HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 2 of 2 - Specific Plan No 13 - Public Hearing - Zoning I� City Council Resolution No. 314
and Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. 2000-95
ATTACHMENT #7
RESOLUTION NO. 314
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
HUNTINGTON CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, FOR
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF HUNTINGTON CENTER
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency")
is engaged in activities necessary to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the"Project"); and
In order to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposed to
enter into an Owner Participation Agreement ("OPA") with Huntington Center Associates, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability corporation ("Developer"), which OPA establishes terms and
conditions for Developer's redevelopment of.the Huntington Center on certain real property (the
"Site") and for Agency's potential sale of certain land within the Site to Developer as part of
such redevelopment; and
Developer has submitted to the Agency and the City Council copies of said proposed
OPA in a form desired by Developer; and
Pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seq.), this Agency and the City Council held a joint public hearing on the
OPA, having duly published notice of such public hearing and having made copies of the
proposed OPA and other reports and documents (including the summary referred to in Section
33433) available for public inspection and comment; and
This Agency has duly considered all terms and conditions of the proposed transaction,
and believes that the redevelopment and any sale pursuant thereto is in the best interests of the
Project area and the City and the health, safety,morals and welfare of its residents, and in accord
with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local law and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. The Agency hereby finds and determines that the consideration to be paid by
Developer for any purchase of property within the Site is not less than the fair reuse value of
such property at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized
by such sale.
1
4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA-3
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
Res. No. 314
2. The Agency hereby finds and determines that the sale, if any, of property within
the Site pursuant to the OPA is consistent with the implementation plan adopted pursuant to
Section 33490.
3. The Agency hereby finds and determines that the sale, if any, of property within
the Site pursuant to the OPA is consistent with the implementation plan adopted pursuant to
Section 33490.
4. The proposed OPA is hereby approved in substantially the form presented at this
meeting or with such non-substantial changes as may be approved by the Executive Director of
the Agency and the Agency's legal counsel.
5. The Chairman of the Agency and the Executive Director of the Agency are
hereby authorized to execute the OPA on behalf of the Agency, in substantially the form
presented to this meeting, or with such non-substantial changes as may be approved by the
Executive Director of the Agency and the Agency's legal counsel, provided that the City Council
has first approved such OPA. Execution by the Executive Director shall constitute conclusive
evidence of the Executive Director's approval of such changes. A copy of the OPA when
.executed by the Agency shall be placed on file in the office of the Secretary of the Agency.
6. The Executive Director of the Agency(or his designee) is hereby authorized, on
behalf of the Agency, to sign all documents necessary and appropriate to carry out and
implement the OPA, and to administer the Agency's obligations, responsibilities and duties to be
performed thereunder.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2na day of Oc ober 2000.
Chairman Pro Tem
ATTEST: 1 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Agency Clerk la ,w o,' Agency General Counsel
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT /D� APPROVED:
/x
ecutive Director Directo of Economic Develo ent
2
4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA-3
RLS 2000-916
9-2 I-00
Res. No, 314
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 2nd day of October,
2000 and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Garofalo
Clerk of the Redevelopme Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, CA
RESOLUTION NO. 2 0 0 0—9 5
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING AN OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND
HUNTINGTON CENTER ASSOCIATES, LLC, FOR
THE REDEVELOPMENT OF HUNTINGTON CENTER
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach(the "Agency")
is engaged in activities necessary to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan for the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project (the"Project"); and
In order to carry out and implement the Redevelopment Plan, the Agency proposed to
enter into an Owner Participation Agreement("OPA") with Huntington Center Associates, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability corporation ("Developer"), which OPA establishes terms and
conditions for Developer's redevelopment of the Huntington Center on certain real property (the
"Site") and for Agency's potential sale of certain land within the Site to Developer as part of
such redevelopment; and
Developer has submitted to the Agency and the City Council copies of said proposed
OPA in a form desired by Developer; and
Pursuant to California Community Redevelopment Law (California Health and Safety
Code Section 33000 et seq.), this Agency and the City Council held a joint public hearing on the
OPA,having duly published notice of such public hearing and having made copies of the
proposed OPA and other reports and documents (including the summary referred to in Section
33433) available for public inspection and comment; and
This City Council has duly considered all terms and conditions of the proposed
transaction, and believes that the redevelopment and any sale pursuant thereto is in the best
interests of the Project area and the City and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its
residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local law
and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the consideration to be paid by
Developer for any purchase of property within the Site is not less than the fair reuse value of
such property at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized
by such sale.
1
4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA4
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
Res . No. 2000-95
2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the sale, if any, of property
within the Site pursuant to the OPA is consistent with the implementation plan adopted pursuant
to Section 33490.
3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the sale, if any, of property
within the Site pursuant to the OPA is consistent with the implementation plan adopted pursuant
to Section 33490.
4. The proposed OPA is hereby approved in substantially the form presented at this
meeting or with such non-substantial changes as may be approved by the Executive Director of
the Agency and the Agency's legal counsel. Execution by the Executive Director shall constitute
conclusive evidence of the Executive Director and Agency legal counsel's approval of such
changes.
5. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Clerk to deliver a copy of this
Resolution to the Executive Director and members of the Agency. A copy of the OPA when
executed by the Agency shall be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of October 2000.
_k9W 40A
Mayo Pro Tem
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-' ZI Z OOo
City Clerk 1°'�� a' /, •,City Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: II`tIT ED AND APPROVED:
Ci Administrator 6irector of Economic Develop ent
2
4/s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntin.aton Center OPA4
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
Res. No. 2000-95
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the
members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd
day of October, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None .
ABSTAIN: Garofalo
City Clerk and ex-officio C erk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
Evaluation of Huntington Center
Alternatives by Sedway Group
ATTACHMENT #8
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
EVALUATION OF
HUNTINGTON
CENTER
REDEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVES
Prepared by:
SEDWAY GROUP
FOR THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics San Francisco
Los Angeles
Principals:
Alan C.Billingsley, CRE
September 12,2000 Carol A. Fredholm
Amy L.Herman,AICP
Kathryn Welch Howe
Terry R. Margerum
Elizabeth A. Puccinelli
Roy J. Schneiderman
Mr.David Biggs Lynn M.Sedway, CRE
City of Huntington Beach
Economic Development Department Naomi E. Porat, Project Advisor
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Re: Evaluation of Huntington Center Redevelopment Alternatives
Dear Mr.Biggs:
Sedway Group is pleased to submit the following report documenting our evaluation of three
redevelopment alternatives under consideration by the Redevelopment Agency for Huntington Center.
The three alternative concepts have varying tenant mixes and orientations. They range from a value-
oriented regional mall which would dedicate 61 percent of its leasable area to existing tenants, to an
upscale hybrid entertainment/lifestyle center with only 23 percent of the gross leasable area occupied by
existing tenants. The three scenarios specified by the Agency were evaluated from a market and a
revenue perspective in order to identify the alternative that maximizes incremental sales tax revenue to
the city.
Our research findings, conclusions, and recommendations have been documented in the attached report
and in the supporting tables and exhibits. Sedway Group has enjoyed the opportunity of providing real
estate economics assistance to the City of Huntington Beach. We look forward to the successful
redevelopment of Huntington Center.
