HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 3347 - Regarding Modified Truck Routes Council/Agency Meeting Held:_
�o »
Deferred/Continued to:
Q�Approved 13 Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Si4fi6ture
Council Meeting Date: February 18, 1997 Department ID Number: PW-96-011
-
d,�4r� 313/9-7 7-,D CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
V'I,v W REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administrator d6lell
PREPARED BY: LES M. JONES, II, Director of Public Works 9\y�.J,,�
'-rk, 33'-7 (J
SUBJECT: APPROVE MODIFIED TRUCK ROUTE ORDINANCE
Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachmen (s)
Statement of Issue: Section 35700 of the California Vehicle Code gives the legislative
body of any county or city the authority (by ordinance) to permit truck traffic upon highways
in their jurisdictions. This section allows the maximum gross weight of vehicles and loads to
exceed the maximum specified in Division 15 of the California Vehicle Code.
The City Council designates certain streets or portions of streets as routes that can be used
by any vehicle exceeding the maximum specified in Division 15 of the California Vehicle
Code. The Director of Public Works is authorized to designate these streets as "truck
routes" by use of appropriate signs where, in his opinion, such designation is required.
Funding Source: Funds are available in account number E-AA-PW-416-3-04-00 to post
the appropriate truck route signage.
Recommended Action:
1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-6.
2. Approve Ordinance No.
Alternative Action(s):
1. Deny approval of Negative Declaration No. 96-6.
2. Deny approval of Ordinance No. 3� and designated alternative truck routes.
3. Provide staff with direction regarding changes in truck routes.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 18, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-96-011
Analysis: The proposed changes in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, Section 10.24,
are recommended to facilitate the orderly movement of truck traffic and to protect the safety
and welfare of the residents of Huntington Beach. The proposed changes are as follows:
ADDITIONS CHANGED FROM CHANGED TO
(ARTERIAL TYPE)
XXX
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
Argosy (Secondary) New Bolsa Chica to Graham
Hamilton (Primary) Bushard to east city limits Newland to east city limits
Springdale (Primary) New North city limits to Warner
DELETIONS CHANGED FROM CHANGED TO
(ARTERIAL TYPE)
Adams (Primary/Major) Lake-to east city limits Beach to east city limits
Atlanta (Primary) Beach to Bushard Beach to Newland
Bushard (Secondary) Hamilton to Atlanta Removed
Garfield (Primary/Major) Edwards to Brookhurst Golden West to Brookhurst
Lake (Primary) PCH to Yorktown Removed
Main (Primary) Yorktown to Beach Garfield to Beach
Orange (Secondary/Primary) Lake to Golden West Removed
Talbert;(P rim ary) Golden West to Newland Gothard to Newland
Yorktown (Primary) Golden West to Lake Removed
This item was discussed at the November 16, 1994, Transportation Commission meeting as
part of a truck route issue on Lake Street. The discussion carried over to the December 21,
1994, Transportation Commission meeting where changes were proposed to the truck route
system. A motion was made to approve the proposed changes and passed 7 - 0.
Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined
that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. Subsequently,
Negative Declaration No. 96-6 (Attachment No. 5) was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04
of the Huntington Beach Zoning And Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and the provisions of
the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA)..
The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 96-6
for twenty (20) days commencing on September 19, 1996 and ending on October 8, 1996.
No comments, either verbal or written were received.
0017073.01 -2- 02/04/97 3:07 PM
a
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 18, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PW-96-011
Prior to adoption of the changes to the City truck route system, it is necessary for the City
Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 96-6. Staff, in its initial study of the
project, isrecommending that the negative declaration be approved.
Attachment(s):
Page Number
City Clerk's
1 Proposed "Truck Route Changes" Map
2 Ordinance
3 Legislative Draft
4 Legal Advertisement For Draft Negative Declaration No. 96-6
5 Environmental Checklist Form For Environmental Assessment
No. 96-6
6 Memorandum To File - Environmental Assessment No. 96-6
MTU:LMJ:REE:JDO:RMH:rmh:17073
I
i
0017073.01 -3- 02/04/97 3:07 PM
n
r
WESTMNSTER AVE.
