollutants added daily to the air mass and by the secondary pollutants already present. Secon- dary pollutants, specifically oxidants (ozone) , represent the major air quality problem basinwide. The air quality of the project site is deter- mined by the primary pollutants emitted locally, the existing regional ambient air quality, and the specific meteorological factors which influ- ence the site. Climate' And Meteorology Air quality in the vicinity of the study area benefits from the site' s topographic orientation and localized meteorological conditions arising from the area' s proximity to the coastline. Winds with 5-10 mph veloci- ties flow offshore during the nighttime hours and are replaced by onshore breezes of the same magnitude by 10 a.m. Summer months usually include a northwesterly and southeasterly flow pattern superimposed upon the daily sea breeze. The climate in the vicinity of the project site is of the Mediterranean type (mild summers and winters) with mean winter temperatures ranging from 45 degrees Fahrenheit. Freezing temperature occur infrequently along the coast. Ocean influence dominates ambient wind and temperature conditions at the site. rExposure to Major Point Sources The ambient air quality of an area is partially determined by its exposure to major sources of air pollutants such as freeways, power plants, or indusstrial sources. Stationary sources and mobile sources within a site as well as in the general vicinity can also contribute to local pollutant concentrations. ' Major point sources are defined as those sources from which a minimum of 100 tons per year of primary and secondary air pollu- tants are generated. 3 16 o The Southern California Edison fossil fuel power plant in Huntington Beach is a major point source of air pollution, located approximately 5 miles southeast of the site. The plant emits the following: 4,151 tons/year of , nitrogen oxides, 4,944 tons/year of sulfur oxides, 341 tons/year of carbon monoxide, 667 tons/year of particulates, and 255 tons/year of organic gases. The project site is also exposed to primary air pollutants emitted by traffic on Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Ambient Air Quality Ambient air quality is described in terms relative to compliance with state and federal standards which have been adoped to protect public health with a margin of safety (see Appendix F1 ) . In addition to ambient standards, California has adoped episode criteria for oxidant, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. Air pollution levels. exceeding the episode criteria represent short-term exposures at which public health is actually threatened. Ambient air quality is monitored by the South Coast Air Quality Management , District at a series of stations established throughout the South Coast Air Basin. The two stations closest to the study area are located in Los Alamitos and Costa Mesa, both inland of the site.2 Although the air quality data is incomplete and the 1980 data is not yet available, known trends in ambient air quality are summarized below. Sulfur dioxide levels have not exceeded state standards at the two stations, but all other major pollutant levels have. Of all the pollutants, suspended and lead particulates exceed the state standards most often and by the widest margin, followed by oxidants. In 1978, episode levels for oxidant were reached on three (3) days at Costa Mesa and five (5) days at Los Alamitos. Sulfur Dioxide - State and federal sulfur dioxide standards were not exceeded at either station during 1975-1979. 1 0 C pies of the Appendix are available at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 2 For security reasons, the AQMD requests that the air monitoring stations be located generally. 3-17 Carbon Monoxide Only the Costa Mesa station monitored CO levels. ' Between 1975-1979 the state standard of 40 ppm for a one-hour averaging period was exceeded 24 of the days monitored. The federal standard was not exceeded. Nitrogen Dioxide - Nitrogen dioxide standards were exceeded less than 1% of the sampling periods during 1975-1979 at the Costa Mesa station. The highest measurement exceeded the state standard by one and one-half times. The federal standard was also exceeded. Nitrogen dioxide levels were not monitored at Los Alamitos. Oxidants - x'0 idant is one of the most serious air pollution problems in the area. A significant but unknown proportion of local oxidants can be traced to intrusion from other parts of the South Coast Air Basin. The state oxidant standard was exceeded 16% of the days monitored at the Los Alamitos station, while at Costa Mesa the state standard was exceeded 8% of the days monitored. Both stations also exceeded the federal standards. Suspended Particulates - The Costa Mesa station met the federal primary standard for suspended particulates, but exceeded the California standard 38% of the sampling periods. The Los Alamitos station failed to meet both the state and federal standards. The highest reading was three (3) times greater than the state standard of 100 ug/3. Lead Particulates - Lead is introduced into the air through motor vehicle emissions. Increasing technology is expected to reduce airborne lead particulates in the future. During the 1975-1979 period, the Costa Mesa station exceeded the state standard 34% of the sampling periods, while Los Alamitos exceeded the standard 35% of the time. The highest levels recorded were approximately four times greater than the state standard. 1 3-18 l 3.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT The predominant rating scale now in use in California for land use compatibility assessment is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) . CNEL is a 24-hour, time weighted annual average noise level . A weighting is a frequency correction that correlates overall sound pressure levels with the frequency response of the human ear. Time weighted refers to the ' fact that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods is penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) penalizes noises by 5 dBA, while nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) noises are penalized by 10 dBA. These time periods and penalties were selected to reflect a person' s sensitivity to noise as a function of activity. The City of Huntington Beach Noise Element of the General Plan identifies compatibility of land uses and CNEL noise levels. Noise levels of less than 75 CNEL are considered compatible with office-professional uses while noise levels of less than 60 CNEL are considered compatible with residential and institutional uses. The study area is exposed to an acoustic environment typical of highly urbanized areas. Surrounding land uses and motor vehicles utilizing Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard impact the site acoustically. Using the Federal Highway Administration noise modell the existing traffic volumes on Warner Avenue produce a 72.41 CNEL contour fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Traffic volumes on Beach Boulevard produce an almost identical noise contour, a 75.01 CNEL, fifty ' feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. Both measurements were based on existing traffic volumes (29,000 average daily trips on Warner Avenue 53,000 average daily trips on Beach Boulevard) . 1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration P P � 9 Y FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model , FHWA-RD-77-108 December 3-19 , 3.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Each of the applicable public services and utilities listed below has been contacted and asked to provide input as to the potential impacts of this project on service operations. Agency responses are included in this report as. Appendix H on file with the City of Huntington Beach, and are summarized individually below. 3.7.1 Environmental Conditions Fire Servicel The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department provides fire and rescue protection to the study area in conjunction with the cities of Fountain Valley, Westminster and Seal Beach. The existing facilities serving the project vicinity are depicted in the following table. Table 3-8 EXISTING FIRE-FIGHTING FACILITIES Facility Equipment Manpower Murdy Station 1 snorkel truck 9 on duty Near Gothard, 1 engine company less than 1/2-mile ' 1 paramedic unit from the project Gothard Station 2 engine companies 1 battalion chief Near Talbert and and 7 on duty Gothard, less than 2-1/2 miles from the project Both stations represent a better than average response time to the site. A response time of three and one-half minutes would be expected. Additional men and equipment, if needed, would come from Fountain Valley I and Huntington Beach Heil Station. Response from those additional 1 See Correspondence, Appendix H . Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 3-20 facilities would be approximately two to three minutes later and net approximately eleven additional men. The Insurance Services Office (ISO) , a bureau which establishes insurance rates for residential , commercial and industrial areas, has designated a classification of III for the study area. ISO classifications range from 0 (low risk) to X (high risk) depending on the type and construction of the building, the adequacy of the water distribution system, the installa- tion of fire hydrants and the number of fire stations serving the area. In case of emergencies, the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department would utilize Seals Ambulance Service and the victim would be transported to Huntington Intercommunity Hospital , which is 1-1/2 miles south of the project site. If the injury or illness required the services of a trauma center, transportation would be to the Fountain Valley Hospital approxi- mately three miles to the east. Police Servicel The Huntington Beach Police Department operates from a central police facility located at Main street and Yorktown Avenue, approximately three miles north of the project site. Police units are deployed from in-field patrol areas. Emergency response time throughout the city is 3-4 minutes or less. At the present time there are 193 sworn officers allotted to the Hunting- ton Beach Police Department with 134 assigned to the Uniform Division. There are 45 police vehicles and three helicopters currently in service. , The proposed development is located within Reporting District 272; bordered by Warner to the north, Slater to the south, Beach Boulevard to the east, and the railroad tracks to the west. In calendar year 1980 there were 1 ,424 calls for service within the district, with 1 ,064 of the , total calls being primarily traffic-related incidences. 1 See Correspondence, Appendix H. Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 3-21 , The police department has a current objective of providing approximately 1 .15 officers per 1 ,000 persons. Water Service The study area is within the service area of the City of Huntington Beach. Existing water distribution mains surround the study area. There is an existing 21-inch county feeder main along Warner Avenue. However, there is presently only one eight-inch main off the feeder to service the area of concern and a portion of Beach Boulevard. The whole area is in need of general upgrading and is presently adequate for domestic use only.l Wastewater Service The study area is serviced by the City of Huntington Beach in conjunction with Orange County Sanitation Districts #11 . Wastewater generated by the study area is transported and serviced by an existing 69-inch county main located along Warner Avenue.2 Solid Waste Generation Solid waste generated within the study area is collected by the Rainbow Disposal Company, a private company under contract to the city.3 Solid waste generated in the area is taken to the County transfer station in the City of Huntington Beach, where it is then transported to the Class II Coyote Canyon landfill . Coyote Canyon will have sufficient capacity until 1983, at which time the approved Bee Canyon landfill site (located in the Santa Ana Mountains north of E1 Toro Marine Base) will be brought into use. 1 Ibid. 2 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 3 Telephone transmittal with Don Kaiser, Division Engineer, City of Huntington Beach, May 12, 1981 . 3-22 Telephone Service , General Telephone Company provides service to the study area. Presently, ' existing aerial facilities border the study area on Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Energy Natural gas will be provided to the site by the Southern California Gas Company. An existing 6-inch main is located beneath Warner Avenue and a 4-inch main extends on Beach Boulevard. Additionally, 2-inch mains extend in Sycamore Street, Ash Street, Elm Street and Cypress Street bordering the study area. Two mains enter the study area: one 3/4 inches, the other 1/2-inch. At one time the pipes provided service to the former school facilities. Electrical service to the study area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company. Presently, an overhead 12kv electrical line runs along Warner Avenue with a break-off into the study area.l 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services Land Use Element 9 P P Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 3-23 , 3.8 AESTHETICS The study area is located in a highly urbanized environment where most of the surrounding area has been developed for strip commercial and residen- tial uses. Due to the presently developed nature of the study area and the lack of open space within and surrounding the site, a discussion of natural conditions would not be relevant. Therefore, an assessment or analysis of the aesthetic quality of the area must focus upon the built or man-made environment of the surrounding land uses and the proposed project, focusing on the visual compatability between the various land uses within and surrounding the study area. The analysis .of the existing aesthetic conditions has been organized to include a discussion of the study area and a discussion of surrounding land uses. Photographs depicting the site are provided in Exhibits 3-3 and 3-4. Study Area Located at the southwest corner of the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue inter- section in the City of Huntington Beach, the 10-acre study area contains abandoned Ocean View School District facilities (baseball diamonds, boarded up school buildings, paved parking areas, etc.) . The site has the appearance of a weed-invaded, vacant lot that presents a contrast to the developed commercial uses along Beach Boulevard. Surrounding Land Uses 1 The predominant, surrounding commercial land use is characteristic of strip, garden office (no higher than 3 stories) commercial . The trans- ition between the commercial and residential uses along Beach Boulevard is abrupt, with minimal landscaping for screening. The residential uses immediately adjacent to the site (south and west) are deteriorated and unkempt, a direct contrast to the new condominium development, north of the study area and adjacent to Warner Avenue. Vegetation surrounding the study area consists of limited landscaped areas, the planting of trees, shrubbery and groundcover within parking lots, landscaped residential yards and apartment courtyards. 