Sincere ,
n M. Sedw Carol A.Fredho
�j xecutive Maria ' g_Dir cto Managing Director
Wells Fargo Center 355 S.Grand Ave., Suite 3295 Los Angeles,CA 90071 213.613.1800 Fax 213.217.4904 sedway@sedway.com
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
BACKGROUNDAND PURPOSE................................................................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVESOF THE STUDY.....................................................................................................................1
METHODOLOGY.......................................................................................................................................I
REPORTORGANIZATION..........................................................................................................................2
II.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................3
REDEVELOPMENTSCENARIOS.................................................................................................................3
RECOMMENDATION..................................................................................................................................4
INCREMENTALSALES TAX REVENUE......................................................................................................4
HI.HUNTINGTON CENTER..................................................................................................................6
CENTER DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY......................................................................................................6
LOCATION................................................................................................................................................7
MARKETAREA SUPPORT.........................................................................................................................7
CENTERPERFORMANCE...........................................................................................................................7
REDEVELOPMENTPOTENTIAL ...............................................................................................................10
EDINGERCORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN......................................................................................................10
IV. REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS................................................................................................12
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS...............................................................................................12
COMMONELEMENTS..............................................................................................................................12
SCENARIOA...........................................................................................................................................14
SCENARIOB...........................................................................................................................................17
SCENARIOC...........................................................................................................................................18
V.CO-TENANCY INSIGHTS................................................................................................................22
REALESTATE INTERVIEWS....................................................................................................................22
CASE STUDIES OF CENTERS ANCHORED BY BURLINGTON AND WARDS...............................................24
EastlandShopping Center.............................................................................................................24
WestgateMall................................................................................................................................28
DelAmo Fashion Center...............................................................................................................28
HIGHER-END TENANCIES.......................................................................................................................30
TARGET MARKET OF TENANTS..............................................................................................................34
VALUE-ORIENTED R.ETAILERS...............................................................................................................34
RETAILER COTENANCY INTERVIEWS....................................................................................................38
VI. RETAIL SALES BENEFIT ANALYSIS........................................................................................40
METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................................................40
RECENT SALES PERFORMANCE OF HUNTINGTON CENTER....................................................................41
RECENT PERFORMANCE OF SHOPPING CENTERS IN ORANGE COUNTY.................................................41
SALES TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THREE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES .......................................45
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 1 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
SCENARIO A:NO ANCHORS REMOVED...............................................................................0..........0......45
SCENARIO B:BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY REMOVED.......................................................................45
SCENARIO C: BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY AND MONTGOMERY WARDS REMOVED.........................45
INCREMENTALSALES TAX REVENUE:...................................................................................................47
VII. CONCLUSIONS..............................................................................................................................48
SCENARIOA...........................................................................................................................................48
SCENARIOB..........................................................................................................................................0.50
SCENARIOC...........................................................................................................................................50
APPENDIX A: RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA,SCENARIOS A&B
APPENDIX B: RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA,SCENARIO C
APPENDIX C: SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
APPENDIX D: FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
APPENDIX E: RESUMES
APPENDIX F: ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 11 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
I. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Sedway Group has been retained by the City of Huntington Beach to evaluate three redevelopment
alternatives under consideration by the city's Redevelopment Agency for Huntington Center. Originally
a successful regional retail center when developed in 1967,Huntington Center was supplanted by other
nearby centers such as Westminster Mall and South Coast Plaza. The failing regional mall lost its key
anchor tenants,JC Penney and Broadway department stores,and was subsequently partially revitalized
as a value-oriented center. Ezralow Retail Properties recently acquired this weak,under-performing mall
and has plans to redevelop Huntington Center back into a viable retail venue.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
To determine the optimum redevelopment concept,the City of Huntington Beach("City")has requested
that Sedway Group address the following:
• Review alternative project concepts specified by the Agency;
• Determine the likely tenant types to be attracted to each project concept and the resulting market
orientation;
• Analyze each project concept for competitive strengths and weaknesses; and
• Estimate the potential incremental sales tax revenue generated by the three alternatives and
identify which would maximize public revenue.
METHODOLOGY
In order to determine the optimum scenario from the City's perspective, the following tasks were
undertaken by Sedway Group:
• inspected the existing center;
• reviewed site plans provided by Ezralow Retail Properties, developed at the direction of the
Agency;
• interviewed the developer and their consultant;
• assessed the competitive environment;
• reviewed letters of interest and ascertained retailers contacted(or to be)by the developer;
• assembled the tenant mix for other centers anchored by Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat
Factory,and reviewed the tenant mix of centers with Montgomery Wards;
• identified locations of potential higher-end retailers in Orange County;
• assembled data as to the tenant mix sought by selected retailers;
• interviewed developers, brokers, and managers of retail centers regarding co-tenancy
requirements;
• interviewed selected retailers pertaining to co-tenancy objectives and target customer base;
• projected sales based on historical sales performance,industry standards,and market conditions;
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 1 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
• determined incremental sales tax revenue to the city under each scenario;and
• synthesized the above tasks to recommend the optimum redevelopment alternative.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Following this introduction is an executive summary of the key findings and conclusions. Section 3 of
the report provides a description of Huntington Center including its history,locational attributes,market
support, sales performance, and redevelopment potential. The fourth section describes the three
alternative redevelopment scenarios under consideration and provides a discussion of the existing tenancy
to remain, new potential retailers, and architectural and design character of the centers. In addition,
Section 4 identifies retailers that have expressed interest in locating at the redeveloped center,to be called
The Crossings at Huntington, and describes the need for repositioning in order for this retail center to
regain its competitive position. Section 5 outlines the research conducted on co-tenancy requirements
and applies the findings in order to answer the city's questions pertaining to repositioning and whether
higher-end tenants could be attracted this location under each of the three redevelopment scenarios. In
Section 6 of the report,the incremental sales tax revenue to the city is projected under each scenario and
the optimum alternative is identified.The final section of the report,Section 7,summarizes the findings
and conclusions and recommends a redevelopment strategy to the city and its Redevelopment Agency.
This section identifies the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives and provides strategic
considerations for the city.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 2 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
H. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section of the report presents a concise summary of the key findings and conclusions. A more
thorough summary and conclusions is found at the end of the report. Based on the detailed research
described in this report, Sedway Group recommends Scenario C for the following reasons:
the mall is repositioned in order to return as a competitive force in the marketplace;and
the incremental sales tax revenue to the city is maximized(approximately$2 million),which
exceeds Scenario B by 43 percent and Scenario A by 107 percent.
Under this scenario, both Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory receive just compensation
for any interests they may have in the center and receive relocation assistance according to redevelopment
law.
REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
Huntington Center can be redeveloped to regain its competitive position as a shopping destination by
capitalizing on its superior accessibility and location within a dense trade area. These attributes will
allow the center to attract a critical mass of the right mix of retailers to attract shoppers. The center has
lost its drawing power and needs to overcome the perception of a defunct operation.The center must be
repositioned to once again become competitive in the marketplace.
The city's Redevelopment Agency is evaluating three alternative project concepts with varying tenant
mixes and orientations. They range from a value-oriented regional mall which would dedicate 61 percent
of its gross leasable area(GLA)to existing tenants,to an upscale hybrid entertainment/lifestyle center
with only 23 percent of the gross leasable area occupied by existing tenants.
The general configuration of the scenarios is outlined below:
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS
Scenario Size Key Features Existing Tenancy
A 967,365 Retain both Montgomery Wards and 61%
Burlington Coat Factory
B 875,544 Retain Montgomery Wards, Replace 46%
Burlington Coat Factory
C 947,861 Replace both Montgomery Wards and 23%
Burlington Coat Factory
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 3 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
The opportunities for repositioning the center under Scenario A are severely limited due to the:
siting of existing anchors and their value orientation(47.8 percent);
siting of the existing tenants to be incorporated into the project(13.6 percent);
amount of new entertainment tenants and new restaurant and eateries(18.7 percent); and
amount of remaining leasable space (20 percent) available for repositioning the center
beyond the new entertainment and restaurant elements.
Similar to Scenario A,the siting and value orientation of the existing tenants under Scenario B influences
the possible repositioning of the center.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon Sedway Group's evaluation of the three redevelopment alternatives, the recommended
approach to the repositioning of Huntington Center is Scenario C. This scenario assumes that both
Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are relocated out of the center.
Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are not strong performing anchors,yet together both
stores account for 39 percent of the leasable space. Their sales performance in comparison to Mervyn's
is an indication of their weak draw of shoppers.Mervyn's is performing within industry standards while
Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are performing 60 to 70 percent below Mervyn's.
Sedway Group has concluded that their continued occupancy constitutes a severe hindrance to
redevelopment of the mall into a shopping venue other than a value-oriented center.It is not in the city's
best interest to retain another value-oriented center to compete with other similar centers in the city.
Initial letters of intent obtained by Ezralow Retail Properties,totaling 420,000 square feet, indicate the
potential for a repositioned center. New retail could contribute to a repositioning of the center away from
a value-oriented center to become an entertainment/lifestyle center. The center's proposed design and
layout under Scenario C reflect current market trends of consumer preferences for a"main street"style
shopping center with similarities to Third Street Promenade and Old Pasadena.The design under Scenario
C offers intricate architectural detailing to create an open-air Italian village, complete with fountains,
sculptures, and cobblestone walkways.New higher-end specialty shops and restaurants will help the
center achieve a higher rent structure to support the higher construction costs associated with developing
the street scene.The design will help create a sense of place and a destination for the ambiance as well
as the proposed tenant mix.