■
i
BOLSA AVE BDI.SA AVE
AMW AVE
!� MADDEN MCFADDEN AYE
EY• �' Ci
1.
1 CENTER VE
COMM AVE gj 8 EmRDER AVE
3 N LL FAVE f 9I NEL AYE
Is
■
`\ WARNER WARNER BLVD
gLAtE,R� VE SLATER AVE
1� I TALI'NT VE N TAL°ERT AVE
q EWS EWS AVE
/1/111I (DARflELD A
Y
w yy \ T
a A
Volcraw �AVE
NO SCM.E
ausss sss A
` F ffi AN S ME
LEGEND I
` A TA �^
;�S 'nusuassssu u>sasussuwss;
CITY TRUCK ROUTES I _
NAMLTpN AVE
S E HIG14VAYS TAT _ ♦ ''" �'°'"'_ _ � _ _
PROPOSED DELETIONS
PROPOSED ADDITIONS mnmmmnnmmnuuw
AMPTER BY CITY OF HLWTIACT17N BEACH TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 12/21/94
REFERENCE CALIFORNIA VEHICLE COX DIVISION I SECTION
FILE NAME:G:\ACAD\TRAFFIC\MAPS\TRUCKENV.DWG
I
CITY OF HUN71NGTON BEACH • PUBLIC WORKS • TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
i
TRUCK ROUTE BATE.
MAP
n n
ORDINANCE NO. 3347
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 10-24 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO TRUCK ROUTES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 10-24 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Chapter 10.24
TRUCK ROUTES
Sections:
10.24.010 Designated
10.24.020 Streets prohibited to trucks
10.24.030 Excepted trucks
10.24.040 Sign erection by Public Works Director.
10.24.010 Designated. The City Council designates certain streets or portions of
streets as routes the use of which is permitted by any vehicle exceeding a maximum
gross weight of five (5) tons. The Director of Public Works is authorized to designate
the following streets as "truck routes" by use of appropriate signs where, in his opinion,
such designation is required. These streets are described as follows:
Adams Beach to east city limits
Argosy Bolsa Chica to Graham
Atlanta Beach to Newland
Beach SR 39 Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Bolsa Bolsa Chica to east city limits
Bolsa Chica Warner to north city limits
Brookhurst Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Edinger Bolsa Chica to east city limits
Garfield Goldenwest to Brookhurst
Goldenwest Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Gothard Garfield to Edinger
Graham Edin er to Bolsa
Hamilton Newland to east city limits
Magnolia Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Main Garfield to Beach
McFadden Graham to Springdale
Newland Pacific Coast Highway to Atlanta
Pacific Coast Highway SR 1 Northerly city limits to Santa Ana River
Springdale Northerly city limits to Warner
Talbert Gothard to Newland
Warner Pacific Coast Highway to east city limits
1
jmp/k/mc1024/3/7/97
10.24.020 Streets prohibited to trucks. The City Council designates all streets in the
city, except those enumerated in section 10.24.010, as streets on which any
commercial vehicles of gross weight over five (5) tons are prohibited. (322-1/29,
519-12/47, 532-6/48, 1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
10.24.030 Excepted trucks. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the operator of any
vehicle exceeding the maximum gross weight of five (5) tons coming from a truck route
having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted streets, when:
(a) Necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and
merchandise, from or to any building or structure located on such restricted streets;
(b) Necessary for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona
fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure, for
which a building permit has been previously obtained;
(c) Any passenger bus under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, or
owned by a bus company licensed by this city;
(d) Any vehicle owned by the city while necessarily in use in the construction,
installation or repair of a city utility or street. (1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
10.24.040 Sign erection by Public Works Director. The Director of Public Works
may erect and maintain appropriate signs on those streets affected by this chapter
where he deems the same to be necessary. (1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting held thereof on the 3rd day of March , 199A
ATTEST: Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED Cit3-W-lby Attorney
�e
INITIAT ND P OVED:
City ministrator
Director of P is or s
2
jmp/k/mc1024/3/1/96
Ord. No. 3347
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE } ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the
City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do
hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council
at a regular meeting thereof held on the Znd of February, 1997, and was again read to
said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd March, 1997, and was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of
said City Council.