3-24 11111111111111111111111111111111 ■� _ _ 11111111111111111111111111111111 . �_� _ _ Illili111 illlf/If1111f1if111111 �11111fi1 111111/111111111111111 1/1 ttllliit If111NN1itittillitlf111111 � �� _ � Ilfif1111f1ififNi11111ft1111/Iliillfl �_ � � 111i1i111111r1ppIN1111111111111111111 �� � � IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIt111111111111111111111 � �� � � ifiii1111ti1/f/ Itliiliiltiftli __ � � tllI/IIIt111111 111111111110 �� iisw _ t111111i1t11111 11111111, . i111111f1111111 I HUM /1/1111111/1111 11111111 , • _ I i i Rim erg__ �I__ pbr Site Photo Index ' I __�__rP°��,� --. -s. .K <, �w:az.,_..m.�.,w��,.,.�°a.:.,e° »_.,,_»�,,..� ,a,. .���.•,.w.. .,�;4»..---�—� ;�a=d ter;*�am� ;°�, —. .. 'i �.., �.. �m..� ;Wr � � .s". ;.•., ,. •f, '.a: a» '�� .���a,^,�, - �:���s, 9�� �;;,a,n �;+� weti s'�;.;,�r..:a'�s������." » „ a e e ff E , .- - + a Ts'_LL r 1 f o�� G�hdo � m o he t g p - � Beach-Warner Commercial Complex. Mola Development Corporation EXHIBIT 3-4 1 immediately adjacent to the site (south and west) are deteriorated and ' unkempt, a direct contrast to the new condominium development, north of the study area and adjacent to Warner Avenue. Vegetation surrounding the study area consists of limited landscaped areas, the planting of trees, shrubbery and groundcover within parking lots, landscaped residential yards and apartment courtyards. 1 1 3-25 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES 1 4.1 LAND USE Environmental Impacts ' The proposed project would remove existing abandoned Ocean View School District school buildings and replace them with twin 16-story towers, 232 feet in height, a parking structure, 35 feet in height, two restaurants, ' and a four-plex theater. The visual quality of the site will be altered from that of a weedy lot with abandoned structures to an urban form that ' will establish high visibility and definition to the skyline from surrounding areas. The proposed development will alter the aesthetic quality of the site from that of its present state. (Refer to Section 3.8 AESTHETICS for a detailed description) . Short-term and long-term impacts will be created by the proposed project. 1 Short-Term Impacts Short-term impacts relate primarily to construction activities: Temporary disruption of pedestrian circulation; ' Temporary disruption of vehicular traffic during road improvements; ' Elevated air pollutant levels from increased dust and construction vehicle exhaust; Noise impacts from demolition of the existing buildings, and the ' transportation of materials and equipment to and from the site; and Public safety impacts due to interest in the construction site. Each of these impacts is discussed in the relevant section of this EIR. The project is considered to be consistent with, and complementary to, the primary commercial/retail orientation characteristics of Beach Boulevard. The project wi l l increase utilization of the study area with the increased 4-1 intensity and diversity of urban land uses. Such increased utilization will result in a variety of impacts which are discussed in individual sections of this report. In particular, the reader is referred to the ' following report sections for further detail : 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES Long-Term Impacts Long-term impacts relate to the completed and occupied project. The ' impacts will be typical of those presently resulting from the urban nature of the surrounding land uses; however, the intensities will be ' incrementally increased. Principal impacts relate to: Incremental increases in vehicular traffic and resultant increases in air emissions and noise (Section 4.4); Periodic increases in the noise level due to the heliport (Section ! 4.4); Building shadows cast by the towers; Blockage of the prevailing breezes by the towers; Antennae interruption by the towers and possibly during the r landing and takeoff of the helicopter; Public safety at night for patrons of the theater and restaurants; , and Building security in general . Again, the air, noise and traffic impacts are thoroughly discussed in the sections noted. The proposed development will create its greatest level , of impact during morning and evening rush-hour periods. These are the times when existing impacts to traffic, noise and air quality are the greatest. The project will , therefore, intensify existing conditions during peak use periods. The impacts of the proposed four-plex theater ' 4-2 ' and restaurants, generated during afternoons (matinees) and evening hours (especially on the weekends) , will also contribute incrementally to heightened noise and pollution levels, but are not anticipated to be significant. Residents of the surrounding community will . experience greater traffic volumes on arterial roadways, decreasing vehicular accessibility. As shown in Exhibit 4-1 , the shadows cast by the towers will generally fall east onto Beach Boulevard and north and northwest onto Warner . Avenue. Of the four days illustrated, June 22, March 22, September 22 and December 22, at 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. , the longest shadow is December 22, usually the shortest day of the year. Uses impacted by the building shadows are the commercial along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Since prevailing breezes are from the southwest some wind blockage will p 9 9 occur; however, it is a localized effect and the towers are spaced at least 40 feet apart and diagonally opposite each other allowing wind flow between towers. The height of the towers as well as the helicopter operation may affect ' antennae reception in the surrounding residential areas. Public safety impacts relate to patrons during the evening hours at the theater and restaurants. As well , the change in land use will increase the number of persons in the neighborhood who do not necessarily live tthere. Surrounding residential uses bordering Ash Street, Sycamore Street, Elm Street and Cypress Avenue will be the most susceptible to potential impacts from the proposed development. Adequate setbacks, use of land- scaping, etc., is suggested to mitigate partially the incongruence between that of the proposed development and residential uses. Furthermore, a majority of the residential development surrounding the study area is zoned by the City as "R2 District." This district, in addition to providing for areas of medium density and multiple family residential developments, is intended as a transition area between residential and non-residential uses. 4-3 DEL.44 o a 56PT. SCDT.24 41vuwate AKwA-r I Y .Yl4C 22 �I S .td 1°=220' JUNe 22 9A4%a 5PM 4q'V.185'N, 1242ew wV./o'N. MKt22 9AM#SPM 35'V/51'H O 12 Noon) 95'V/OH `RSCP'T'22�IAM 3PM d i 1LN00W 55'V/O'H 0sc.22 9AM 0 3PM 18 V/4V H 12NOON 82.'V/o'H • 1°=110' ' SOURCE: ACMA UNduh o shas;Mdowa g Beach-Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development Corporation ' EXHIBIT 4-1 A change in the visual milieu can also be expected upon impl ementati on of the project (refer to Section 4.8, AESTHETICS for a detailed discussion) . The proposed 16-story twin towers will be highly visible from much of the surrounding land area providing relief from the strip commercial character of Beach Boulevard and perhaps provide impetus for the upgrading of the surrounding area. Beneficial impacts to surrounding land uses include the potential for additional economic stimulation resulting from an increased number of businesses and employees in the vicinity (see Section 4.3, SOCIOECONOMICS) . 4.1 .2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures designed to reduce the level of impacts on the proposed development are contained in relevant sections throughout this report. Specifically, a number of mitigation measures are contained in Section 4.4 (TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION) and 4.5 (AIR QUALITY) which, when applied, will work to maintain an adequate level of traffic flow and ease traffic congestion in and around the study area. The mass of the towers is an unavoidable adverse impact, visually; how- ever, with proper landscaping, a responsive public relations program and the following measures, the impacts can be partially mitigated: 1 . Avoid as much as possible a.m. and p.m. peak hours during road improvements and construction equipment and materials transport. 2. Light the parking structure and buildings properly for building and public safety. ' 3. Use feasible means to mitigate antennae disruption as much as possible. ' 4. Notify future tenants of the restaurant and theater that they are surrounded by residential development. 5. Secure the site during the construction period so that unauthor- ized personnel cannot enter the premises. 6. Apply these same measures during construction of tower #2. 4-4 4.2 RELEVANT PLANNING PROGRAMS , 4.2.1 Environmental Impacts ' Land Use Element and Zoning - The proposed project is consistent with the general plan designation for general commercial uses in a multistory node and the zoning of C-4 (Highway Commercial District) . The multistory (MS) suffix will facilitate the development of the proposed twin 16-story tow- ' ers. However, approval of a conditional use permit (CUP) is required by the MS suffix when exceeding the base zoning' s maximum height (35 feet as indicated in the C-4 zoning district) . Although approval of a use permit to allow C-2 zone uses (restaurant and theater) in a C-4 district is ' usually required, the CUP in this instance will cover all three actions. The site plan has been designed and engineered in accordance with all the setback standards noted both in the C-4 and MS suffix zoning classifica- tions. Open Space and Conservation Element - The project conforms with policies and plans set forth in the Open Space Element. The project will not ' impact any trailway, corridors or parks. Noise Element - The major source of noise in the study area is that which results from traffic on the bordering streets of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The Noise Element indicates consistency of General Commer- cial uses up to an 80 CNEL and up to a 75 CNEL for office-professional uses. Therefore, the proposed project is considered an appropriate use within these noise level areas and significant impacts are not antici- pated. (Refer to Section 4.6, ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT, for a more detailed description of the environmental impacts) . ' Circulation Element - Impacts are not anticipated to this Element as road- ' way designations are not proposed to be changed. However, street access and intersection improvements to Beach Boulevard and Warner avenue have been recommended in the traffic report prepared in conjunction with this ' project. The reader is referred to Section 4.4 for a discussion concerning impacts and mitigation measures to Transportation/Circulation and the traffic report prepared by Greer & Company contained in Appendix E. Copies of the traffic report area available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-5 , Seismic-SafetyElement -t Development of the site will increase surface runoff to the site. Present surface flow is accommodated by an existing 48-inch line along Warner Avenue. The system will be adequate for the applicant' s ultimate development proposal .l Other Relevant Planning Programs SCAG- - Growth Forecast The proposed project will not directly create permanent population growth since residential uses are not proposed. However, the project will create substantial demand for employment which ' will , in part, be drawn from outside the local market. Inasmuch as estimated employment is within SCAG employment projections for RSA 38, this impact is not considered adverse. 4.2.2 Mitigation Measures Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance - Approval of the project will PP require a conditional use permit for the development. Open Space Element - No mitigation measures are proposed. Noise Element - If subsequently determined necessary, noise attenuation ' measures will be implemented according to City of Huntington Beach guidelines. (Refer to Section 4.6 for a detailed discussion of relevant mitigation measures) . Circulation Element - No mitigation measures are proposed other than those improvements which are recommended in Section 4.4.2 (TRANSPORTATION/CIR- CULATION) which, if implemented, will improve vehicular circulation in the ' vicinity of the project site. ' Seismic Safety Element - 1 . All structures will be designed in accordance with City of Huntington Beach building codes to ensure safety in the event of an earthquake. 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 4-6 2. A properly designed storm drain system will reduce the potential impacts of increased onsite runoff volumes. 3. The Crandall foundation report findings will be incorporated in- to project design, however, the scope of the investigation did ' not include geologic and seismic studies or detailed site response studies. Detailed geotechnical seismic studies and site response studies should be conducted concurrent with development of pre- ' liminary design layouts and grading ,plans. Other Relevant Planning Programs Southern California Association of Governments Growth Forecast Policy Since the proposed project is consistent with projects supplied in the SCAG employment forecast. No mitigation measures are proposed. 