The Crossings at Huntington would employ a strategy of bundling various types of retailers. This
strategic aggregation of specialty merchandisers and off-price stores is designed to achieve the optimal
draw of consumer segments,creating an integrated visitor experience in which entertainment,food and
beverage, recreation,and traditional retail are featured.
INCREMENTAL SALES TAX REVENUE
Sedway Group projected potential sales tax revenue for the three redevelopment scenarios. Adjustments
were made to net out sales tax that the city currently receives. The projected incremental sales tax
revenue to the city under each scenario are summarized below:
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 4 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
PROJECTED INCREMENTAL SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY
Scenario Low High Average
Scenario A $899,600 $1,044,700 $972,200
Scenario B $1,286,600 $1,528,400 $1,407,500
Scenario C $1,770,300 $2,253,900 $2,012,100
Based on this analysis,Scenario C generates over$1 million more in incremental sales tax revenue to the
city than does Scenario A(107 percent),and over$600,000 more than Scenario B(43 percent). Based
on the redevelopment concept that maximizes public revenue, Scenario C is the optimum alternative.In
addition,there is the potential for the city to share in upside participation.
The city is in the process of developing a specific plan for the Edinger Corridor area to assist in its
continued upgrading.The Crossings at Huntington is a critical project to the viability of the corridor.The
mall accounts for 36 percent of the land area encompassing the Huntington Center sub area of the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area.The Project Area's assessed value dropped by 23 percent
between 1990 and 1996, which undercut the Redevelopment Agency's ability to fund needed
improvements. According to an August, 1996 report for the city by Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc.,the
funding shortfall contributes to the Agency's inability to remove blighting conditions,which includes,
among other things, "the increasingly obsolete and deteriorating mall." According to an analysis of
taxable sales trends of shopping centers in the market area compiled by Hinderliter de Llamas and
Associates,the mall has steadily declined in the face of other centers' solid performance. Another study
quoted in the RSG report indicated that sales declined by 34 percent at the mall between 1992 and 1994
and sales in the Edinger Corridor declined by 21 percent.
The Edinger Corridor area is an important contributor to the sales tax revenues for the city. Given the
size and location of the mall within the Edinger Corridor, it is a major force influencing property
recycling,rehabilitation,and overall sales performance of surrounding properties. The area has lost its
competitiveness from a regional standpoint. The city has the opportunity to capture untapped retail sales
potential from Huntington Beach residents and from other surrounding communities.
There is the potential to redevelop the center and carefully position the mall to fulfill a particular
market niche under-represented in the trade area.Given the few potential alternative locations in
Orange County to accommodate the size of project under consideration,the Huntington Center site
presents a real redevelopment opportunity.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 5 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
III. HUNTINGTON CENTER
This section of the report provides a description of Huntington Center including history, locational
attributes,market support,sales performance,and need for repositioning and redevelopment.
CENTER DESCRIPTION AND HISTORY
Originally a successful regional retail center when developed in 1967, Huntington Center has been
faltering for several years. Despite the premier location adjacent to a freeway and strong demographics,
the center has not been successful since the early-1990s. Huntington Center has been unable to regain
its competitive position even with the benefit of the thriving regional economic upswing since the mid-
1990s,which has helped to bolster many other centers and businesses.
In 1990 the enclosed mall space had an occupancy factor in the high-90s percent which declined to
roughly 50 percent by 1996, with a majority of the tenants on rent relief. South Coast Plaza and
Westminster Mall captured the market once filled by Huntington Center. The regional center lost two
anchors,JC Penney,to nearby Westminster Mall in 1993, and Broadway,which closed in 1996 due to
the consolidation of retailers in the early-to mid-1990s. The Penney's space was ultimately released to
Burlington Coat Factory,which utilizes two floors of the three-story building,and the Broadway store
was never retenanted and remains vacant today. It should be noted that Federated Department Stores,
who acquired Broadway, chose to close the Huntington Beach location while many other Broadways
became Macy's,with a smaller percentage converted to Bloomingdales.
3: An analysis conducted in 1996 for the center owner,Mace Rich,noted that virtually every tenant in the
mall had petitioned for a rental concession package given the poor performance of the center. Vacancies
and poor sales performance were partially a result of the center's market position,which is too small to
be a regional center and compete with other nearby centers. As a result of these problems,the center was
partially revitalized as a value-oriented retail center. The center was expanded and renovated in 1986 and
refurbished again in 1993;however,the center has continued to remain weak.
Today Huntington Center contains Montgomery Wards, Burlington Coat Factory, and Mervyn's as
anchors. The center has lost many in-line shop tenants, plus, in an effort to reposition the mall, the
developer has been buying out some of the remaining leases which no do not contribute to remaking the
center competitive. The high vacancies existed in the mall even before the acquisition by Ezralow Retail
Properties. The anchors' sales performance shows that an insufficient volume of shoppers are attracted
to the center and that the sales generated are not of a magnitude to support sizable investment in
redevelopment. The mall must be repositioned to attract shoppers and the developer needs to identify
the right niche both from the perceptive of competitive positioning and for financial benefits to the city
and to the developer to justify the redevelopment.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 6 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
LOCATION
The site is in an incomparable location. The center is located at the intersection of two major
thoroughfares, Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue, right off the San Diego (I-405) Freeway. The
project has both excellent freeway visibility and access. The center is located within a high-density built-
out market area. Major retailers will find few, if any, locations in Orange County with such strong
locational advantages. The demographics and dense market area provide the City of Huntington Beach
with a strong redevelopment opportunity.
MARKET AREA SUPPORT
Sedway Group compiled demographic data from Claritas Inc.to evaluate the market area for Huntington
Center. The demographic characteristics are excellent. The demographics are strong for a retail market
area given the high population density and high-income levels.
As indicated in Exhibits 1 and 2,there is a substantial population of 522,000 within a five-mile radius
of the center which accounts for 19 percent of the county population. Over the next five years this
population is projected to increase by an additional 4.5 percent to 545,500. Household income averages
$74,700,just slightly lower than that for the county at$78,800,but substantially higher than the national
average of$58,000. A total of 60 percent of the households have incomes in excess of$50,000 and 21
percent have incomes of$100,000 or greater.
Within a seven-mile radius, the population is nearly doubled with 992,000, which represents
approximately 36 percent of the county population. This larger market area is experiencing a similar
growth rate to that of the five-mile radius,with a population increase of 44,900 expected over the next
five years. Household income averages$68,800 for the seven-mile radius,and$68,200 for the ten-mile
radius. The City of Huntington Beach has a population of approximately 196,500 with an average
household income of$87,400. Two-thirds (66 percent) of the households have incomes in excess of
$50,000 and 27 percent have incomes above$100,000.
CENTER PERFORMANCE
Given the excellent locational and demographic attributes,the center has the potential to be a successful
repositioned center.Certain retailers are performing very well in the city according to industry standards,
such as Circuit City,Staples,and Barnes&Noble,demonstrating redevelopment opportunities.However,
the anchors,Mervyn's,Montgomery Ward,and Burlington Coat Factory,have mixed performances with
both strong and extremely weak sales levels between them.To retain the confidentiality of the anchors,
detailed sales information cannot be disclosed. However,in order to provide an indication of the relative
strength of the anchors, 1999 sales data was provided to Sedway Group by the city in order to conduct
a comparative analysis.Based on sales performance,measured on a sales per square foot basis,Mervyn's
is performing within industry standards while Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are
performing approximately 60 to 70 percent below the Mervyn's level. While the two stores have larger
floor areas than Mervyn's,the significant differential is nonetheless too large to justify by size alone.
Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are not fully utilizing all their space,which contributes
somewhat to the depressed sales performance. However,even after adjusting the sales figures for the
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 7 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 1
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND TRENDS
HUNTINGTON CENTER 5-,7-, 10-MILE RADIUS,AND ORANGE COUNTY
1990-2005
Characteristics 1990 2000 2005
Population
5-Mile Radius 477,474 521,832 545,441
7-Mile Radius 907,533 992,030 1,036,952
10-Mile Radius 1,592,160 1,742,233 1,824,205
Orange County 2,410,556 2,783,874 2,956,625
Households
5-Mile Radius 159,499 173,675 182,128
7-Mile Radius 294,675 321,127 336,772
10-Mile Radius 535,229 583,180 612,775
Orange County 827,066 955,454 1,019,296
Housing Units
5-Mile Radius 165,927 179,755 188,466
7-Mile Radius 308,364 334,046 350,231
10-Mile Radius 562,868 609,421 640,160
Orange County 875,072 1,004,909 1,072,058
Household Size
5-Mile Radius 2.97 2.98 2.97
7-Mile Radius 3.03 3.04 3.03
10-Mile Radius 2.92 2.94 2.93
Orange County 2.87 2.88 2.86
Per Capita Income
5-Mile Radius $18,056 $24,896 $28,408
7-Mile Radius $16,471 $22,376 $25,467
10-Mile Radius $17,023 $22,969 $25,978
Orange County $19,825 $27,164 $30,921
Average Household Income
5-Mile Radius $53,932 $74,691 $84,977
7-Mile Radius $50,387 $68,838 $78,005
10-Mile Radius $50,236 $68,216 $76,793
Orange County $57,374 $78,803 $89,253
Median Household Income
5-Mile Radius $45,792 $59,490 $64,595
7-Mile Radius $42,475 $55,242 $59,435
10-Mile Radius $41,369 $53,456 $57,055
Orange County $45,943 $59,670 $64,588
Sources: Claritas; Sedway Group.