AYES: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green, Garofalo
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of
Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk ofthe City
Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this
ordinance has been published in the Independent on
19
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk
In accordance with the City Charter of said City of the City Council of the City
Connie Brockway City Clerk of Huntington Beach, California
DeputLty Clerk
G/ordinanc/ordbkpg
3/6/97
f
I
. 33 41-7
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Chapter 10.24
TRUCK ROUTES
eSections.
10.24.010 Designated
10.24.020 Streets prohibited to trucks
10.24.030 Excepted trucks
10.24.040 Sign erection by Public Works Director.
10.24.010 Designated. The City Council designates certain streets or portions
of streets as routes the use of which is permitted by any vehicle exceeding a
maximum gross weight of five (5) tons. The Director of Public Works is
authorized to designate the following streets as "truck routes" by use of
appropriate signs where, in his opinion, such designation is required. These
streets are described as follows:
Adams
Manta
Seas# PaGifiG Coast Highway to north Gity knffitS
Belsa
�elsa S#+sa to Ra4wAo
E�reelc#tIr st PaGifiG Coast Highway to GarfiE4d
Bushafd Hamilton to Atlanta
Gaf#ield Edwards to BFOokhurst
6elae��wwest
6etha
6fa#a+ Edinger to Belsa
Han 40-n B4&h.aFd to east G*4ff�ts
1=ae
Ma n
MGFadder
Qraage hJewlaed
Lake to Go!denives, C}root
w
1
jmp/k/legislative/mc 1024/3/1/96
Adams Beach to east city limits
-Argosy o sa ica o Graham
Atlanta -13-e-a—cff to Newland
Beach aci is Coast Highway to norUfF—
city limits
o sa Bolsa Chica to east city limits
o sa Chica Warner to north ci imi s
roo urs aci is Coast Highway to north
city limits
Edinger Bolsa Chica to east ci imi s
-Gartield Golden West to BrooKhUrSt
oIdenwest Pacific Coast Highway to north
city limits
Gothard G—affi-eldo Edinger
Graham Edinger to Bolsa
-Ra-milton Newland to eas ci limits
agno is aci is Coast Highway to north
city limits
-IVFain Gv5ffWe d to Beach
McFadden ra am to Sprin ale
New laPa ci isGoaSt Hiqway o Atlanta
Pacific Coast Northerly city limits to an a
Hi hwa SR 1 Ana River
Springdale North city limits to Warner
Talbert o ar o Newland
arner Pacific Coast Highway to eas
city limits
10.24.020 Streets prohibited to trucks. The City Council designates all streets
in the,'.city, except those enumerated in section 10.24.010, as streets on which
any commercial vehicles of gross weight over five (5) tons are prohibited.
(322-1/29, 519-12/47, 532-6/48, 1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
10.24.030 Excepted trucks. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the operator of
any vehicle exceeding the maximum gross weight of five (5) tons coming from a
truck route having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted
streets, when:
(a) Necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares
and merchandise, from or to any building or structure located on such
restricted streets;
(b) Necessary for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual
and bona fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or
structure, for which a building permit has been previously obtained;
(c) Any passenger bus under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission,
or owned by a bus company licensed by this city;
2
jmp/k/legislative/mc1024/3/1/96
(d) Any vehicle owned by the city while necessarily in use in the construction,
installation or repair of a city utility or street. (1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
10.24.040 Sign erection by Public Works Director. The Director of Public Works may
erect and maintain appropriate signs on those streets affected by this chapter where he
deems the same to be necessary. (1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
i
3
jmp/k/legislative/mc1024/3/1/96
i
I
LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division,
of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has
been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach City Council for
consideration.. The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and
comment for twenty (20) days commencing Thursday, September 19, 1996.
Draft Negative Declaration No. 96-6 analyzes the potential environmental impacts
associated with a proposal by the City of Huntington Beach to add and delete certain
truck routes to the adopted Truck Route Map.