4-7 4.3 SOCIOECONOMICS ' 4.3.1 Environmental Impacts The proposed project does not incorporate residential units. As a result, direct impacts will be limited to employment and revenues resulting from the businesses and services provided. Impacts on Employment and Income The project will create demand for new goods and services (i .e., furnish- ings, equipment, maintenance, etc. ); the project will also induce growth as the wages spent by new employees create job opportunities, and in turn ' additional monies are generated. This latter effect, known as the economic multiplier, is the basic fuel of growth. ' Direct employment opportunities to be created by the project include initial construction activity, and subsequent full-time employees of the ' office/commercial complex. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the anticipated labor opportunities. ' Table 4-1 ' FORECAST DIRECT EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES Short-Term Construction Labor: 732 732 man-years over two years (i .e., 244-366 men/year) ' Long-Term Office/Commercial Complex: 2,152 Officel - 2,092 ' Restaurants2 - 60 ' Estimates of potential annual salaries for future employees of the propos- ed project, both short-term and long-term, are delineated in Table 4-2. 1 Assumes 523,008 square feet and 4 em to ees/1 ,000 square feet. 2 q P y q Assumes 20,000 square feet and 3 employees/1 ,000 square feet. ' 4-8 Table 4-2 FORECAST ANNUAL WAGE PROFILE Short-Term Construction Income: 732 man-years at 17,634 per man per year divided by two years = ' 6,355,224 per yearl Long-Term Employment: ' Managers/Professional/Technical : $18,000-22,000 Restaurant Support Staff: $6,968 As indicated, the project will generate 732 man-years of construction work ' and 2,152 full-time new employment opportunities thereafter. The steady increase in professional , managers, clerical employment2 suggests these positions will be filled by a combination of employees drawn from the local labor pool as well as new residents drawn from other labor markets. Projected Housing Opportunities Housing affordability is based primarily on household income, and previous equity gains. For future employees of the office/commercial complex, ' neither factor can be projected directly. However, due to secondary household employment, household income averages higher than personal , income. Recent sources indicate spousal employment upwards of 45%, with secondary incomes averaging 25% of primary income.3 The Environmental Management Agency has indicated that as of April 1981 the median household income level in Orange County was $25,000.4 This is , substantially higher ($18,032) than the estimated $6,968 personal income of future restaurant employees, and $3,000-$7,000 higher than that ' 1 Orange County Progress Report 1979-80, Vol . 16. 2 EDD, Annual Planning Information 1980-1981 , indicates that all three , of these occupations are expected to expand in 1981 . 3 Architectural Record, "Housing and Community Design for Changing ami ly Needs-, c o er 1979. t 4 EMA, Housing Affordability Table, April 1981 . 4-9 , of the professional related occupations. . For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the majority of future household incomes will be equivalent to 80% or less of the countywide median ($20,000). Current rules of thumb for housing affordability use a 3.0 multiplier to annual household income as the basis for determining mortgage eligibility; ' for rental units, 30% of monthly income is normally employed. Assuming a median income of $20,000, future employees will seek housing within a cost range of no more than $60,000 (purchase) and $555/month (rental ) . These values are comparatively low in relation to housing costs within the ' Orange County market. Housing costs have been increasing at a steady rate for the last decade, and the current median listing price for a single ' family dwelling is $113,000; homes under $90,000 are becoming increasingly difficult to find-1 Despite the overall high cost of housing, however, there is considerable variation in housing costs on a local level . As mentioned previously new condominiums and single family detached dwellings in Huntington Beach are averaging $120,000 to $163,000 in sales price; ' however, resale housing is considerably lower, ranging from $69,543 to $119,672 with an average of $95,150.2 Since Huntington Beach offers a proportionally greater number of P ' affordable housing opportunities, the impact of the project will be somewhat lessened to the extent that new employees drawn from outside locations must seek new housing. Cost/Revenues As part of the environmental documentation completed for Land Use Element ' Amendment 80-2, which included the proposed project, a cost/revenue analysis was completed. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4-3. 1 1 Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center, 1979-1980 Report on the 2 State of the County, April 1980. City of..Huntington Beach, Housing Element, November 1979. ' 4-10 Table 4-3 ' TEN-YEAR SUMMARY COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED OFFICE COMPLEXI (In thousand dollars) ' Cash Flow Basis Commercial (office) Revenue 1 ,046.6 Cost 1 ,025.7 , Revenue/Cost 20.9 Revenue/Cost 1 .02 ' 4.3.2 Mitigation Measures ' The potential lack of affordable housing represents the only significant ' adverse impact. Mitigation measures designed to offset this problem have been addressed with increasing emphasis at both the state and local ' levels. The State Housing Element Guidelines require each city and county to ' prepare a Housing Element which identifies housing deficiencies (existing and projected) and also outlines methods whereby such deficiencies are and ' will be addressed. The five policy areas include preservation of housing and neighborhoods, standards and plans for adequate housing sites, ade- quate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, preservation of affordable housing, and provision of accessible housing. , The City of Huntington Beach has recently adopted a Housing Element which outlines a number of existing programs and programs which are in the process of being implemented with the purpose of achieving those policies , set up by the state. As the City is actively pursuing ways and means to provide affordable housing within its jurisdiction, no other mitigation measures are offered. ' 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, adopted December 1980. 4-11 , 1 . 4.4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION ' Impact analysis of the circulation system is based on the determination of project-generated traffic, its distribution on the surrounding street network and the resulting intersection capacity utilization (ICU) analy- sis. For this project, the City of Huntington Beach traffic engineering staff identified three signalized intersections for analysis: Beach Boulevard at Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, and Warner ' Avenue at Magnolia Street. Air transportation impact analysis was directed at an acoustic analysis of ' the helicopter. ' 4.4.1 Environmental Impacts Trip Generation and Distribution Trip generation rates assembled by the Institute of Transportation ' Engineers, Caltrans, Orange County EMA, Greer & Company, and others were used to develop projections for the total number of future trips to be generated by the proposed project uses. Table 4-4 indicates the trip generation rates and trips generated by land use. The proposed project ' would generate 9,800 daily weekday trips. ' Table 4-4 PROJECT TRIP GENERATIONI ' Generation Rate Trips Floor Area P.M. Peak P.M. Peak our Use in sq. ft. Daily In Out Total Daily In Out Total ' General Office 523,008 12.3 0.27 1 .36 1 .63 6,435 140 710 850 Restaurants 20,000 56.3 2.77 1 .69 4.46 1 ,125 55 35 90 Theater 1 ,748 seats - - - - 2,240 - - (2) Total 9,800 195 745 940 1 Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Greer & Co., Engineers and Planners (2) The theater. use period is assumed to occur later than the typical 4 - 6 p.m. peak period and therefore not coincidental with the project p.m. peak hour used in the intersection analyses. ' 4-12 Exhibit 4-2 identifies the estimated distribution pattern of project-gen- erated traffic. Beach Boulevard north of Warner Avenue and Warner Avenue east of Beach Boulevard will receive major portions of the project-genera- ' ted traffic, 30% (2,940 ADT) and 35% (3,430 ADT) , respectively. This will occur primarily because of the study area' s proximity and traffic orienta- tion to the San Diego Freeway. In addition, proposed site access favors the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue orientation. , In general , project-generated traffic will be split 50-50 for distribution ' on Beach and Warner; both will carry approximately 4,900 trips per day as a result of the project. Exhibit 4-2 also indicates the estimated distri- bution of a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic to site access points. As ' shown, the Ash Street access points will be the most heavily used, 65% of the project-generated traffic in the a.m. peak hour and 50% in the p.m. ' peak hour. This estimate of site access is predicated on physical constraints such as the barrier median in Beach Boulevard and a future barrier median in Warner Avenue, in accordance with City street design standards. Intersection Analyses The project traffic was assigned to the three stud intersectionsin p � g y accordance with the estimated distribution patterns: Beach Boulevard at ' Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, and Warner Avenue at Magnolia Street. Assigned project traffic and total traffic (existing plus project traffic) is presented in Exhibit 6 and Table 4 in Appendix D ' for each of the study intersection approaches.) Exhibit 4-2 indicates the level of service for the most immediate of the three intersections, Beach ' Boulevard at Warner Avenue. As shown, the intersection presently operates at Level of Service E and will drop to Level of Service F in the p.m. peak , hour with the existing plus project-generated traffic. P.M. peak period traffic assigned to the three study intersections has the most severe impact on the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue intersection. This intersection, being immediately adjacent to the proposed development, 1 All critical movements analysis worksheets are contained within Appendix D of the Traffic Report. Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-13 t • 111IIII/IIIIIIIIIIt1111111111111 SIT � � IIIIt111111111111111111111111111 = � 11/11/111 1111111111111111111111 �Illlllll�lli/1lIIIIrIt111111111 111 �� � � 111111/IIIIIItHH1111/IIIIIIIIIIIItI 11111111!l111lINfl1111t11111111111111 '�� � � Illlltl1111111�IM/111111111111111111 • _ �� � � 11111111/11111 IIIIi111111111111111111 : ; �� � � IIIIt1111111111 111111111111111 �� � � 111111111111111 111111111111 N— i _ 111111111111111 fills 111111111111111 11111 11 � . doll II I � 1,.11111 �I � � . �����!•1 Traffic Distribution and Intersection C� • acit Utilization � � - p Y receives the majority of the generate vehicle trips. Level of Service F is characterized as "force flow" or congestion at the intersection. Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Level of Service (LOS) drops from C r (existing) to D (existing plus project) . However, the actual change in LOS is less severe than this implies since the increase in critical lane volumes is only 60 vehicles. Warner Avenue and Magnolia Street has an increase of only 40 vehicles to the critical lane volumes and therefore will not create a significant impact at this intersection (LOS E in existing and LOS E in existing plus project conditions) . The post-project analysis for Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, reflects the existing lane configurations at this intersection. The existing street width condition on Warner Avenue adjacent to the project site is not at ultimate design. Therefore, by installing the ultimate street section on Warner Avenue and installing minor improvements to Beach Boulevard, the intersection overall capacity can be increased (see Section 4.4.2, Mitigation Measures) . Recommended improvements would reduce the estimated critical lane volumes from 1 ,765 to 1 ,480 using post-project intersection volumes. Level of Service improvement from F to nearly D will result in a significant improvement in projected intersection operating efficiency and even a slight improvement over currently existing conditions. Site Access and Circulation Access to and from the site is from three major points: Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue, and Ash Street (directly into the west end of the parking structure) . The two arterial locations are connected by a four lane internal roadway through the site. This internal roadway provides direct access to the east end of the parking structure. Warner Avenue would be most severely impacted by site-generated traffic and will require improvement adjacent to the site to full City standards. The Beach Boulevard access location will be limited to right turns enter- ing and exiting the site. Therefore, the majority of generated traffic 4-14 will use Warner Avenue to access the . project. Turn lane improvements on the Beach Boulevard approaches to the Beach/Warner intersection will be required along with a separate right turn lane at the Beach Boulevard access location. In addition, street improvements and a traffic signal will be required for Ash Street at Warner Avenue. The Ash Street improvements will involve the relocation of the parking structure access to provide adequate storage at the intersection. It is anticipated that there will be some vehicular disruption during improvements to Ash Street, Beach Boulevard, and Warner Avenue as well as some disruption due to the transport of heavy, slow-moving construction equipment. If at all possible, disruption of vehicular traffic on either Beach or Warner should be avoided during a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Construction vehicles entering and exiting the site should also avoid a.m. and p.m. peak hours. The proposed project will not create any significant traffic impacts at the other two study intersections, namely Warner Avenue at Magnolia, and Beach Boulevard at Edinger Avenue. The internal circulation system provides good internal movement through the development and direct access to and from the parking