QTi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibitsgexhibit 1.xis]Sheetl 9/12/00
EXHIBIT 2
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
HUNTINGTON CENTER 5-MILE AND ORANGE COUNTY
2000
Household Income 2000
Number %
5-Mile
Less than $25,000 29,318 17%
$25,000 to $49,999 41,344 24%
$50,000 to$74,999 39,803 23%
$75,000 to$99,999 27,030 16%
More than $100,000 36,165 21%
Total 173,660 100%
Orange County
Less than $25,000 157,273 16%
$25,000 to$49,999 234,364 25%
$50,000 to$74,999 211,952 22%
$75,000 to$99,999 141,837 15%
More than $100,000 210,028 22%
Total 955,454 100%
Sources: Claritas; Sedway Group
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits\[exhibit 2.x[s]Sheet 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
occupied space as opposed to total area,the sales performances remain below an acceptable level,at 40
to 65 percent below Mervyn's sales levels. Wards and Burlington Coat Factory sales volumes are
considered very weak by all standards. It should also be pointed out that the under-utilized space cannot
be recaptured for other users thus affecting the overall productivity of the center.
REDEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL
The center has an excellent potential for redevelopment as evidenced by the:
• performance of key tenancy(e.g.,Mervyn's and Circuit City);
• excellent locational and demographic characteristics;
• opportunity provided by a strong economy;and
• a developer who has proven tenant relationships and the resources to implement a
repositioning of the center.
The center is at the gateway to the city and should reflect a better image than a dated, run-down center
which is defunct.
EDINGER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN
The Huntington Center Redevelopment Project Area was established in November 1984 as a means to
improve deteriorating and substandard commercial properties. The shopping center accounts for 36
percent of the total acreage in the project area. According to an August 1996 study by Rosenow Spevacek
Group,Inc.(RSG),commissioned by the Redevelopment Agency,the assessed values in the area dropped
23 percent between 1990 and 1996. This drop has undercut the Agency's ability to fund needed
improvements and has inhibited the Agency's ability to remove blighting conditions, including "the
increasingly obsolete and deteriorating Mall." According to an analysis of taxable sales trends of
shopping centers in the market area compiled by Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates, the mall has
steadily declined in the face of other centers' solid performance. Another study quoted in the RSG report
indicated that sales declined by 34 percent at the mall between 1992 and 1994 and sales in the Edinger
Corridor declined by 21 percent.
A specific plan is now being developed for the Edinger Corridor and Huntington Center is a significant
influence on the area. Given the size and location of the mall within the Edinger Corridor, it is a major
force influencing property recycling, rehabilitation, and overall sales performance of surrounding
properties.It is critical to the area to reposition Huntington Center in order to create a viable center.The
center should be one of the major revenue sources for the city but it has lost its competitiveness.The city
has the opportunity to capture untapped retail sales potential from Huntington Beach residents and from
other surrounding communities. With the increasing sophistication of retailers and of retail centers, a
center must be highly specialized and carefully targeted in its approach and appeal. A center must be
carefully positioned and fulfill a market niche under-represented in the market area.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 10 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Wards and Burlington are significantly under-performing demonstrating their weak pull of shoppers and
their hindrance to the redevelopment of the mall to much else than a value-oriented center. While there
is a significant amount of value-oriented retail in the general area, consideration must be given as to
whether there would be cannibalization of existing retailers and of sales tax revenue generation to the city
if more value-oriented retail is added to the center.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION I 1 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
IV. REDEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
This section of the report describes the three redevelopment scenarios under consideration by the city for
Huntington Center. The existing tenancy that will remain and the anticipated new tenancy to be
incorporated are identified for each scenario, as is the general orientation of the retailers. The
architectural and design character of the proposed remake of the center for each alternative is briefly
described. In addition,this section identifies those retailers who have expressed interest in The Crossings
at Huntington given the project concept,locational attributes,and demographic characteristics. -Letters
of intent for those retailers not requesting confidentiality are named.
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO DESCRIPTIONS
A shopping center's ability to attract customers is a function of the type,mix,balance,and location of
the retailers; critical mass; demographics of the trade area; and the competitive environment. Anchor
tenants are important because they generate the pull for the vast majority of customers for a center.
Moreover,anchors set the tone and ambiance for the shopping center.Therefore,the type of anchor stores
at the remodeled Huntington Center will influence the mix,quality level,and orientation of additional
tenants.
The city is evaluating three alternative redevelopment project concepts with varying tenant mixes and
orientations. They range from a value-oriented regional mall which would dedicate 61 percent of its
gross leasable area(GLA)to existing tenants,to an upscale hybrid entertainment/lifestyle center with
only 23 percent of the gross leaseable area occupied by existing tenants.
The general configuration of the scenarios is outlined below:
DESCRIPTION OF SCENARIOS
Scenario Size Key Features Existing Tenancy
A 967,365 Retain both Montgomery Wards and 61%
Burlington Coat Factory
B 875,544 Retain Montgomery Wards, Replace 46%
Burlington Coat Factory
C 947,861 Replace both Montgomery Wards and 23%
Burlington Coat Factory
Common Elements
There are common tenancies among the proposed alternatives, as indicated in Exhibit 3, even though
there is potential variation in the center's anchors under the proposed alternatives. The following existing
tenants would be common to all three scenarios:Mervyn's,Barnes and Noble,Circuit City,Staples,Bank
of America, See's Candy, General Store,Macaroni Grill,and Zany Brainy.In addition,to
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 12 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 3
SCENARIO COMMONALITIES
Existing Tenants
Mervyn's Barnes & Noble Circuit City
Staples Zany Brainy See's Candy
Bank of America General Store Macaroni Grill
New Retailers
Theaters 90,000 sq. ft., 20 screens
Jillian's 55,000 to 68,000 sq. ft., depending on
scenario
Sources: Ezralow Retail Properties
:\Fi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits\exhibit 3.xls Sheet 9/12/0011
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
these existing tenants are two new entertainment-based retailers that would be incorporated into all three
alternatives: a 90,000 square foot movie theater with 20 screens and Jillian's,an entertainment and dining
concept featuring restaurants, games, billiards lounge, electronic simulation attractions, dancing, live,
music,and sports and media viewing
SCENARIO A
The retail investment strategy employed in Scenario A would involve a modest facelift to the existing
structures, inclusive of signage, lighting,and paint. The extent of the renovation will be minimal with
the 967,365 square foot redeveloped center retaining its current image and architectural characteristics.
Under Scenario A,the center will maintain its market position as a value-oriented regional mall, with
over 590,000 square feet, or 61 percent of GLA, attributed to existing retailers. The major tenants
currently occupying the center will be incorporated into the renovated center.
SCENARIO A TENANT MATRIX
Existing Tenants Square Footage
Montgomery Wards 186,000
Burlington Coat Factory 194,232
Mervyn's 82,000
Staples 24,000
Circuit City 36,000
Barnes&Noble 40,300
Zany Brainy 10,625
See's Candy 1,083
Bank of America 8,240
Macaroni Grill 7,300
General Store 4,536
The opportunities for re-orienting the center are severely limited due to the:
• siting of existing anchors and their value orientation(47.8 percent);
• siting of the existing tenants to be incorporated into the project(13.6 percent);
• amount of new entertainment tenants and new restaurant and eateries(18.7 percent);and
• amount of remaining leasable space(20 percent)available for repositioning the center beyond
the new entertainment and restaurant elements.