The segments to be added are as follows:
• Springdale Street from Warner Avenue to Westminster Avenue (City limits)
• Hamilton Avenue from Newland Street to Bushard Street
The segments to be deleted are as follows:
• Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Golden West Street
• Talbert Avenue from Golden West Street to Gothard Street
• Gothard Street from Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue
• Yorktown Avenue from Golden West Street to Lake Street
• Lake Street from Yorktown Avenue to Orange Avenue
• Adams Avenue from Lake Street to Beach Boulevard
• Orange Avenue from Golden West Street to First Street
• First Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange Avenue
• Atlanta Avenue from Newland Street to Bushard Street
• Bushard Street from Atlanta Avenue to Hamilton Avenue
I
A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of
Huntington Beach City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Any
person wishing to comment of the request may do so in writing within twenty (20) days of
this notice by providing written comments to Laura Phillips, Planner, City of Huntington
Beach Department of Community Development, Planning Division, P.O. Box 190,
Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
6
(&ENVIRONM:EALGURM)
J CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
RECEIVED
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TO: Jim Otterson S E P 12 1996
Traffic Engineer
HUNTINGTON BEACH, MCA
FROM: Laura Phillips
Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM NO. 96-6
DATE: September 12, 1996
Applicant: City of Huntington Beach
Request: To add and delete certain truck routes to the adopted Truck Route
System in the City.
Location: City -wide
At their September 11, 1996, meeting, the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC)
reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a
negative declaration may be filed for the project. In view of this, a draft negative
declaration was prepared and will be published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a
twenty (20) day public comment period commencing Thursday, September 19, 1996, and
ending Tuesday, October 8, 1996. Subsequent to the close of this review period, and
response to any comments received, the revisions to the truck route system may be
scheduled for City Council action. The environmental checklist form, along with any
comments and responses, should be attached to your RCA. The following language may
be used for the Environmental Status Section:
"Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project.
Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 96-6 (Attachment No. _) was prepared
pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California
Environment Quality Act (CEQA).
The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative
Declaration No. 96-6 for twenty(20) days commencing on September 19, 1996
and ending on October 8, 1996. No comments, either verbal or written were
received [or, Comments were received from concerning
and a response [and errata] has been included with the
attached Negative Declaration].
Prior to adoption of the changes to the City truck route system, it is necessary for
the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 96-6. Staff, in its
initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be
approved."
I have attached a copy of the environmental checklist, as well as a copy of the legal
advertisement, for your use. If your should have any questions regarding processing of the
environmental documents, please give me a call at x5537.
Attachments
i
i
I
I
' a
h j
.................. ..
': :':::i`::: :::::::: y R
.........
" 0 ;.. ...:: :::::::: ::. :. : . .• .. � 1� : N. 1 �: ii .: i/
4
iii;;:' :iii: ':
5�r�
y{■ry�)y, y� y/{•� .: y�(ry:. fny�+::yriry.:•.::':. ::::.:: ':::i:::::::i::i..::...''i:y:.
::.:.....i:::..::....... ."::::::: '::: :: '.L1 .IJ:::: .W LFi1.1.f ::i::l: .Y iii :.::. .::.i' .......::
:.i:.::.:' ::•i .:: ..:::::.�::::::::::::::::::::::::.....:::::::::::::::•.�::::::::::::::::::.:..:::::: •:::::::.:.