structure. Consideration could be given to additional roadway space for drop-off zones along the internal roadway to avoid any conflicts with moving and stopped traffic. The right turn lane from the surface parking along Warner Avenue at the access point should be eliminated so that only two exit lanes are provided to Warner. Parking Requirements The total parking figure of 2,612 (see Table 5, Appendix Dl ) required ' spaces is not representative of actual parking demand conditions during a 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-75 weekday for the proposed development. Maximum parking impact will occur ' in association with the restaurant lunch schedule beginning at approxi- mately 11 :30 a.m. The 11 :30 a.m. and noon time period would tend to overlap office employee parking prior to any number of those office employees leaving the site during the traditional lunch break between noon and 1 p.m. During this time period the theater would not be in use, reducing the parking requirement by 583 parking spaces. The restaurant' s proximity to the two office towers, having a potential for nearly 2,300 employees, will attract walk-in clientele from the offices. It is estimated that during the lunch period 60 percent of the restaurant patrons will be from the two adjacent 16-story office towers. This 60 percent estimate reduces the peak noon period restaurant parking demand from 286 spaces to 115 spaces. Parking_ demand for the two office towers may be less than the code requirements as a result of several factors: r., office vacancy; employee absence due to illness, vacations or business trips, public transit use, vanpooling and carpooling; and bicycle and motorcycle use. All of these factors would tend to reduce the actual parking demand generated by the office development approximately 16%. Table 4-5 illustrates the reduction in the number of parking spaces. �. Table 4-5 PEAK PARKING DEMAND Code Parking Estimated Peak Parking Use Requirement Reduction Demand General Office 2,079 16%(l ) 1 ,747 Restaurant 286 60% 115 Theater 500 100% 0 Total Spaces 2,865 1 ,862 Source: Greer & Company (1 ) Assumptions relative to peak general office parking demand: r a. assume 90% average occupancy of buildings b. assume 5% average absence of general building population due to illness, vacation, business trips; and building population of 4.25 persons/1 ,000 S.F. . and vehicle occupancy of 1 .2 from ITE Trip Generation Report, Second Edition, 1979. c. assume 2% of the general building population utilize public transit, are dropped off, use bicycle or other means of getting to work without requiring a parking space. 4-16 Therefore the proposed parking provisions of 1 893 parking s aces while p p P 9 P � P 9 P less than parking code requirements, should be adequate to accommodate a peak parking demand of 1 ,579 spaces. AIR TRANSPORTATION In April 1981 Vincent Mestre Associates conducted a noise analysis of the proposed heliport to be located atop tower #1 . As applications have not been filed regarding flight paths or airspace clearance, Mestre Associates assumed a most likely approach/departure path. Should the approach/depar- ture path be altered, subsequent to certification of this EIR, modifica- tion of the boundaries of the noise impact zones may be altered. The helistop would be located on the roof of tower 41 , which is 232 feet high. Mola Development owns a Hughes 500C for business use and it is anticipated that this helicopter will be the primary craft utilizing the helistop. Approximately three trips per day are projected, all occurring between 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. The Hughes 500C requires a single-man crew and can carry four passengers. The helicopter has a single engine, a normal gross weight of 2,550 pounds, and a rotor diameter of 26.3 feet. In general , the Hughes 500C is considered a light-weight helicopter designed for executive and utility uses and in comparison to other helicopters it is considered to be very quiet. Noise levels versus distance to the helicopter, referred to as slant range distance, is provided in Exhibit 1 , Appendix El . The data was provided by Bob King of Hughes Helicopter. - Two sets of data are given: maximum sound levels (Lmax) versus distance, and sound exposure level (SEL) versus distance. The maximum sound level is the loudest instantaneous sound that one would hear as -the helicopter flies over. The sound exposure level represents the total , or sum of all the sound that one hears during an overflight. SEL is used in the calculation of CNEL. It shoul d be noted 1 .� Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-17 that the Hughes 500C is considerably louder on approach than on departure. This is due to differences in speed for approach and departure, direction- ality of helicopter noise, and other factors. Approach and Departure Paths The approach and departure paths for the helistop are dependent on the wind direction. Since the helicopter operations will occur during the day, the winds during the daytime are of primary importance. Approaches to the helistop from the northeast and departures to the southwest were assumed for this analysis. This approach/departure alignment allows the helicopter to approach and depart into the wind, which is the preferred operational procedure. It is also a "worst case" alignment since it passes directly over the nearest residential areas. CNEL Noise Levels . CNEL noise contours were generated for the anticipated helicopter opera- tions associated with the Beach and Warner office complex. The CNEL noise contours are presented in Exhibit 4-3 for the helistop located on the roof of office towers #1 and #2, respectively. Noise levels generated by helicopter operations will be less than 45 CNEL in surrounding residential areas. The proposed helistop will not be incompatible with the surround- ing residential areas according to the City of Huntington Beach land use/noise guidelines. Noise levels in the residential areas due to the helicopter overflights will be at least 20 dBA less than the City' s guidelines of 65 CNEL. There is no significant difference in impact between locating the helistop on office tower #1 or #2. The nearby residential areas will experience approximately the same noise levels for either of the proposed helistop locations. Maximum Sound Levels The maximum sound levels (Lmax) that will be generated by the helistop operations are presented in Exhibit 4-4. Contours are presented only for 4-18 • ' WARNER AVE- I- 8 • ' ' • . o•8 ,L,.L TT'IT ' IITI 40 h- 40 • DuILDINC, N4.2 g I NI 1 O • PARKiNC� SiRUG'fUR.E ; A K� �TiV-16 261,504^�4 FT I • I d)' • JI O Q: 'LL C ( E U ' I • QeD • � 0 l • n n � c • �d,,o y � BUILDING N0.1 • 261.0 4'-4 FT • - ` -- , �_ _-_�• Moo ��0� _ • ____._ .�YNi u.b cuRry I 10,_b0 3O FT• •- • SYCAMORE AVENUE • a I, Residential s •.•.������•••• 6 LEGEND �" I--- ---� I I 4 MZ CNEL NOISE LEVELS—TOWER 461 J.. CNEL NOISE LEVELS—TOWER *2 i i 0 65 130 195 W Beach-Warner Commercial Complex Mola Development Corporation E�HIBIT 4-3. • 11 • IIIIIIII/r1111 111/11/111111�111 •� � � 11111111111111�11111111111111111 �� � � Iloilo am M /IIIII�Iir11111nn11111111111111�i111 i� _ � 111111 111111 N�In1111111111111i11111 ■� mm 1111111111111 11111111111111/51111111 ■m �Iilillllrlllll 1111/i111111111, �� /Ilili111r11111 :11111111111 ■m i 111111111111111 11111111 ■m WIN .. IN 1 oil � �s i .. Maximum Noise Levels D office tower #1 . (The shape of the contours would be the same if the helistop were located on office tower #2, only centered on office tower #2 rather than #1 . ) The data indicate the nearby residential areas will experience maximum sound levels of 75 to 80 dBA. Outdoors these noise levels will disrupt speech momentarily while the helicopter passes over. Inside residences with windows open, the noise levels are expected to be 15 dBA less than those experienced outside. Speech, watching television, and similar indoor activities involving communication would not be signifi- cantly disrupted. A typical person sleeping would be awakened, or at a minimum his sleep would be disturbed. In both the outside and inside situations the noise levels are not high enough to cause any physiological damage. 4.4.2 Mitigation Measures The traffic consultant has recommended the following measures to mitigate adverse impacts to the surrounding street network. Primary mitigation measures involve the implementation of adjacent street system improvements and modification of site access facilities. The following measures are recommended: 1- Intersection improvements at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue: Beach Boulevard - 1 . Add a southbound right turn lane. 2. Install dual northbound left turn lanes. Warner Avenue - 1 . Install dual eastbound left turn lanes. 2. Install three eastbound through lanes. 3. Maintain eastbound right turn lane. Street improvements: Beach Boulevard - 1 . Construct street improvements adjacent to project to standard cross-section design. 4-19 2. Install separate right turn lane at project access location. Warner Avenue - I 1 . Construct street improvements adjacent to project to standard cross-section design, along with transition section west of Ash Street and including barrier median to prohibit left turn entry at the mid-site access location. 2. Strip separate right turn lane for entry to the project and at Ash Street. Intersection and street improvements at Warner and Ash Street: Warner Avenue - 1 . Install dual left turn lanes on Warner at Ash. 2. Widen Ash Street to provide for four lanes of traffic -- two lanes in each direction. 3. Install an actuated traffic signal at Warner/Ash with interconnect to the signal at Beach/Warner. Access improvements: 1 . Relocate westerly parking structure access to the most southerly parking bay and coordinate with functional design of the ' structure. 2. Reduce the exit traffic lanes from the project at the Warner Avenue access location from three lanes to two right turn only lanes, and revise the connection to the surface parking to intersect with the internal roadway. 3. If a left turn lane entry from Warner Avenue is to be considered, conduct detailed design studies to determine if there is adequate space between the intersection and the proposed driveway to accom modate storage requirements and physical design requirements. Internal improvements: 1 . Consideration could be given to providing additional roadway or turnouts along the internal roadway to accommodate dropoff activities. The acoustic consultant has recommended the following measures to minimize the noise produced by the proposed helistop operations. It should be noted that measures controlling the operation of the helicopter once in 4-20 foperation he elico ter once in fl i ht light cannot be mandated. The of t helicopter g is the responsibility of the pilot, and due to safety considerations cannot be infringed upon. 1 . Limit flights to daytime hours only. Residential uses are generally considered to be more sensitive to noise during the evening and nighttime hours than during the day. Currently, only daytime operations are anticipated. 2. Restrict use of helistop to Hughes 500C or quieter helicopters. ' 3. Encourage approaches and departures along Beach Boulevard when possible. This will lower slightly the noise levels experienced in the nearby residential areas. 4. Encourage the pilot to minimize hover times and to fly the helicop- ter in a manner which minimizes noise. 5. Design and/or provide sound insulation for buildings onsite to insure acceptable interior noise levels. 6. Recommend that the applicant coordinate with the City Fire Department and Police Department and the public to enhance the acceptance of the heliport. It is fully expected that all procedural requirements for approval of the helistop (City Council , ACCU, FAA, Caltrans Division of Aeronautics) , the safety of the helicopter use, and adequate design of the heliport, will be met and in so doing, will mitigate adverse impacts other than acoustic. 4-21 4.5 AIR QUALITY 4.5.1 Environmental Impacts Two types of air pollutant sources must be considered with respect to the proposed project: stationary and mobile. Stationary source conditions include emissions onsite from construction activities and natural gas combustion as well as emissions at the power plant associated with any electrical requirements for lighting, etc. Mobile source considerations include short-term construction activities and long=term traffic generation. Short-Term Impacts The preparation of the study area for building construction will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and dust generated as a result of soil movement. The emissions produced during grading and construction activities, although of short-term duration, could be troublesome to workers and adjacent developments, even though prescribed wetting procedures are followed. ' These emissions will not, however, cause ambient air quality standards to be exceeded onsite. Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment - At this time, the number and type of construction equipment is estimated at 5 grading tractors and 1 water truck,l for a period of 3 months. Utilizing construction equipment emission factors from AP-42,2 the emissions over the 3-month construction period are expected to be approximately 1 .95 tons.3 Fugitive Dust Emissions - Construction activities are a source of fugitive dust emissions that may have a substantial temporary impact on local air quality. Building and road construction are the prevalent construction categories with the highest emission potential . Emissions are associated with land clearing, blasting, ground excavation, cut and fill operations, and construction of the units. 1 Personal communication with Frank Mola, April 20, 1981 . 2 U.S. EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition, August 1977. Includes Supplements - 3 See Appendix F for assumptions. 