Exhibit 4 identifies the retail components encompassing Scenario A and for the other two redevelopment
scenarios for a basis of comparison.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 14 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 4
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C
Square Feet Distribution Square Feet Distribution Scluare Feet Distribution
Existing Anchor Tenants
Montgomery Wards 186,000 19.2% 186,000 21.2% - 0.0%
Burlington Coat Factory 194,232 20.1% - 0.0% - 0.0%
Mervyn's 82,000 8.5% 82,000 9.4% 82,000 8.7%
Subtotal 462,232 47.8% 268,000 30.6% 82,000 8.7%
Exisiting Strip Tenants
Barnes & Noble 40,300 4.2% 40,300 4.6% 40,300 4.3%
Zany Brainy 10,625 1.1% 10,625 1.2% 10,625 1.1%
See's Candy 1,083 0.1% 1,083 0.1% 1,083 0.1%
General Store 4,536 0.5% 4,536 0.5% 4,536 0.5%
Staples 24,000 2.5% 24,000 2.7% 24,000 2.5%
Circuit City 36,000 3.7% 36,000 4.1% 36,000 3.8%
Bank of America 8,240 0.9% 8,240 0.9% 8,240 0.9%
Macaroni Grill 7,300 0.8% 7,300 0.8% 7,300 0.8%
Subtotal 132,084 13.7% 132,084 15.1% 132,084 13.9%
Entertainment
Theater 90,000 9.3% 90,000 10.3% 90,000 9.5%
Other Entertainment 54,860 5.7% 67,640 7.7% 88,140 9.3%
Subtotal 144,860 15.0% 157,640 18.0% 178,140 18.8%
Soft Goods
Soft Goods 80,180 8.3% 113,425 13.0% 40,300 4.3%
Upscale Soft Goods - 0.0% - 0.0% 140,750 14.8%
Subtotal 80,180 8.3% 113,425 13.0% 181,050 19.1%
Hard Goods 29,514 3.1% 38,370 4.4% 242,587 25.6%
EXHIBIT 4
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS
THE CROSSINGS AT HUNTINGTON
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C .
Square Feet Distribution Square Feet Distribution Square Feet Distribution
Shops 74,795 7.7% 28,475 3.3% 43,470 4.6%
Department Store - 0.0% 86,580 9.9% - 0.0%
Restaurants
Restaurant 31,500 3.3% 42,000 4.8% 62,500 6.6%
Food Court - 0.0% - 0.0% 12,780 1.3%
Bakery 4,200 0.4% 4,200 0.5% 4,200 0.4%
Subtotal 35,700 3.7% 46,200 5.3% 79,480 8.4%
Management Office/Restrooms 8,000 0.8% 4,770 0.5% 9,050 1.0%
TOTAL 967,365 100% 875,544 100% 947,861 100%
Note: Does not include Macaroni Grill in restaurant listing, included in "Existing."
Source: Ezralow Retail Properties and Sedway Group
CAFi1es\BKCG3696.11 Huntington Beach CenteAexhibits exhibit 4.x1s Sheetl 09/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
The development plan includes retailers that complement the value orientation of the anchor tenants. The
location and siting of existing tenants and their value orientation severely limit opportunities for re-
tenanting the center with upscale hard and soft good retailers and specialty retailers at market rents,which
has been under discussion for the other scenarios.
Listed below are examples of potential Scenario A tenancies;however,not all would be incorporated into
the plan but are presented here to provide an indication of the quality and orientation of the expected
tenancies.
POTENTIAL SCENARIO A TENANCIES
Babies R Us Jo-Ann Fabrics
Ross Famous Footwear
Michael's Payless Shoes
Pic n Sav Krause Sofa Factory
PetsMart Beauty Supply
Clothestime Factory 2-You
Toys R Us Anna's Linens
Stein Mart
SCENARIO B
The retail center outlined under Scenario B would be built with a quality level similar to a typical
community center.The design concept outlined for Scenario B will have more architectural detailing than
Scenario A, but significantly less than Scenario C. An example of the general level of quality and
detailing would be similar to the retail center across from City Hall at Main and Yorktown.
Scenario B maintains the same existing tenancies listed for scenario A with the exception of the 194,000
square foot,Burlington Coat Factory,which is relocated out of the project.This alternative encompasses
875,544 square feet. Although the existing tenants account for nearly one-half of the GLA with 46
percent,the removal of Burlington Coat Factory allows for better utilization of available square footage.
The layout in Scenario B allows the project to potentially incorporate a new department store,several in-
line shops,and the expansion of the leaseable area for the entertainment category:Jillian's,which was
described previously,will be enlarged to 67,640 square feet to accommodate a bowling alley and Jeepers
a family restaurant complete with games and amusement rides for young children will be included.
The development plan includes retailers that complement the value orientation of the anchor tenants,
Montgomery Wards and Mervyn's.However,the removal of under utilized space allows for the inclusion
of potentially 28,750 square feet of specialty shops and possibly a department store with more than
87,000 square feet. Interest has been expressed by Kohl's to lease the available space earmarked for a
department store.Kohl's,a mid-tier chain,which does not currently operate in Southern California has
posted strong sales in recent years,exceeding industry standards by a significant margin.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 17 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
In summary,Scenario B would reposition the center as a traditional regional mall.As such,the project
concept outlined in Scenario B would encounter steep competition from surrounding retailers,
particularly,Westminster Mall,which is planning to strengthen its tenant mix by adding a Macy's Store
by year-end 2001.
The following list of retailers provides examples of potential Scenario B tenancies;however,not all
would be incorporated into the center:
POTENTIAL SCENARIO B TENANCIES
Kohl's TJ Maxx
PetsMart Old Navy
Michael's Skechers for Kids
Payless Shoes GNC
Mattress Discounters Gateway Country
Carter's Barbeques Galore
Men's Warehouse Fashion 21
Health Club Playco
Hallmark
SCENARIO C
Scenario C is very distinctive as compared to the other two alternatives presented above.The removal
of Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory allows for more flexibility in the layout and to
accommodate new retail in order to reposition the center. Reducing the amount of remaining existing
space to 23 percent provides the opportunity to create an entertainment/lifestyle center and provide for
the co-tenancy and square footage requirements of a variety of retailers including higher-end retailers.
In order to define a retail project that does not compete head on with other nearby centers, the
repositioning is to encompass tenants in the 3,000 to 10,000 square foot range with more in-line shops.
The center's proposed design and layout under Scenario C reflect current market trends of consumer
preferences for"main street"style shopping.This alternative has intricate architectural detailing to create
an open-air Italian Village complete with fountains,sculptures,and cobblestone walkways. The specialty
shops will help the developers achieve a higher rent structure to support the higher construction costs
associated with developing the street scene. The design will help create a sense of place and a destination
for the ambiance as well as the proposed tenant mix.
The repositioned center would employ a strategy of bundling various types of retailers. This is the
strategic aggregation of a number of specialty merchandisers and off-price stores to achieve the optimal
draw of consumer segments.Implementation of Scenario C would create an integrated visitor experience
in which entertainment,food and beverage,recreation,and traditional retail are featured.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 18 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
The proposed tenant-mix of the 947,861 square foot center attempts to complement the existing retail in
the trade area by introducing retailers and formats new to Southern California. The following tenants,
which could be making their Southern California debut at the proposed center have indicated an interest
in Scenario C: The Great Indoors,a 143,000 square foot home decorating,furnishing,and remodeling
store; Elm Street, a new 30,000 square foot concept store by William Sonoma; and Jeepers, a family
restaurant and entertainment venue. The center would also include several existing tenants that will
function as traffic generators-Barnes and Noble-or"crossover"retailers such as Zany Brainy,Mervyn's,
and Circuit City. Although these stores do not hinder a more up-scale development,they could also be
located in a value-oriented center.In total,only 23 percent of the gross leaseable area will be dedicated
to existing merchandisers.
Listed below are examples of potential tenancies for Scenario.C. Those retailers with an asterisk indicate
Ezralow Retail Properties has received a letter of intent.
POTENTIAL SCENARIO C TENANCIES
Category Example
Typical Power Center Tenants: Circuit City
Staples
Bed Bath&Beyond*
Barnes and Noble
Entertainment: 20- screen cineplex
Jillian's
Restaurants: TGI Friday
Gourmet Markets: Henry's
Soft Goods: Ann Taylor
Abercrombie&Fitch
Gap
Old Navy
Lucky Jeans
Hard Goods: Great Indoors*
REI (new concept store)
Restoration Hardware
Elm Street
Beverage&Moore
Container Store
* Indicates Letters of Intent
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 19 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Sedway Group reviewed 22 letters of intent, summarized in Exhibit 5. The letters represented 364,00
square feet of retailers and service tenants and 55,000 square feet of restaurants and fast food eateries.