1. PROJECT TITLE: Truck Route Plan
Concurrent Entitlements: None
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Contact: Laura Phillips,Planner
Phone: (714) 536-5271
3. PROJECT LOCATION: City-wide
4. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Huntington Beach,Department of Public Works
Contact: Jim Otterson,Traffic Engineer
Phone: (714) 536-5431
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Various
ZONING: Various
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal involves the addition and deletion of certain truck
routes in the City (refer to Truck Route Map-Attachment 1). The segments to be added are
as follows:
• Springdale Street from Warner Avenue to Westminster Avenue (City limits)
• Hamilton Avenue from Newland Street to Bushard Street
The segments to be deleted are as follows:
• Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Golden West Street
• Talbert Avenue from Golden West Street to Gothard Street
• Gothard Street from Garfield Avenue to Yorktown Avenue
• Yorktown Avenue from Golden West Street to Lake Street
• Lake Street from Yorktown Avenue to Orange Avenue
• Adams Avenue from Lake Street to Beach Boulevard
• Orange Avenue from Golden West Street to First Street
i
First Street from Pacific Coast Highway to Orange Avenue
• Atlanta Avenue from Newland Street to Bushard Street
• Bushard Street from Atlanta Avenue to Hamilton Avenue
The roadways being added to the truck route system are primary or secondary
arterials that are direct routes in and out of the City,and,either service
commercial areas or are links to commercial areas of the City.They have been
used as truck routes for years and should be added to the system as well as the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code.The truck routes being deleted have been
deemed unnecessary. Some deletions are on streets that are residential in nature.
The proposed changes to the truck route system are a clean-up action to reflect
the existing situation that has evolved over the years.
A truck route is a roadway that has been adopted by the City Council as a legally
designated roadway for truck traffic. There is no restriction o the type of materials
that can be transported on a truck route. Truck drivers are allowed to travel on
roadways that are not designated as a truck route,but only if it is a direct route to
their destination. Truck drivers can not use roadways that are not designated as a
truck route for short-cut purposes.
The proposed truck route system will not result in any physical changes to the
roadway system,and will not affect arterial designations or capacity.
G. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED)
` None
i
I
i
i
I
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
❑ Land Use &Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services
❑ Population&Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities & Service Systems
i
❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise .k ❑ Recreation
❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an ❑
attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment, but that at
least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or is
"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is ❑
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
/0��,-W,42C August 30, 1996
Signatu Date
Laura Phillips PLANNER
Printed Name Title
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question. A "No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be
explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as
well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as
well as operational impacts.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate,if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or
if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more
"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report is warranted. `t
4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they
reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier
Analyses," may be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,
an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist.
6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances)
have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other
sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code
of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements.
(Note: Standard Conditions of Approval - The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects
which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project,some of these standard
conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance.
However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation
measures. for the readers' information,a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the
discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3.
SAMPLE QUESTION.•
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides orMudflows? (Sources: 1, 6) Q a a 0
Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington
Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which
show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response
probably would not require further explanation).
Po2tially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
'(Sources: 3, 4)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project? (Sources: 3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
j vicinity? (Sources: 1, 3, 4)
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible uses)? (Sources: 3)
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ 9
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3)
Discussion: The truck routes being added to the system are primary or secondary arterials that are direct
routes in and out of the City and either service commercial areas or are links to commercial area. They
have been used as truck routes for years and will not impact surrounding land uses. The routes being
deleted have been deemed unnecessary and some are on residential streets. The added routes will
adequately replace the existing routes, and will not have any impacts on the zoning, general plan, or use of
surrounding land in the City.
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the
proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
population projections? (Sources: 3, 5)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly ❑ ❑ ❑
or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Sources: 3, 5)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
housing? (Sources: 5)
Environmental Assessment#96-6 1 8/30/96
4 ( �
PoL%Aitlally
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: The proposal will not affect population growth or housing in the City. The proposed truck
routes will only designate where trucks may travel within the City.
III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal
result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
i c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
(Sources: 7, 8)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Sources: 7,8)
g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources: 7, ❑ ❑ ❑
8)
Discussion: The addition and deletion of the proposed truck routes will not expose people to or
j contribute to any seismic or soil related hazards. The proposal adds and deletes routes from existing
streets.
IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
i
the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 9)
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑
surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1,7)
I
Environmental Assessment#96-6 2 8/30/96
T
Po tially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
body? (Sources: 1,7)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
! water movement? (Sources: 1,7)
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? (Sources: 3,7)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
(Sources: 7, 8)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ z
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
otherwise available for public water supplies?
(Sources: 5, 7)
Discussion: The proposed truck routes will not result in any physical changes to the existing street
system. There will be no change in the amount of impervious surfaces, amount or location of runoff, or
impacts to water quality or quantity.