4-22 Dust emissions varysubstantial ) from day to day, depending on the level Y Y Y� P 9 of activity, the specific operations, and the prevailing weather. A large portion of the emissions result from equipment traffic over temporary roads at the site. The quantity of fugitive dust generated is proportion- al to the area of land being worked and the level of construction activi- ty. Emissions from heavy construction operations are directly proportion- al to the silt content of the soil (that is, particles smaller than 75 micrometers in diameter) and inversely proportional to the square of the soil moisture. Based upon field measurements of suspended dust emissions from apartment and shopping center construction projects, an approximate emission factor for construction operations is 1 .2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of construction per month of activity.) Long-Term Impacts Long-term impacts are those associated with permanent usage of the facilities proposed. The air pollutants emitted can be projected as the sum of both stationary and mobile source emissions. Daily emissions can be determined through the multiplication of a usage rate and an emission factor for each primary pollutant ( see Appendix F2). The results obtained are provided in Table 4-6 and are summarized below. Vehicular emissions assumed automobile trip generation by the land uses as calculated by the traffic consultant (Section 4.4) . In general , stationary source emissions represent approximately 7% of the 9 Y P PP Y total emissions from all sources. In 1985, motor vehicle emissions will account for 93% of the total , although exhaust control technology or legislation may reduce this percentage. It should be noted that the bulk (71%) of the air pollutant emissions will be carbon monoxide issuing from motor vehicles. To assess what this atmospheric loading implies in terms of its relative impact upon air quality, the emissions generated by the proposed project 1 U.S. EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition, August 1977. Includes Supplements 1-11 . 2 Copies of. the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-23 Table 4- 6 PROJECTED MOBILE AND STATIONARY SOURCE EMISSIONS COMMERCIAL EMISSIONS Natural Gas Combustion 1985 Emissions (including Generation of Electricity Vehicular Total Emissions Primary space heating)(1 ) Fuel Oil Comb. Emissions(2) Emissions From all Sources(3) Pollutant (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) (Tons/Day) CO .0006 .0055 1 .5807 1 .5868 HC .0003 .0050 . .1662 .1714 NOx .0032 .0632 . .2791 .3455 N sox .0000 .0728 .0253 .0981 Particulates .0003 .0110 .0307 .0420 TOTAL .0044 :1574 2.082 2.2438 (1 ) Based upon a consumption rate of 63,333 ft3/day. (2) Based upon a consumption rate of 54,932 kwh/day and 10,000 BTU required to produce 1 kwh. Fuel oil is Low Sulfur oil (0.5% as is currently used in Orange County) . (3) Assume fuel oil is used to generate all electricity required by the project. should be 'compared with regional projections. Projected daily emissions 9 P Y are available for 1975, 1982 and 1987 only. Therefore, it was assumed for the purposes of comparison that the proposed project would be built out by 1982. In actuality, the anticipated buildout is 1985. Table 4-7 tabulates that daily emission burden for the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) , Orange County and the proposed project for 1987. The emissions represent .02% of the SCAB's and .13% of the County' s emissions. Table 4-7 REGIONAL EMISSION INVENTORY COMPARISON Pollutant . SCAB1 Orange Coutyl Project CO 4064.78 789.99 1 .36 HC 2175.13 429.59 .14 NOx 1160.49 156.76 .32 sox 397.64 35.85 .10 Particulates 285.57 49.83 .04 TOTAL 8083.57 1462.03 1 .96 Air Quality Projections - Assessing the impact of the local air quality on the proposed project is achieved herein by using the Caltrans Caline 3 air quality model . Caline 3 allows carbon monoxide concentrations to be estimated along roadway corridors adjacent to the study area. Roads not directly adjacent to the site are not considered. Because of the relative inertness of carbon monoxide in the photochemical smog formation process and limitations on knowledge of dispersion characteristics of the other air pollutant species, carbon monoxide is the most suitable tracer pollutant for microscale modeling. Secondary pollutants are a large-scale phenomenon, and should be analyzed on a regional basis rather than a local one. The assumptions made for Caline 3 appear in Appendix F2 and the results of the calculations are given in Table 4-8 for the Beach Boulevard-Warner Avenue intersection. The concentrations given are for the eight highest l The California standard is 40 ppm (1-hour average) and the federal 2 standard is 35 ppm ( 1-hour average) . Copies are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. .� 4-25 hours of the day. The state and federal one-hour standard is rarely,' if ever, exceeded while the eight-hour federal standard is exceeded. The results also include the second highest eight-hour concentration of 14.3 ppm measured countywide, reflecting the ambient air quality. Table 4-8 MAXIMUM EIGHT-HOUR CARBON MONOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS AT BEACH BOULEVARD-WARNER AVENUE INTERSECTION Distance2 Concentration (Meters) (ppm) 15 16.26 30 15.53 61 15.15 Although the. carbon monoxide levels exceeds the federal air quality standard (9.0 ppm for 8-hour averaging) , the basis of the concentrations was the second highest ambient level of 14.3 ppm 8-hour average, measured countywide plus the concentration expected from ultimate traffic volumes at Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Therefore, although it appears that the levels are high, the project's incremental impact is slight; the second highest ambient level of 14.3 ppm plus ultimate traffic volume concentrations of 1 .96 ppm equals 16.26 ppm, therefore the ultimate volumes contribution is 1 .96 ppm of CO. Accordingly, the concentrations indicated should exceed ambient air quality on approximately five days per year. Note that as the distance of the receptor from the source increases, concentration levels decrease. Regional ambient air quality will be impacted by the growth of population and industry in this and surrounding areas. The proposed parking structure offers the potential for impacting air quality in the immediately adjacent residential area. The extent of impact, if any, is dependent on a number of factors, including wind and dispersion patterns, structural design, distance of the structure from adjacent residences, and operational characteristics. The proposed 1 The California standard is 40 ppm (1-hour . average) and the federal standard is 35 ppm (1-hour average) . 2 This is the distance of the downwind receptor from the intersection. 4-26 50-foot setback from the centerline of the road (as depicted in Exhibit 2-1) , together with the proposed 50% enclosed structure design and perimeter landscaping (each level ) can be expected to work toward minimizing any air quality impact associated with this parking facility. Air Quality Management Plan The proposed project does not conflict with the goals of attainment in the AQMP. The employment accommodated by the proposed expansion is within the employment growth projected for RSA 37. Although the proposed project can be considered to be growth-inducing, the quantification of induced growth is difficult to assess due to the lack of base data (e.g., what percent of the new employees will be from outside the immediate area or outside the county and how many employees are moving closer to their workplace, etc.) . With respect to the Air Quality Management District as a whole, any single employer employing more than 100 employees is responsible to implement Rule 7 - stationary source curtailment plans and traffic abatement plans. 4.5.2 Mitigation Measures The following measures are either recommended for inclusion in the project or are already a part of the project. For example, the location of the office and professional towers at a major intersection facilitates the use of mass transit by future employees. 1 . Employment of prescribed watering techniques will work to reduce the short-term impact of construction-generated fugitive dust. 2. Several techniques of reducing long-term energy and fuel usage could be employed which would result in reductions in air pollutant emissions. These mitigation measures are set forth in Section 4.7 of this document (PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES - Electrical and Natural Gas Service) . In addition, the building materials for the tower have been noted for their energy efficiency. 3. The parking structure design features (50% enclosed, landscaping) can be expected to work toward reducing the air quality impacts associated with this facility. 4-27 4. Compliance with Rule 708.31 of the AQMP District Rules and Regulations will achieve partial mitigation of mobile source emissions on days when episode stages are predicted. 5. The project will conform with applicable rules and regulations of the SCAQMD. 1 If required by the Air Pollution Control Officer (APCO) , a business employing more than 100 employees/shift must submit a "Traffic Abatement Plan" that is to be implemented during predicted episodes of oxidant, oxidant/sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. The purpose of the Traffic Abatement Plan is to reduce vehicular usage during a predicted episode period. 4-28 r 4.6 ACOUSTIC ENVIRONMENT 4.6.1 Environmental Impacts Noise levels in and around the study area will increase if the proposed project is implemented. However, the proposed project is a land use consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. Short-term acoustic impacts will result from construction activity for implementation of the project, while long-term acoustic impacts will result from use of the facilities by patrons and employees, and resultant vehicular traffic. Short-term acoustical impacts will occur as the existing buildings and the pavement are demolished and cleared for construction of the proposed development. Each distinct construction phase will have its own mix of equipment and consequently, its own noise characteristics. Noise from pneumatic wrenches, jackhammers and pile-drivers (which tend to be the noisiest) ranges from 80 to 105 dBA, at fifty feet from the source. Appendix G includes additional construction equipment noise ranges by category. As the project progresses through construction, the surrounding residen- tial and commercial land uses will be impacted accoustically, as will onsite construction workers. However, the activity is short-term in nature (12 months construction period) and will occur during daylight P 9 hours only. Adverse impacts will occur again with construction of tower #2. The long-term use of the facilities proposed will necessitate additional automobile and truck traffic on the surrounding street network as well as noise from air conditioning units and loading and unloading of restaurant goods. This will result in ,increased noise levels along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. The traffic report prepared for the proposed project (see Appendix D1 ) considered the project-related traffic on Beach Boulevard and Warner 1 Copies of the Appendix are available for review at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. 4-29 Avenue. Utilizing the existing plus project traffic volumes for Warner r Avenue and Beach Boulevard, the CNEL contour fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane is 78.87 dBA CNEL on Warner Avenue and 75.23 dBA CNEL on Beach Boulevard (see Table 4-9) . The project traffic will , therefore, increase noise levels a maximum of .46 dBA. Table 4-9 NOISE LEVELSI Existing 2 Plus Project2 Warner Avenue 72.41 72.87 Beach Boulevard 74.99 75.23 Operation of the two restaurants, the theater and twin towers will increase the onsite noise levels. Although data is not available to quantify noise from cooling and heating equipment, loading and unloading of goods, and restaurant and theater patrons, it is fully expected that these uses will contribute to a heightened noise level . 4.6.2 Mitigation Measures Short-term construction impacts can be partially mitigated by the following: Limit construction to daytime hours only; Recommend that construction workers wear protective hearing devices; Muffle or acoustically shield construction equipment, when feasible. Long-term accoustic impacts related to increased traffic volumes on surrounding arterials will rely heavily on mitigation of the receptors as opposed to the source (traffic volumes) . Additionally, encouraging employees to utilize transit will reduce the number of vehicles on the road. Acoustic impacts relative to the loss of the of the commercial office complex can be partially mitigated by the following: Muffler heating and cooling units, as appropriate; Recommend delivery and pick-up of goods during daytime hours only; and Encourage theaters to speed their seating of patrons. 1 All calculations are fifty feet from the centerline of the outermost travel lane. 2 Refers to traffic volumes. 4-30 r' 4.7 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES 4.7.1 Environmental Impacts Fire Service The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department will experience incremental increases in demand for fire protection services due to this project. However, no future expansion of area fire protection is anticipated. The current ISO rating of III is not anticipated to change from project implementation. The subject process poses an increased severity potential only from the standpoint of the high-rise portion. Fighting fire in a high-rise structure will require additional manpower and introduces a greater demand on resources. However, countywide cooperation on planning for and combatting high-rise incidents will serve to reduce this concern. The general site location has more than adequate water available; however, the fire department expresses concern over water pressure in consideration of the proposed towers. Because of the heights involved and fire sprink- ler system demands, the provision of fire pumps for the towers is expected. In addition the provision of a helistop atop tower 1 will provide fire and emergency helicopter rescue service to the site. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department does not set forth any specific heliport requirements beyond compliance with FAA for operational procedures and the Uniform Building Code for construction of the facility. Police Service Development of the study area will result in an increased opportunity for crime and an .increased demand for police services. As the cumulative effects of development in the City of Huntington Beach significantly affect the department' s ability to maintain the present level of service, it may be necessary after complete buildout of the project to employ additional personnel 'to service the site. 4-31 1 r It has been estimated by the Huntington Beach Police Department that the proposed project could require 562 calls for service (based on one call for service per 1 ,000 square feet) . To provide police service without increasing workload per officer, approximately three additional officers would be required. In addition, the helistop access will offer a considerable benefit in , respect to insertion and extraction of emergency personnel . However, since the helistop will be constructed on one tower, only one tower will provide access to this benefit. The police department has further indicated a helistop at this development will not interfere with either landing or takeoff patterns for Meadowlark Airport, John Wayne Airport, or police facilities. Water Implementation of the proposed project will result in the need to provide water service to a presently unserved area. Average daily water demands are expected to be approximately 35.1 million gallons per year, according to consumption figures in Table 4-10. , Table 4-10 PROJECTED WATER CONSUMPTION Land Use Consumption Ratel m p Annual Consumption Office/Commercial 30 gallons/day/employee 22.9 million gallons (2,092 employees) Restaurant 50 gallons/seat/day 12.2 million gallons (2 restaurants, approx- mately 668 seats total ) TOTAL 35.1 million gallons/year 1 City of Los Angeles, EIR Manual for Private Projects, August 1975, updated January 1979. Water consumption rates rom the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department are not available at this time. 4-32 As mentioned previously, the provision of water service to the proposed project would concern general upgrading to the existing facilities. The project would require a loop around the site with additional eight-inch mains off the feeder along Warner Avenue in order to service the development adequately.) Wastewater The proposed new construction is expected to generate approximately 235.3 million gallons of .wastewater per year, as shown in Table 4-11 . Table 4-11 WASTEWATER GENERATION RATE Land Use Generation Rate2 Annual Generation4 Office 1503 gallons/1 ,000 s.f./day 28.6 million gallons (Total : 523,008) Commercial 100 gallons/1 ,000 s..f./day 7.8 million gallons (Total : 219,000) Restaurant 50 gallons/seat/day 12.2 million gallons (2 restaurants - 668 seats total ) TOTAL 235.3 million gallons/year 1 See Appendix G, Correspondence. Copies are available for review at 2 the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department. Los Angeles EIR Manual , City of Los Angeles, August 1975, updated JanuaryGeneration factors from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department are not available at this time. 3 Office areas within the project are estimated to have four employees per 1 ,000 square feet. Since water usage is estimated at 30 gallons per employee per day, wastewater generation is not anticipated to exceed 150 gallons/1 ,000 sq.ft./day. 4 Factors used to determine projected water consumption and wastewater generation rates are the most accurate available for projects of this i size and intensity. It should be noted, however, that total gallons of water consumption and wastewater are only estimates designed to project future service needs. j 4-33 The Orange County Sanitation District has indicated that the 69-inch County main located along Warner Avenue will accommodate the proposed project.l Solid Waste Development of the site would result in increased demand for solid waste r collection and disposal services. However, no local service constraints are expected for the ultimate development of the proposed project.2 Based on similar use, the project can be anticipated to generate approximately 22-23 tons of solid waste per day or 8,208 tons per year.3 The additional solid wastes generated by the project will accelerate the use of current disposal sites, thereby incrementally adding to the demand for future solid waste disposal facilities. The approved Bee Canyon facil- ity (with an expected operating span of 20 years) will replace Coyote Can- , you when capacity of that site is reached in the next two years. Subse- quent to Bee Canyon, the nearby Round Canyon landfill will be brought into use. It is not anticipated that the ultimate wastes generated by the pro- ject would create significant adverse impact to future disposal facili- ties. Telephone Service General Telephone indicates that existing facilities along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue are not adequate to serve the proposed project. How- ever, long-term plans for additional telephone service to the area will be ; activated by this project. No obstacles are foreseen by General Telephone in providing quality telephone service to the study area in a timely manner. A major size underground cable will be installed to serve the proposed project and provide additional service to the surrounding area. 1 Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR #80-3. 2 Huntington Beach Department of DevelopmeFt Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 3 Based on 20.9 pounds/employee/day for commercial and office uses as recommended by the Los An eles EIR Manual , City of Los Angeles, August 1975, updated January T, 1979. 4-34 Energy Natural gas consumption for commercial buildings will vary largely with the type of energy system incorporated into the design of the building and the degree to which it is utilized as an energy source. Assuming reliance on natural gas as a primary energy source, however, the proposed project may be expected to consume as much as 1 .90 million cubic feet of natural gas per month or 22.77 million cubic feet of natural gas per year as shown in Table 4-12. Table 4-12 NATURAL GAS DEMAND-ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Average Monthly Consumption Annual Consumption Office/Commercial 1 .90 million cubic ft./month 22.77 cubic ft./year (Total : 542,208 sq. ft.1 ) (Generation Factor: 3.5 ft3/ sq. ft./month Southern California Gas Company (SCG) representatives have indicated that the proposed project can be serviced from existing facilities in the area. The service will be in accordance with the Company' s policies and exten- sion rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. Under present conditions and availability, natural gas could be supplied without significant impact occurring. Gas supplies can be affected, however, by actions of the California Public Utilities Commission and federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take action which affects gas supplies, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. . The use of electricity by future activities of the study area will create an impact upon the energy supply of the region. Table 4-13 provides a summary of the expected electrical demand at ultimate development of the project. 1 1 Natural gas demand for the proposed restaurant uses was not calculated for this EIR. 4-35 Table 4-13 ELECTRICAL DEMANDS ULTIMATE DEVELOPMENT Land Use Annual KWH per sq. ft.1 Annual Consumption Office and I Professional Building 34.2 17.89 million kwh (Total : 523,008 sq. ft.) Restaurant 76.9 1 .54 million kwh (Total : 20,000 sq. ft.) Theater 32.5 .62 million kwh (Total : 19,200 sq. ft.) 20°.05 million kwh Unless the demand for electrical generating capacity exceeds SCE' s estimates, and provided there are no unexpected outages to major electrical supply sources, SCE expects to meet its electrical requirements for, the next several years. If plans for new generating facilities are delayed, energy available for peak demand periods could become marginal by the mid-1980s. The proposed towers will be similar in appearance and design to the South Coast Plaza Town Center high rise development nearing completion in Costa Mesa. The South Coast Plaza Town Center twin-towers stand 15 stories tall and total 600,000 square feet. As reported in the Los Angeles Times2 and summarized below, these high rises have been designed to use approximately one-third the energy required, exceeding Title 24 energy conservation standards. It is anticipated that utility bills of the South Coast Plaza Town Center Development will be cut in half as compared to a typical five-year old 1 Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD. 2 Eos Angeles Times, May 3, 1981 . 4-36 Orange County high rise and by 20% or more compared to the average build- ing under construction today. The - reduced energy requirements of the towers are a result of four features which are expected to reduce energy costs by $280,500 a year. These features and anticipated savings are as follows: heat reflective double pane Solar Ban glass exterior wall ser- vices, annual saving of $105,300; a low wattage flourescent lighting system, annual saving of $65,900; cooling and heating system features, annual savi ngs of $55,000, and an off-peak electric power usage afforded, by a centually located energy plant, annual savings of $54,300. The South Coast Town Center project has set a precedence for energy conservation strategy in major commercial developments which the Beach Boulevard - Warner Avenue project will support. The special features of the South Coast Town Center high rises will be incorporated into the project design of the Beach Boulevard - Warner Avenue Office Complex. ' Therefore, similar energy saving are anticipated. Energy conservation has been, and will be, a continuing and controlling . determinant of the project concept. An energy statement for the Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue Office Complex was prepared by James A. Knowles and Associates, Inc., consulting Mechanical engineers for the project. The statement introduces and outlines the energy conservation strategy of the project as follows. Orientation of buildings, shading of exposed surfaces, control of the fenestration area and the use of highly efficient glazing material on the office towers, are all considerations that will influence directly the energy conservation strategy of this project. During subsequent develop- ment the insulation characteristics and the heat transfer dynamics of thermodynamically complementary structural and system components will also be carefully considered in the interest of enhancing the overall project efficiency within the site boundary. Limited quantities of gas and electricity from the respective gas and electric utilities will be required. Fuel oil will be used only for the emergency power which will support the Life Safety Systems and not as an alternate fuel for the 'back-up' heating system. The major energy users within the structure will be lights, air conditioning, and elevators. ' 4-37 The project team is committed to complying with the "Budget Exemption" provisions of the California Administrative Code "Energy Conservation Standards for New Non-Residential Buildings" Title 24 Division T-20 chapter 2 subchapter 4. This will be accomplished by incorporating in the project design specific energy conserving means. Water Implementation of the proposed project wi l l result in the need to provide water service to a presently unserved area. Average daily water demands are expected to be approximately 35.1 million gallons per year, according to consumption figures in Table 4-10. 4.7.2 Mitigation Measures Fire Service , 1 . The proposed twin towers will be constructed in conformance with all applicable building codes to ensure maximum protection fire hazards. Special features will include smoke detectors and automated sprinkler systems wherever required by the building code. 2. Fire-retardant building and landscaping materials will be used , wherever possible. 3. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Marshal will review future t detailed plans specifically for building separation and accessibility of emergency fire equipment. 4. The City of Huntington Beach Fire Marshal will review plans for building construction prior to the issuance of building permits which will further ensure adequate building design protections against fire hazards. 5. All fire protection requirements for high-rise buildings as addressed in Section 1807 of the Uniform Building Code ("Special Provisions for High Rise Group F, Division 2, Office Buildings") will be complied with by the project applicant. Police Service Police service can be further enhanced through the following measures: 9 9 4-38 1 t 1 . Review of the security system and circulation aspects of the proposed development by the Police Department prior to final construction approval . 2. Provision for adequate lighting along .streets, parking structures and walkways to the satisfaction of the Police Department. Water Service The following measures are offered. to encourage water conservation: t 1 . Use shrubbery and vegetation with minimal water requirements wherever possible. 2. Use automatic sprinkler systems to ensure landscape watering during early morning hours or during the evening, thereby reducing the amount of water normally lost from 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. Wastewater Service 1 . The project sponsor will work in conjunction with the City of Huntington Beach Engineering Department to construct the necessary sewer line improvements to service the proposed project. Water conservation measures outlined for water service will also reduce wastewater generation. No other mitigation measures are recommended. Solid Waste Disposal Provisions for adequate onsite storage will mitigate any potential impacts related to solid wastes. 1 . Trash compactors will be installed as needed to mitigate potential onsite storage problems. 4-39 Telephone Services Due to the absence of significant impacts to telephone service, no mitigation measures are proposed. Energy , 1 . Building construction will conform with California State building standards for energy conservation established under Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Under this Title, minimum construction standards are required which, when applied, will work to reduce natural gas (and other forms of energy) consumption. 2. Consider use of solar water heating to supplement the water heating requirements. 3. Use time-controlled public area lighting, both interior and exterior, and limit amount to that necessary for safety and protection. 