These letters, representing approximately 420,000 square feet, provide substantiation that numerous
tenants have expressed strong interest in the development concept, locational attributes, and .
demographics outlined in Scenario C.It is important to note,however,that Ezralow Retail Properties
has been reluctant to pursue additional letters of intent, since the Agency has not determined
which redevelopment scenario to pursue.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 20 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 5
LETTERS OF INTENT
Retailer : Square.Feet
Century Theaters 85,000-90,000
Jillian's 62,000
The Great Indoors 143,137
Bed, Bath & Beyond 40,000
Beverages & More 15,000
Reference (women's apparel) Not Available
Huntington Surf & Sport 6,000
Carlton Hair International Not Available
Stein Optometry 1,700
Restaurants/Food Outlets Square Feet
Ruth's Chris Steak House Not Available
California Pizza Kitchen 5,000
Bucca de Beppo Not Available
Islands 5,500
On the Border (Brinker International) 10,000
Elephant Bar 7,500
Rubio's 2,000
China Inn 1,800
Pasta Bravo 1,700
Topz 1,700
Subway 1,000
Cold Stone Creamery 1,000
Krispy Kreme Donuts 3,850
Sources: Sedway Group
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibitsgexhibit 5.xls]Sheetl 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
V. CO-TENANCY INSIGHTS
There is a question as to whether higher-end tenants could be incorporated into all three development
scenarios,in particular,high-end tenants into Scenario A.There are indications that retailers'co-tenancy
requirements prevent higher-end tenants from Scenario A. To identify co-tenancy requirements, Sedway
Group used five approaches to assess whether these indications are accurate pertaining to the inability
to reposition Scenario A to a more higher-end center given the existing anchors and tenancies. Sedway
Group:
• Interviewed real estate professionals(developers,brokers,managers);
• Compiled the tenant mix for centers with Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory as
anchors (e.g., Eastland Mall in West Covina, Westgate Mall in San Jose, and Del Amo in
Torrance)to see what tenant orientation existed in the open market place;
• Identified locations of potential higher-end retailers in Orange County to see where they have
chosen to located and the anchors of those centers;and
• Interviewed selected retailers (e.g., Ann Taylor, Nine West, Bed Bath & Beyond, and Great
Indoors)to inquire as to co-tenancy objectives and target customer base; and
The following summarizes the findings from each one of the five approaches.
REAL ESTATE INTERVIEWS
There are several factors that influence the ability for a center to attract higher-end tenants.These factors
were identified through Sedway Group's professional experiences and documented through interviews
with developers,brokers,managers,and tenants. In summary,tenants have preference for proximity to
other key tenants that:
• generate traffic(e.g.,Old Navy);
• create synergy(i.e.,compatible uses such as a dress shop and a shoe store); and/or
• draw shoppers with similar demographic profiles.
The following bullets synthesize the findings from the several interviews conducted.
• Balance/allocation between market segments. Value-oriented retailers can be mixed with
higher-end retailers, but there must be the correct balance and allocation within the center in
order to be viable. With Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory accounting for 39
percent of the space and with 61 percent of the overall center allocated to existing tenants,there
is an obstacle in siting an appropriate higher-end anchor or major tenancy plus mixing specialty
retailers within the existing confines.
• Critical mass. A center needs a critical mass to pull a particular shopper profile with the
appropriate demographic characteristics. Interviews indicated a general consensus for
approximately 100,000 to 150,000 square feet of higher-end stores plus theater,restaurants,and
other tenancies which contribute indirectly.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 22 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
f
• Clustering. A center needs clustering to generate the synergy required to attract higher-end
retailers. However,there are siting issues in Scenario A given 61 percent of existing tenancy
stays and 46 percent in Scenario B. In addition,Wards and Burlington collectively account for
39 percent of the space which influence the overall orientation of the center.
• Competitive environment. Orange County is a very competitive marketplace with a variety of
retail centers targeting a broad range of shoppers. It is important to find the right niche and not
try to compete in an over-saturated segment. There is no real concentration of higher-end
retailers in Huntington Beach in an environment such as envisioned at the Crossings at
Huntington.A well conceived center incorporating such users,as well as other tenancies across
a reasonable spectrum (e.g., including some mid-level retailers as well) could be favorably
received. The nearby Westminster Mall does not have higher-end tenancies, with the nearest
location being South Coast Plaza,roughly 7.5 miles to the south. There are many value-oriented
tenancies in Huntington Beach,as well as in the surrounding area. The Scenario A development,
with more value-oriented retailers, would compete with this market segment and would be
expected to draw away some percentage of sales,and,potentially,some of the retailers as well.
There is the potential to redevelop the center and carefully position the mall to fulfill a particular
market niche under-represented in the trade area. Given the few potential alternative locations
in Orange County to accommodate the size of project under consideration,the Huntington Center
site presents a real opportunity.
• Differentiating/finding a niche. Huntington Center has failed as a regional center against
Westminster Mall, South Coast Plaza,and others. Although only partially revitalized as a value-
oriented center, Huntington Center has not been viable under this concept as well. Given the
competitive environment, it is necessary to reposition the center by differentiating and
identifying an opportunity.
• Key tenancies/new retailers to Southern California. The developer has identified some unique
opportunities to potentially attract new retailers to Southern California(e.g.,Great Indoors,Elm
Street, Kohl's, Jillian's, specialty European tenants,etc.). A number of tenants have expressed
interest in the development concept, locational attributes, and demographic characteristics.
Incorporating such users could help to differentiate the center from others in the market area and
create a pull of shoppers,assuming the right mix is achieved.
• Traffic generators. A new project needs some traffic generators such as an Old Navy type of
tenant. Given that they advertise and pull in large numbers of shoppers,other tenants,including
higher-end retailers,like to be proximate.
• Timing. There has been a long,strong economic cycle. It is important to be decisive and move
forward while there are these opportunities. It is critical to not lose the commitments from the
credit tenants nor the unique retailers that have expressed interest in the project given the
concept, locational attributes,demographic characteristics,and strong economy.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 23 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
• Not a clean slate. The layout of the new center is partially dictated by existing improvements
which impact the ability to bring in certain higher-end tenancies which need to have a critical
mass and which wish to cluster.
In summary, under Scenario A there is too much existing retail which is value-oriented and not
synergistic with higher-end retailers. In addition,with the poor performance of the Wards and Burlington
anchors, it is obvious that shoppers are not being drawn and sales are not being generated to create a
viable center. The existing siting of the anchors complicates the ability to incorporate other anchors to
reorient the center. The value concept faces a significant amount of competition in the marketplace and
consideration should be given to developing a center that is differentiated.
Scenario B has some differences as compared to Scenario A,but still has the issue of competing more
directly with retailers in the immediate area. Scenario B is not a largely differentiated project. The
traditional regional center concept was unsuccessful in the past with market share eroded by other centers
in the trade area. In addition, Westminster Mall is adding Macy's as an anchor which is expected to
strengthen the center.
Scenario C maintains some of the stronger existing retailers, some of the stores are compatible with
higher-end retailers and appeal to the same shopper profile (Barnes &Noble)while others are traffic
generators (Circuit City), and cross-over tenants (Hallmark). Mervyn's is an anchor which, while
offering value merchandise,often is found as a co-tenant,even in centers with higher-end anchors.We
do not believe that a center can be completely higher-end,and that a mixture is needed to achieve broader
appeal in order to be successful. However,the mixture must be synergistic and complimentary in order
to attract the maximum number of shoppers.
CASE STUDIES OF CENTERS ANCHORED BY BURLINGTON AND WARDS
The second approach to evaluate co-tenancy was a case study methodology. Three centers were
identified that contained both Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. The centers were studied
for insights into tenancies and orientation to see what parallels could be drawn to The Crossing at
Huntington. There was a question raised by the city as to whether higher-end retailers were a possibility,
particularly under Scenario A. One approach to answer this question was a review of the tenancy at
similarly anchored centers to see what retailers seek to co-tenant with Wards and Burlington. Following
are summary descriptions of three centers, presented to evaluate how the anchor and major tenants
influence the overall-tenancy of a center.