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ ❑ z
existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:
10)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources: ❑ ❑ Ox ❑
1)
i
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
(Sources: 6)
d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources: 6) ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
I
Discussion: The proposal will not change the amount of truck traffic in the City. It will direct traffic to
primary and secondary arterials that are designed to carry a higher volume of traffic.efficiently, and
remove traffic from some residential streets. Therefore, the proposal will not result in any increase in the
Environmental Assessment#96-6 3 8/30/96
A � POLI.Ait Tally
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
amount of ambient air pollution, and may reduce impacts to sensitive residential receptors. The newly
designated truck routes are located along more direct routes in and out of the City, and front onto more
commercial and industrial properties. The proposal will not impact ambient temperature, moisture or
airflow.
VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? `t ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
! (Sources: 6, 11)
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2)
c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
(Sources: 2, 4)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑
(Sources: 2)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ t]
alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)? (Sources: 2)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources: 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
Discussion: The proposal will not increase truck traffic within the City, nor will it significantly change the
f distribution of truck traffic. The addition and deletion of truck routes will direct truck traffic to primary
and secondary arterials that have been used for truck traffic for years, and remove truck route
designations from residential streets and indirect routes. The proposed routes are the most direct links in
and out of the City and between commercial nodes, and are designed to carry a higher volume of traffic
and various kinds of traffic efficiently. The truck route designation will not affect any physical
characteristics of the streets such as width, number of traffic lanes, on-street parking, bus turnouts, bike
lanes, and sidewalks.
VH.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
Environmental Assessment#96-6 4 8/30/96
I
P6WAtlally
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
habitats (including but not limited to: plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds)? (Sources: 5, 7)
b) Locally:designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
(Sources: 5, 7)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources: 5, 7, 13) `{
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
pool)? (Sources: 5, 7, 13)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ 9
5, 7)
Discussion: The proposed additions and deletions to the truck route plan will not affect any biological
resources. The new routes will direct traffic away from residential areas and on to arterial streets. No
physical changes are required.
VIlLENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.. Would
the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
(Source: 3)
b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 7)
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
resource that would be of future value to the region
i
and the residents of the State? (Sources: 3, 7)
Discussion: The proposed addition and deletion of truck routes will not conflict with an energy
conservation plans, impact non-renewable resources, or result in the loss of known mineral resources.
Truck traffic will be routed to existing routes within the City.
IX.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ ❑ (] ❑
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 6,
Environmental Assessment#96-6 5 8/30/96
� Poi.-,atially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
7)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 3, 7)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
hazards? (Sources: 6)
d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
grass, or trees? (Sources: 2, 6)
Discussion: There is no restriction on materials that may be carried on a designated truck route, and some
materials may be hazardous. However, the proposed additions and deletions to the truck routes will direct
traffic away from some residential areas and toward more commercial and industrial corridors, and are the
most direct routes in and out of the City. The proposal will not change the type or amount of hazardous
material that is currently transported through the City.
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: 2,7, ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑
12)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑
(Sources: 1,2,7, 12)
Discussion: The proposal will not increase existing noise levels in the City. The redesignation of truck
routes away from residential areas onto primary and secondary arterials designed for such traffic will have
j the effect of reducing noise levels for many residents. There are some residtial uses along the proposed
truck routes to be added to the system. However, the proposed streets to be added to the system have, in
fact, been used for truck traffic for many years already, and their addition to the route system should not
noticeably increase noise levels on those arterials. The proposed truck route designations reflect existing
conditions.
i
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
ieffect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services.in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Fire ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
Dept.)
b) Police Protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑
Police Dept.)
Environmental Assessment#96-6 6 8/30/96
M
1`6L aitially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
c) Schools? (Sources: School Districts) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(Sources: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
e) Other governmental services? (Sources: City of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
Huntington Beach)
Discussion: The addition and deletion of truck routes will not impact utilities, schools, or other governmental
services.
XIIXTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
facilities? (Sources: 5, 7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
Discussion: The proposed addition and deletion of truck routes will not impact any utilities, storm water
drainage or water supplies. The proposal will not involve any physical changes to the street system or
change the type or amount of truck traffic within the City.
XIMAESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑ (]
1,3)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
(Sources: 1,2, 4)
c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2) ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑
Environmental Assessment 496-6 7 8/30/96
P6L,,Iitially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: The proposal will direct existing truck traffic in the City to primary and secondary arterials,
which are presently used for this type of traffic. There will be no effects on scenic highways, and no
negative aesthetic effects or light and glare.
XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources: 14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources: 14) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
c) Affect historical resources? (Sources: 15) ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which ❑ ❑ ❑
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
(Sources: 5)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
potential impact area? (Sources: 5)
Discussion: The proposal will not result in any physical changes to the road system or any disturbance of
land or structures. There will be no impacts to historical, archaeological or paleontolgical resources.
XV:RECREATION. Would the proposal:
i
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ (]
parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1,
2)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ (]
(Sources: 1)
Discussion: The proposed addition and deletion of truck routes will not impact recreational facilities or
increase any demand for recreational facilities.
i
XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ 0
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
f levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
Environmental Assessment#96-6 8 8/30/96
P611atially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? (Sources: 2, 7)
Discussion: No wildlife or biological resource will be impacted by the proposal. No significant adverse
impacts are anticipated.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- 't ❑ ❑ ❑ M
term, to the disadvantage of long-term
environmental goals? (Sources: 3)
Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. It does
not represent a significant negative impact to the environment or goals of the City.
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ❑ ❑ ❑
("Cumulatively considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources:
3)
Discussion: See discussion of items no. I-XV above.
i
d) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 2, 6)
Discussion: See discussion of items No. I-XV above.
i
Environmental Assessment#96-6 9 8/30/96
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS
Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D).
Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis
Reference# Document Title Available for Review at:
1 Project Vicinity Map (Truck Route Map) See Attachment#1
2 Truck Route Map See Attachment#2
City of Huntington Beach Community
3 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter, 3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
4 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
` Ordinance
5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact Report for "
General Plan Update
6 Project Narrative
! 7 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Technical "
Background Report for General Plan Update
8 Geotechnical Inputs "
for City of Huntington Beach
9 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (April, 1996)
10 Air Quality Handbook,South Coast Air Quality "
Management District
11 Trip Generation,4th Edition
Institute of Transportation Engineers
City of Huntington Beach City Clerk
12 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Office,2nd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
13 City of Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Community
CEQA Procedures Handbook Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning
Information Counter, 3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
14 City of Huntington Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity Map "
15 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Location Map
Environmental Assessment#96-6 10 8/30/96
1
MEST"STER AVE,
i
i
i
DOLSA AK BOLSA AVE
ARGOSY AK !
slalom i rA
i ADOd AVE, MCFADDEN AVE
r 3y! rA i ;i
Sj @ITER K
HL, I
EDGER AK H EDINGEI!AVE
3 yg£ Y
M HEL LAW I tj ME1. AVE
�y I �
`\ ad
WARMER i m �' WA*(ER BLVD
ISLATER AVE
TALBERT kVE TALBERT AVE
8
,e\ ELL7S EVAAAVE
�{. I CTow «AK
NO SCALE , IA0AW5K
��vn
AK
LEGEND ♦ I �°
TA a
CI T Y TRUCK ROU TES I
STATE HIGH VA YS _ _ ''" ''J "AM"°"AVE
PROPOSED DEL E T IONS
PROPOSED ADDI TIONS umnuunnmmunwnuu
ADOPTED BY CITY DF HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSPORTATION 01VISSIOAd 12/21/94
REFERENCE. CVC 313 33, 31304, 35703, 3571L 35714
` FILE NAME:G:\ACADVRAMC\WS\TRUCKENV.DWG
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH • PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC ENGINEERING
TRUCK ROUTE DATE:
MAP
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON MACH
TO: File- Environmental Assessment No. 96-6
(Negative Declaration No. 96-6)
FROM: Julie Osu0�_n
Associateer
DATE: January 15, 1997
SUBJECT: Clarification of Environmental Status Regarding the Addition of
Argosy (between Bolsa Chica and Graham Streets) to the Truck
Route Map
It has been brought to Planning staff s attention that the above referenced street segment
was left off of the specific list of"The segments to be added" list in the project
description of Negative Declaration No. 96-6. Although the subject segment was
mistakenly omitted from the specific list of segments, it was depicted in the map of the
truck route modifications addressed in the Negative Declaration. Furthermore, the
project description defines the project as the addition and deletion of truck routes in the
City, as depicted on the Truck Route Map (Attachment#1 of the EA).