4. Install energy-efficient escalators and elevators. The methods by which the project is mitigating impact to energy resources are the following: Full consideration will be given to 'passive' conservation means such as: highly efficient fenestrations; considerations of external shading by adjacent structures; modest but adequate light levels; individual room light switching; the use of the substantial structural mass and the fire reserve storage water as heat sinks; precise evaluation of the most , favorable structural orientation; and optimal insulation. Specifically: The project' s structural mass will be thermally manipulated to serve as a 'heat sink' each day, by the two temperature dead band room thermostats in order to exploit daily the nocturnal cooling effect. Mechanical system motors are dominant energy users in any project. To minimize their impact on the site consumption the fundamental components will be carefully selected to assure that the energy consumed by various prime movers (i .e. , fan and pump motors, etc.) will be reduced by optimizing the heat 4-40 transfer components and by generous pipe and duct P 9 PP sizing in order to reduce fluid transportation energy. Additionally all prime movers and system components will be selected at the point of maximum efficiency. The basic air conditioning system configuration will be 'all-air variable volume. ' Such systems are inherently efficient and do not rely upon parasitic heat to maintain comfort ("parasitic' - that heat used to reheat cold air solely for the purpose of space temperature control ) as do terminal reheat, induction and other more traditional and less efficient systems. Direct solar energy collection is not practical given the state of the art, location and config- uration of the project, however, passive solar collection will be fully exploited by system integration with the fire reserve water storage facilities. Explicit means of beneficially using occupant, light and solar heat to reduce the site ' depletable energy consumption will be included. In effect, the structures themselves will function as passive solar collectors accumulating excess internal heat each day in the fire storage water reservoir for use that evening or the next day as needed. The heat recovery and storage mechanisms then be the primary heating source - the boilers only back-up. The onsite consumption of the proposed project will be at, or below, the energy Budget Exemption level of 43,000 BTU/SF/year as stipulated by Title 24. 4-41 4.8 AESTHETICS , 4.8.1 Impacts , Development of the project will significantly alter the existing visual characteristics of the study area. In place of, and surrounding, one-, two- and three-story buildings will be twin sixteen-story towers and a five-and-one-half level parking structure. The towers will be imposing at 232 feet in height, while the parking structure will rise 35 feet above ground. At the same time, the weedy, overgrown lots with dilapidated buildings will be replaced with new structures and landscaping. The architectural style exhibits clean, unencumbered lines with building materials that are not visually harsh reflecting the sky, clouds and landscaping (see Exhibit 4-5) . The towers are similar to the twin towers in the South Coast Plaza Town Center in Costa Mesa. The building material is granite veneer framing the entrance, and reflective glass vision and spandrel panels covering the entire building. The proposed landscaping concept, trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the development, in a park-like setting, will soften the transition from , residential land uses to commercial and office uses. A plaza of textured concrete or bricking and planters will occupy the space between the towers and the restaurants, further extending the landscape theme of the development and physically relating the major elements of the proposed project. ' Potential lighting impacts will result from parking lot and parking struc- ture night lighting as well as building lighting for security purposes.l Glare impacts will be greatest during the day and will result from the sun reflecting on the buildings. However, the architect notes that the glare 1 According to the Los An eles EIR Manual , building exteriors and ' parking areas that exceed - oot candles is an illumination impact (City of Los Angeles, Environmental Impact Process for Private Projects, August 1975. ) ' 4-42 5111 PI I'll pip 149 ig� INS it 96" ON tieall IT 10 i?i 501 r4c, oil I I �n HEPP, E l 124I"1 l �Nl No, mi o i"1 k ll - n I Z41 WIN son M lo Irk, I -or " INK do ILI -A am a from the buildings themselves is not a significant impact (based on a re- view of similar structures) unless there is a reflective surface adjacent to the buildings. In addition, potential glare will be more of a problem to employees in the vicinity of the building rather than residents. 4.8.2 Mitigati-on Measures 1 The following mitigation measures are either proposed for inclusion in the project design or are already a component of the project: 1 . Landscaping at the perimeter of the development will soften the ' transition of land uses. 2. All lighting should be directed on the site. As indicated by the architects for the project, most of the lighting used will project the light from a hidden from view fixture. 3. Care should be taken to avoid reflective surfaces (white concrete Ior white buildings) adjacent to the towers. 4-43 5.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT The purpose of this section is to provide a discussion of reasonable P P alternatives to the proposed project. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and the reasons each was rejected in favor of the proposed plan are presented below. 5.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Implementation of the no project alternative retains the existing general plan designation (General Commercial) and the C-4 Highway Commercial ' zoning on the property with no project. Since the existing land use of an abandoned school site (Ocean View School District) is an economically deficit land use for the City, the site would probably be developed at some future date. Unless a general plan amendment and. zone change are requested, the future development would likely be that of general commercial uses as specified on the current LUE (see Exhibit 3-7, General ' Plan- and Zoning) . These uses, as previously discussed, would include convenience and neighborhood commercial developments, community and regional shopping centers, highway-related commercial uses, in addition to hotels, motels and office/professional uses. The advantages of the no project alternative are that the site would be reserved for future development options. Long-term and short-term adverse impacts associated with the proposed project, which have been summarized in Section 6.0, UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS, would be delayed until such time that future development took place. Particularly, the no project alternative would eliminate the increased traffic generated by the proposed office complex, specifically to Beach Boulevard, Warner Avenue and the surrounding residential streets. In eliminating this project-related traffic increase, the no project alternative eliminates projected increases in air pollution and noise levels. It also reduces long-term demand on energy sources and public tservices and utilities. As well , the visual and aesthetic milieu will not change from its existing condition. i 5-1 The primary disadvantage of this alternative would present itself in the foregone opportunity to increase the economic productivity for the site and the City in general . Due to the highly developed nature of the surrounding land use, present use of the study area would require that the city forfeit the potential revenue source the proposed project would generate. This revenue generation represents a substantial increase to City funds. Additionally, under the no project alternative, the opportunity for a more diversified urban land use, additional employment opportunities, and recreational and support-type services, would be delayed. The no project alternative has been rejected 'by the project sponsor because it would not provide a viable long-term economic base. 5.2 ZONING OF C-4 WITHOUT MULTISTORY SUFFIX The existing C-4 (Commercial Highway District) allows for a conventional development of approximately 90,000 square feet, with a maximum building height of 35 feet.l Permitted land uses in a C-4 zoning district include r motels and hotels, professional services and offices. The primary advantage of this alternative is that the demand for ublic ' P Y 9 P, . services, protection, water, electricity, natural gas, fossil fuel , resources, sewer and solid waste treatment would be less than in the proposed project. The long-term impact associated traffic, noise and air quality would also be incrementally reduced from that of the proposed project. The primary disadvantage of this opportunity would be the lost opportunity i of increased economic productivity. As stated previously, under this alternative, development would accommodate approximately 90,000 square feet as opposed to the proposed 562,208 square foot commercial/office complex. This would result in a loss of 472,208 square feet. As commercial land uses are a relatively high-generating revenue source, the 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 5-2 1 opportunity of 472,208 square feet will result in the loss ofv, potential economic productivity. Employment opportunities will also be substantially less than that of the proposed project which is expected to generate an additional 2,152 jobs (2,092 office jobs and 60 restaurant ' jobs) . ' This alternative for development of the study area in the C-4 zone, was rejected because it failed to achieve acceptable economic productivity. Costs associated with necessary improvements such as transportation and public service and utility systems were determined too high for the level of development that the current zoning designates. 5.3 RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OVER THE FIVE-AND-ONE-HALF STORY PARKING STRUCTURE This alternative proposes a residential component over the five-and-one- half-story parking structure in addition to the two 16-story towers, restaurants and four-plex theater. Advantages to this alternative would include location of residents in ' proximity to an employment center, thereby incrementally reducing traffic generation, air pollution and noise pollution. In addition, the economic ' productivity of the site would be increased by the addition of these residential units. ' Disadvantages to this alternative include issues of legality: one relates to that of access and the other to ownership rights. The feasibility and ' responsibility of public access to a private development is questionable. As well , how to define legal ownership of a condominium on a publicly owned development raises several legal questions. ' In addition, there is an inconsistency with both the existing general plan and zoning designations (neither allows residential use over a parking lot structure) . Furthermore, while office/professional uses are acceptable up ' to a CNEL of 75 (the study area is within a CNEL 65-70 area as indicated by the general plan) , residential uses demand an optimal noise level of CNEL 60. This alternative would necessitate detailed acoustical analysis 5-3 and extensive and costly structural modifications. The provision of residential units would also require additional public service and utility service to the project. Inasmuch as the market would appear to support the proposed condominium ' units and in light of the potential for additional economic revenues that may be generated by this additional use, the disadvantages of this alterna- tive has presented itself in such a way as to require rejection by the applicant. 5.4 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES This section addresses alternate development concepts that are not consistent with existing General Plan and zoning designations. Implementa- tion of any of these alternatives would, unlike the currently proposed project, require a General Plan Amendment and change of zoning consistent ' with the uses to be developed. Consideration is given to' the three alternatives concerning the 10-acre study area: - Medium Density Residential Alternative - Industrial Park Alternative - Open Space Alternative Medium-Density Residential Alternative This alternative would provide for 10 acres of residential land uses by , eliminating the proposed commercial uses. Although this alternative would most probably result in lesser impacts with respect to grading, traffic, , and demands for services and utilities, surrounding commercial land uses along Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue would present incompatible land uses to a proposed residential development of the site. Residential development would present a significantly less economically viable land use than the currently proposed project in terms of loss of employment t opportunities and long-term revenue generation to the City. In addition, the study area falls within a CNEL level (65 to 75 CNEL) that , the City deems generally inappropriate for residential uses. 5-4 , In view of economic generation incapabilities of residential development, ' incompatibility to surrounding land uses and unacceptable noise levels from Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, this alternative was rejected. ' Industrial Park Alternative ' This alternative by eliminating the proposed 10 acres of commercial/office uses through a General Plan Amendment and zone change, would provide for 10 acres of industrial land uses. This alternative would create a loss of 2,152 commercially oriented employment opportunities. ' Advantages to this alternative would include a reduction to traffic generation, air pollutants and noise levels in the general area since commercial uses generally generate higher numbers of average daily vehicular trips. This alternative would likely provide additional employment opportunities since industry generally provides more jobs than commercial uses. Disadvantages of this alternative relate primarily to the loss of revenues (e.g. , sales