Eastland Shopping Center
With its debut in 1957,the Eastland Shopping Center became one of the regions first malls.However,
the opening of newer facilities in the vicinity in subsequent years severally impacted the malls market
share(e.g.,Plaza at West Covina, Santa Anita Fashion Center,and the Puente Hills Mall). In addition,
its dated appearance and the loss of a major department store anchor relegated Eastland to a secondary
position by the early 1990s,despite its prime location off the busy San Bernardino(10)Freeway. As a
result, retail sales were flagging and in 1994, the vacancy rate was more than 30 percent. Eastland
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 24 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Shopping Center in West Covina was a relative small regional center when constructed in 1957 but has
been completely repositioned as an 845,732 square foot power center today. The center contains a
Burlington Coat Factory and a Mervyns,plus,a Montgomery Wards department store is adjacent to the
center which, while not under the same ownership, still functions as part of the center given the
adjacency. Wards is located just across a small access road. The center was evaluated for four reasons:
• Lost Anchor Tenant. Eastland Shopping Center lost an anchor tenant(May Company in 1992)
to the nearby Plaza at West Covina and continued to falter,similar to Huntington Center which
lost JC Penney and Broadway. The loss of an anchor(s)requires a revitalization effort in order
to remain competitive in the marketplace.
• Need for Repositioning. With the growing dominance of nearby Plaza West Covina,Eastland
continued to struggle as a regional center. Eventually a repositioning of the center was
implemented with new tenancies introduced to create a power center with a value-orientation.
In late 1992/early 1993 tenants were added such as Old Navy,Ross Dress for Less,and Office
Depot.In the 1996-1998 time frame additional major tenants were added such as Target,Babies
R Us,Burlington Coat Factory,Chick's Sporting Goods,and Party City. Similarly,Huntington
Center has undergone a partial revitalization as a value-oriented center in an effort to reposition
the ailing center as South Coast Plaza and Westminster Mall continued to capture more market
share. The. competitive marketplace must be evaluated in determining the appropriate
repositioning.
• Common Anchor Tenants There are significant similarities between Huntington Center and
Eastland Shopping Center due to the anchor tenants. Eastland includes Burlington Coat Factory
and Mervyn's,with Montgomery Wards adjacent,but functioning as an anchor to the center.
Huntington Center has a Montgomery Wards,Burlington Coat Factory,and Mervyn's.
• Insights to Tenant Mix Given the commonality of anchor tenants(e.g.,Burlington Coat Factory
and Mervyn's with the adjacent Wards),the overall tenant mix was reviewed to gain insights into
the three development scenarios under consideration for the Crossings at Huntington.Eastland's
tenancy is characterized as being dominated by mid- and larger-big box users with a limited
amount of small shop space.Exhibit 6 provides a list of the tenants in the center. Examples of
the retailers include Target,Babies R Us,Party City,Ross,Marshall's,Famous Footwear,among
others. The center has value-oriented retailers,and no concentration of higher-end tenants.
The Eastland tenant-mix reflects the first development scenario with value-orientated and category
dominating retailers. There are no higher-end tenancies at Eastland, as indicated in Exhibit 7 which
reflects the value-orientation of the anchors and major tenants,as well as the format with larger"box"
users. Many of the retailers found at Eastland are the tenants identified by the developer as potentially
tenanting Scenario A.Interviews with Eastland management disclosed that the center targets"blue-collar"
families.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 25 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 6
EASTLAND SHOPPING CENTER
Tenant List
Albertson's Jumbo 1-Hour Photo
Avenue Plus Krause's Sofa Factory
BJ Pizza & Brewery Long's Drug Store
Bank of America Mail Boxes Etc.
Babies R Us Marshall's
Bed Bath & Beyond Mervyn's
Boulevard Cleaners Old World Deli
Burlington Coat Factory Office Depot
Carl's Jr. Old Navy
Chili's Grill and Bar Party City
Chick's Sporting Goods Ross Dress for Less
Eastland Shoe Repair Sally Beauty
Famous Footwear Shoe Pavilion
First Federal Savings Starbucks
Funcoland Subway
Great Earth Vitamins TGI Friday's
Hallmark Creations Target
Hollywood Video Washington Mutual
Homelife (Sears) Montgomery Wards (adjacent)
Sources: Sedway Group
:\Fi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits\[exhibi 9/12/0
EXHIBIT 7
HIGH END STORES AT CENTERS ANCHORED
BY MONTGOMERY WARDS AND BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY
Del Amo Fashion.: Eastland
Westgate Mail
Center Shopping Center.
Background
Size 3,000,000 845,732 645,000
Location Torrance West Covina San Jose
Orientation Super Regional Power Center Regional
Men's Apparel
Bernini
Women's Apparel
Ann Taylor X
BCBG
Bebe
Anthropologie
Men's &Woman's Apparel
Banana Republic X
Armani Exchange
Hugo Boss
DKNY
Polo/Ralph Lauren
J. Crew
Benetton
Shoes
Kenneth Cole
Charles David
Home Furnishings
Pottery Barn
Williams-Sonoma
Restoration Hardware
Specialty
Brookstone X
Sharper Image
Tiffany &Co.
Coach
Source: Sedway Group
:AFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach CenteAexhibitsgexhibit 7.x1s]Sheetl 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Westgate Mall
Westgate Mall was a smaller regional center like Huntington Center. The center was constructed
in 1961 and was anchored by JC Penney and Montgomery Wards. The center contains 645,000 square
feet today and is anchored by Montgomery Wards,Burlington Coat Factory,Nordstrom Rack,Ross Dress
for Less,and Old Navy. The center was evaluated for four reasons:
• Lost Anchor Tenants. In 1987 Westgate Mall lost one of its two anchor tenants and was
struggling to remain competitive in the market area. Huntington Center lost the same anchor,
namely JC Penney.
• Need for Repositioning. Competitive centers were being renovated and expanded in the San
Jose trade area(e.g.,Valley Fair and Vallco)and Westgate's market share continued to be eroded.
Westgate was repositioned and new anchors were introduced.From a traditional fashion mall
the center was repositioned as a value-oriented center which was accomplished by introducing
new tenancies. This was a similar strategy for Huntington Center with Burlington Coat Factory
replacing the vacant JC Penney space.
• Common Anchor Tenants. Like Huntington Center and Eastland Shopping Center, Westgate
has as anchor tenants Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory, as well as other
tenancies under consideration by Ezralow Retail Properties for Scenarios A and B.
• Insights to Tenant Mix Given that Wards and Burlington are tenants at Westgate,the center's
tenant mix was reviewed to draw parallels to the alternative development concepts being
evaluated for the Crossings at Huntington.Exhibit 8 is a listing of the tenants at Westgate. The
tenancy is characterized as entertainment and value-oriented with tenants that include a Century
25 Theaters, Ross Dress for Less, Michael, Party City, Designer Labels for Less, Men's
Warehouse,Famous Footwear,Nordstrom's Rack,Old Navy,and Barnes&Noble,among others.
There are no higher-end tenants at the center,as outlined in the Ezralow list for Scenario C,but
many of retailers are the same envisioned for both Scenarios A and B,which reflects the value-
orientation.
The Westgate tenant mix reflects the tenancies indicated for development Scenarios A and B. These
retailers, for the most part, are value-orientated. There are no higher-end tenancies at Westgate (see
Exhibit 7)which reflects the value-orientation of the anchors and major tenants.From the case studies,
both Westgate and Eastland appear to provide an indication that the co-tenancy for Wards and Burlington
tend to be value retailers and that high-end tenants do not appear to be attracted as co-tenants.
Del Amo Fashion Center
Unlike the prior two case studies,Del Amo was a regional center that has continued to be expanded over
the years and is now a super regional center encompassing 3 million square feet and 350 stores. The
center is anchored by Sears,JC Penney,Robinson's-May,Macy's,Montgomery Wards and also has as
major tenants Burlington Coat Factory, TJ Maxx,Marshalls,among others. The center was evaluated
for two reasons:
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 28 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 8
WESTGATE MALL
Tenant List
Ann's Dressmaker Metabolife
Annette's Silhouettes Michael's
Any Mountain Mode Five
Barnes &Nobles MW Auto
Benchmark Diamonds Nordstrom's Rack
Blockbuster Video Old Navy
Bonsall's Walk Rite Shoes Pacific Bell PCS
Carpet Club Party City
Century 25 Theaters Payless Shoe Source
Cirrus Dance and Arts Pearl Vision
Coast Funding Corporation Postal Annex
Dental Care Center Roche Bobois
Designer Labels for Less Ross
Famous Footwear Safeway
Funco Land Silver Moon
Futon Depot Sophisticated Traveler
Go Skate Space Cat
Gymboree SpeeDee Oil
Hancock Fabrics Starbucks
Home Town Buffet Steve's Hallmark
Home Chef Storables
Home Chef Cooking School Styles for Less
John Robert Powers Subway
Johnny Rockets Toledo Men's Fashions
Kay Bee Toys Tuxedo Warehouse
Kids Park Westgate Beauty Store
Luggage Center Westies
Men's Warehouse
Sources: Sedway Group
:\Fi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits\[exhibit 8 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Common Anchor Tenants. Del Amo has both Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory but with
the overall size of the center, there are four additional major anchors with pulling power to attract a
broader spectrum of shoppers:Robinson-May,Macy's, Sears,and JC Penney.