As discussed in the Negative Declaration, the part of the purpose of the project is to
identify street segments, which currently function as truck routes, on the City's Truck
Route Map. The subject segment of Argosy currently functions as a truck route for
surrounding industrial uses. Staff has reviewed the Negative Declaration and has
determined that the impacts associated with addition of the subject segment of Argosy to
the truck route map was adequately addressed in Negative Declaration No. 96-6.
cc: Linda Niles, Senior Planner
Jim Otterson, Traffic Engineer
Bob Hidusky, Traffic Technician
I
g:\osugi\environ\nd96-6mm.doc
v
H. B. INDEPENDENT
PUBLISH DATE: 3/13/97
i
LEGAL NOTICE
ORDINANCE NO. 3347
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING
CHAPTER 10.24 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO
TRUCK ROUTES"
SYNOPSIS
Ordinance No. 3347 amends Chapter 10.24 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 10.24
TRUCK ROUTES
Sections:
10.24.010 Designated
10.24.020 Streets prohibited to trucks
10.24.030 Excepted trucks
10.24.040 Sign erection by Public Works Director.
10.24.010 Designated. The City Council designates certain streets or portions of
streets as routes the use of which is permitted by any vehicle exceeding a maximum
gross weight of five (5) tons. The Director of Public Works is authorized to designate
the following streets as "truck routes" by use of appropriate signs where, in his opinion,
such designation is required. These streets are described as follows:
Adams Beach to east city limits
Argosy Bolsa Chica to Graham
Atlanta Beach to Newland
Beach SR 39 Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Bolsa Bolsa Chica to east city limits
Bolsa Chica Warner to north city limits
Brookhurst Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Edinger Bolsa Chica to east city limits
Garfield Golden West to Brookhurst
Goldenwest Pacific Coast Highway to north city limits
Gothard Garfield to Edinger
Graham Edinger to Bolsa
Hamilton Newland to east city limits
Magnolia Pacific Coast Hiqhway to north city limits
Main Garfield to Beach
McFadden Graham to Springdale
Newland Pacific Coast Highway to Atlanta
Pacific Coast Highway SR 1 Northerly city limits to Santa Ana River
S rin dale North city limits to Warner
Talbert Gothard to Newland
Warner I Pacific Coast Highway to east city limits
---------------------------
10.24.020 Streets prohibited to trucks. The City Council designates all streets in the
city, except those enumerated in section 10.24.010, as streets on which any
commercial vehicles of gross weight over five (5) tons are prohibited. (322-1/29,
519-12/47, 532-6/48, 1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
10.24.030 Excepted trucks. Nothing in this chapter shall prohibit the operator of any
vehicle exceeding the maximum gross weight of five (5) tons coming from a truck route
having ingress and egress by direct route to and from restricted streets, when:
(a) Necessary for the purpose of making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares and
merchandise, from or to any building or structure located on such restricted streets;
(b) Necessary for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the actual and bona
fide repair, alteration, remodeling or construction of any building or structure, for
which a building permit has been previously obtained;
(c) Any passenger bus under the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission, or
owned by a bus company licensed by this city;
(d) Any vehicle owned by the city while necessarily in use in the construction,
installation or repair of a city utility or street. (1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
10.24.040 Sign erection by Public Works Director. The Director of Public Works
may erect and maintain appropriate signs on those streets affected by this chapter
where he deems the same to be necessary. (1142-6/65, 2529-2/82)
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held Monday,
March 3, 1997, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Julien, Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan, Green,
Garofalo
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CONNIE BROCKWAY
CITY CLERK