taxes) associated with elimination of commercial activities. Further, this alternative would fail to capitalize on the apparent long-term demand for commercial uses within the market area of the site. In addition, there is incompatibility of such a use along Beach Boulevard, which is characteristically a commercial area. Open Space Alternative 1 This alternative, by eliminating the proposed 10 acres of commercial , would provide for 10 acres of open space in the form of a neighborhood park. Like that of the previous alternative discussed, there will be a loss of commercial skilled employment opportunities, but, unlike the prior ' alternative, this loss will not be compensated by additional employment gains in other land uses such as industrial . Advantages to the open space alternative include increased visual ameni- ties, reduction of traffic generation, ,air quality and noise pollution. ' Additionally, the demand for public services, fossil fuel resources, sewer and solid waste treatment would be lessened. ' 5-5 Primary disadvantages are essentially as discussed for the prior alterna- tive. This alternative was -rejected because it failed to generate acceptable economic return on the property and because it does not respond to the long-term market demands for commercial facilities in the area. 1 'Al the alternatives were rejected in favor of the proposed project: 16- story twin office/business towers (total of 523,006 square feet) , two restaurants (total of 20,000 square feet) and a four-plex theater (19,2000 square feet with 1 ,748 seating accommodations). Through review of the discussions of land use alternatives, commercial development, as consis- tent with the present general plan and zoning designations, presents the highest and best land use of the study area. The proposed project will generate- beyond a net surplus of $20,900 over a 10-year period.l Land value in view of the location of the site, dictates use of the 10-acre , study area. Commercial development of the site, while providing 2,152 commercial-oriented job opportunities will generate acceptable economic ' return on the property and fulfill the long-term market demands for commercial facilities in the area. 1 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 5-6 ' ' 6.0 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS Approval of a conditional use permit for the Beach-Warner office/commer- cial complex will allow development of the study area to proceed, consistent with the proposed general plan. This section provides a summary of the adverse impacts anticipated within the study area should the development occur. Natural Systems No unavoidable adverse impacts to natural systems are expected to occur ' from project implementation as addressed in the DIS prepared by the City of Huntington Beach staff and Section 1 .2 of this report. Urban Systems Intensification of urban land use upon the study area necessitates signifi- cant alteration of pre-existent conditions. Unavoidable adverse impacts resulting from construction and development of the study area are both short-term and long-term in duration and effects. Impacts are described in detail in Section 4.0 of this EIR and are summarized as follows: Short-term construction-related activities include temporary disruption of pedestrian circulation and vehicular traffic, elevated air and noise pollution levels. Development of the study area will significantly alter the existing ' visual characteristics of the study area. However, the issue of compatibility between the proposed project and surrounding land uses were addressed through City approval of the General Plan Amendment 80-2, placing the study area in a multistory node, and approval of the zone change to include the multistory suffix (MS) . Increased local and regional traffic generation will require full improvements to both Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard and some modifi- cations to internal access (see Section .4.4 for details) . The ' proposed project will generate an additional 10,225 trips. 6-1 The project could create an annual demand for approximately 22.77 ' million cubic feet of natural gas and 20.05 million kwh/year of electricity, intensifying long-term commitments to nonrenewable and ' finite energy resources. Projected water and wastewater demands of the project will concern general upgrading to the existing facilities. Approximately 35.1 million gallons/year of water and 235.3 million gallons/year of waste- water will be generated upon project implementation. Increased demand for police and fire services will add to cumulative demand for additional officers and facilities to provide adequate coverage to the study area. Ambient noise levels will be increased from that of existing conditions as a result of helicopter operations ( see Section 4.4 for detailed discussion) . 6-2 ' 7.0 THE RELATION H -S IP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND ' THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY The proposed Beach Boulevard office complex represents a long-term commit- ment to the development of significant multistory nodes in the City of Huntington Beach. Presently the General Plan of Huntington Beach desig- nates six such developments throughout the city. The proposed office complex can be considered a productive step in attaining the City' s long- range planning objectives to "provide for the appropriate and harmonious development of multistory structures in the City of. Huntington Beach."l In addition, a major development on this site could greatly influence surrounding land uses, encouraging a new direction for community growth. However, a development of this scale and type may prove to be. in direct competition with the revitalization efforts for the downtown area. Of three alternative land use proposals for the downtown area presented by the Coastal Element, may be precluded if major office developments are being provided elsewhere in the community.2 Currently, the project area is devoted to an abandoned school/site sur- rounded by commercial and retail uses, single family residential and apart- ment complexes. As a result, the study area has already been dedicated to urban-oriented uses. Implementation of the project would lead to a long- term intensification of onsite land uses. The intensification and infill- ing of un existing urban area is consistent with State of California urban development policy in that it has the potential for reducing development demands at the urban fringe. The proposed 10-acre commercial complex will increase the study area' s pro- ductivity in terms of land efficiency and greater economic return gener- ated from the commercial uses versus the current use of the site. This increased economic productivity will occur without the necessity to commit 1 Huntington Beach Planning Department, Multi-Story/High Rise Study, May, 1973 - October, 1974. 2 Huntington Beach Department of Development Services, Land Use Element Amendment. 80-2, EIR 80-3, December 1980. 7-1 1 1 currently undeveloped land to urban uses. The project may also be ' considered, therefore, as an enhancement to long-term productivity in ' terms of land efficiency. Because of the large monetary commitment required to construct the proposed Beach Boulevard office complex and the City' s goals of the establishment of identifiable multistory developments, it is unlikely that , the study will return to a less intensive land use. After the approximate 50 to 75-year lifespan of the commercial structure, ' it is reasonable to assume replacement by a more modern facility or possible alternative land use. Conditions may be such in the future that the proposed development is no longer the most- economically productive use of the land area. It is logical to assume that the office complex would ' then be replaced by a "more productive" activity as the development and redevelopment of land progresses through time, in response to human needs. ' 7-2 , 8.0 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF ENERGY SUPPLIES AND ' OTHER RESOURCES Approval and subsequent development of the proposed project will result in an irretrievable commitment of energy supplies and other resources. These energy resource demands will be utilized by the project for construction, ' heating and cooling of buildings, and the transportation of employees/pa- trons and goods to and from the Beach Boulevard office complex. As fossil fuels are the principal source of energy, it can be stated that the proposed development will incrementally reduce existing supplies of ' fuel including fuel oil , natural gas, and gasoline. It has been forecast that the proposed project will require approximately 20.5 million kilowatt hours of electricity and 22.77 million cubic feet of natural gas annually. This represents a long-term commitment to an essentially non-renewable resource. The construction of the proposed development will also require the ' commitment or destruction of other non-renewable and slowly renewable resources. These resources include lumber and other forest products; sand and gravel ; asphalt; petrochemical construction materials; steel , copper, lead and other metals; water, etc. An increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (waste disposal and treatment, etc.) will also be required. Since the study area is currently in a "developed state" there is no further commitment of undeveloped land, only a more intensive use of the resource previously committed. Additionally, the proposed project would not significantly affect the allocation of open space as the study area is ' already developed. However, the project will result in long-term modifica- tion to the current visual milieu of the site. t ' 8-1 9.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS Growth-inducing impacts relate primarily to increased economic activity . in ' the city of Huntington Beach. Direct growth impacts _ will not occur inasmuch as the project does not propose residential uses. However, a wide variety of indirect (or secondary) growth inducements can be expected ' to evolve. ' The project will employ an estimated 2,152 additional long-term employees and approximately 732 employees during the approximate one-year construc- tion period, which will create a demand for additional goods and support . services in the general vicinity, thus stimulating growth in these sectors of the economy. This effect is known as the economic multiplier and can be considered somewhat stabilizing as the land and economic resources reach saturation. It can be expected that Huntington Beach and other neighboring cities will ' experience incremental demands for housing. The project may also indirect- ly induce the development of more intensive land uses in the area. i 1 1 i 1 1 9-1 1 10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED 10.1 PARTICIPANTS The PBR personnel who participated in the preparation of this EIR include: . Principal-in-Charge Michael Brandman, Ph.D. Project Director Lloyd Bookout Project Manager Luana Vogelsang Environmental Research and Analysis Lynn Masaki Kim Mauvais Beverly Bruesch Biological Resources Eric Hansen, Ph.D. ' Graphics Lynn Buhlig Steve McCormick Word Processing/Editing Barbara Heath Mary Chri stl e Pamela Richardson 10.2 PUBLIC AGENCIES City of Huntington Beach Department of Development Services James R. Barnes Mike Adams Fire Department William Cooper Police Department Earle W. Robitaille Public Works Department George Tindall 10.3 PUBLIC UTILITY AGENCIES Southern California Gas Company J .D. Allen General Telephone Company W.R. Duvall ' Southern California Edison Company D.R. Burris ' 10-1 10.4 CONSULTANTS ' Architect Albert C. Martin and Associates ' Union Bank Square 445 South Figueroa Street ' Los Angeles, California 90071 Jonathan D. Lloyd John H. Johnson Carl Clockie Traffic/Circulation Greer & Company 430 North Lakeview Avenue ' Anaheim, California 92807 Larry E. Greer Helistop Noise Study Vincent Mestre Associates 200 Newport Center Drive, Suite 213 ' Newport Beach, California 92660 Vince Mestre t 10-2 ' 11 .0 BIBLIOGRAPHY Archaeological Research Incorporated. Scientific Resources Survey and Inventory Huntington Beach, California, Technical Version Restricte istri utIon, April 1973. California State Department of Transportation; Division of Aeronautics. ' "Information Relating to the Establishment of Heliports in California," May 1978. City of Huntington Beach. Huntington Beach General Plan, December 1976 and amended through March 197 . Huntington Beach General Plan, Housing Element, November 1979. . Huntington Division 195 u t gton Beach Ordinance. Code Dtv s on 9, 2. ' Department of Development Services. Land Use Element Amendment - Environmental Impact Report 80-3, December 1980. Huntington Beach Planning Department. Multi-Story/- ig - ise Study, May 1973-October 1974. Huntington Beach Planning Department and Leighton-Yen 1 and Assoc-i-aTe—s. Geotechnical Inputs, February 1974. City of Los Angeles. Environmental Impact Process for Private Projects, August 1975, updated January . First American Title Company. Residential Sales Survey, Orange County Single Family Detached and Condominium anU-7 fanned unit eve opmen s, ' 1980. Greer & Company. Traffic Impact Analysis for the Beach-Warner Office ' Complex, May 1981 . Kinchen, David M. Los Angeles Times, "South Coast Plaza Center Saves ' Energy," May 3, 1981 . LeRoy Crandall and Associates. Report of Foundation Investigation Proposed , Mola Office Complex Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue, April National Oceanic and Atmospherica Administration, Climatological Data ' Annual Summary, V. 82, n. 13, 1978. Orange County Forecast and Analysis Center. Report on the State of the County 1979-1980, April 1980. PBQ&D. A Traffic Report on the Proposed Beach and Warner Professional Plaza, October 1980. 1 11-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Rules and Regulations. Southern California Association of Governments. Growth Forecast Policy, January 1978. United States Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administra- tion. Advisory Circular Heliport Design Guide No. 150/5290-lB, August 1977. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Compilation of Air Pollu- tant Emission Factors, Third Edition, August 137T.—Includes Supplement 1- Vincent Mestre Associates. Helistop Noise Assessment, May 1981 . 1 11-2