• Target Market. Given the overall size of the center, approximately 3 million square feet,Del
Amo is able to provide a wider spectrum of tenants to appeal to a broader customer base. The
center has a more traditional fashion focus as well as a value-orientation. However,there is a
very limited number of higher-end retailers(e.g.,Ann Taylor,Banana Republic,and Brookstone)
given the overall number of tenants in the center and its size, as indicated in Exhibit 7. The
similarities between the three case study centers are found in Exhibit 9. It is interesting to note
I
hat higher-end tenant Benetton departed the center last year after Christmas. In the South Bay
area,the more up-scale tenants have located at The Avenues of the Peninsula,formerly known
as the Shops at Palos Verdes,and at the Galleria at South-Bay.
Del Amo has a very limited number of higher-end retailers given that it is over three times the size of
Huntington Center and the other case study centers.In addition,Del Amo contains Macy's and Robinson-
May as anchors which can attract a broader shopper profile than can Montgomery Wards and Burlington
Coat Factory. This lack of the higher-end stores appears to reflect the high concentration of value-
oriented retailers. The Galleria at South Bay is where the higher-end tenants are locating in this South
Bay area which has Nordstrom, Robinson's-May, and Mervyn's as anchors and has tenants such as
Abercrombie&Fitch,Ann Taylor,and Banana Republic. Other higher-end retailers have also located
at The Avenue of the Peninsula.
To remain competitive, many shopping centers have needed to continue to be redefined and/or
repositioned. Market segments are identified and new retail formats are created. However, this case
study research plus our professional experience indicates a lack of compatibility with mixing higher-end
tenancies in a 850,000 to 956,000 square foot center where the value-oriented anchors and other existing
tenancy account for 46 to 61 percent of the gross leasable area. Another factor impacting a repositioning
is the siting of these tenants which influences the ability to introduce and cluster additional retailers. It
is apparent that the failing Huntington Center must be reinvented to remain competitive and provide
reasonable return to the property owner.
HIGHER-END TENANCIES
Ezralow Retail Properties provided Sedway Group with a list of retailers with which contacts are being
made. The list is divided into two columns reflecting a lower-to moderate-tenancy and a higher-end
retailer list. There is a question as to which scenarios can attract the higher-end retailers. To address
this question, Sedway Group evaluated where 22 of the higher-end tenants,which represented a cross
section of retail categories,have tended to locate. As summarized in Exhibit 10,the centers at which the
selected retailers are located were identified,along with the anchors, size of center, and distance from
Huntington Center.
None of the 22 retailers are found in the nearby Westminster Mall. The largest concentration(15 of the
22 retailers)of higher-end tenancy is found at South Coast Plaza,located 7.5 miles away. South Coast
is anchored by Saks Fifth Avenue,Nordstrom,Macy's,Robinson's-May,as well as a Sears,which provide
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 30 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 9
MALLS WITH BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY AND MONTGOMERY WARDS VS.VALUE STORES
Huntington Beach Mall Redevelopment
Del mo Fashion Eastland Shopping
Mal
Center Center
Westgate I
Background: Size 3,000,000 845,732 645,000
Location Torrance West Covina San Jose
Orientation Super-Regional Power Center Regional
Men's Apparel: Men's Wearhouse X X
Toledo's Mens Fashion X
Women's Apparel: Styles for Less X
Contempo Casuals X
Lane Bryant X
Avenue Plus X
Family Apparel: Burlington Coat Factory X X X
Montgomery Wards X X(adjacent) X
Nordstrom Rack X
Old Navy X X X
Ross Dress for Less X X
Mervyn's X
Children's Apparel: Kay Bee Toys X X
Shoes: Famous Footwear X X X
Footlocker X
Payless Shoe Source X X
Home Furnishings: Krause's Sofa Factory X
Storables X
Bed, Bath & Beyond X
Specialty: Funco Land X X
Party City X X
Natural Wonders X
1Sources: Sedway Group
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibitsgexhibit 9.x1s]Sheetl 9/12/00
EXHIBIT 10
LOCATION OF HIGH END STORES IN ORANGE COUNTY MALLS
Westminster Mall South Coast Plaza Mission Viejo Mall Newport Fashion Santa Ana Main Brea Mall Laguna Hills Mall
Mall Island Place
Anchors JCPenney, Macy's, Nordstrom, Nordstrom, Macy's, Robinson's-May, Robinson's-May, Sears, Nordstrom, Macy's,JCPenney,
Robinson's-May Robinson's-May, Robinson's-May, Macy's, Macy's, Nordstrom JCPenney, Sears
Home and Fashion Saks Fifth Ave, JCPenneys Bloomingdales, Robinson's-May,
Stores, Sears Sears Nieman Marcus Macy's
Size(sq.ft.) 1,100,000 2,022,000 1,150,644 1,200,000 1,150,000 1,300,000 800,000
Distance from Huntington 1.5 7.4 24.1 12.3 10.2 19.5 19.1
Beach Mall (miles)
Retailers
Burlington Coat Factory
Montgomery Wards
Ann Taylor X X X X X
Banana Republic X X X
FAO Schwarz X
Pottery Barn X(fall) X X X(coming soon)
Restoration Hardware X X
Williams Sonoma X X X
Sharper Image X X X
Abercrombie&Fitch X X X
Anthropologie X
Benetton X X
Brookstone X X X
Armani Exchange X X
Bernini X
Kenneth Cole X
Hugo Boss X X
DKNY(Jeans) X X
EXHIBIT 10
LOCATION OF HIGH END STORES IN ORANGE COUNTY MALLS
South Coast Plaza Newport Fashion Santa Ana Main
Westminster Mall Mission Viejo Mall Brea Mall Laguna Hills Mall
Mall Island Place
Versace X
Polo/Ralph Lauren X X
Tiffany&Co. X
Coach X X X
J. Crew X X
Bebe X X X
Tiffany&Co., BCBG, French
Other Gucci, Prada, Connection BCBG Charles David
Fendi
Sources: Sedway Group.
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibitsgexhibit 10.x1s]Sheetl 9/12/00
t; «
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
a range of price points and quality of merchandise. With over 2 million square feet,this center offers a
wide range of stores, including some of the most exclusive in Orange County.
The newly expanded and renovated Mission Viejo Mall,now called The Shops at Mission Viejo,contains
only one less such retailer than South Coast Plaza. This 1,150,000 square foot center recently replaced
a Montgomery Wards department store and repositioned the center by adding a Nordstrom, Saks Fifth
Avenue, and a compliment of higher-end stores. (e.g., Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Armani
Exchange, Crate&Barrel, Sharper Image,etc.).
TARGET MARKET TENANTS
The 2000 Retail Tenant Directory was used to identify the target market for various retailers. The lists
of retailers, obtained from the developer, was divided into a low-to moderate- list, envisioned by the
developer as appropriate retailers for inclusion in Scenarios A and B,and a higher-end list,which was
purported to be more consistent with Scenario C tenanting expectations. These lists of potential tenants
are presented in Exhibit 11.
As can be ascertained from Appendices A and B,the directory specifies tenant-mix categories normally
sought by each retailer. Appendix A,reflecting more of the Scenario A and B expected tenants,specifies
discount or outlet as the tenant mix most often describing their locations. The ones that indicate fashion
or entertainment would be more appropriate for Scenario B, which is a"step above" Scenario A. The
income preference of these tenants is approximately 35 percent for low-mid to mid and with 55 percent
for mid-high level. It should be pointed out that a center focuses on shopper profiles with disposable
income,and while many with mid-high incomes are sought,the orientation is still below that specified
in Appendix B. Some of the tenants can be"cross over",as mentioned previously,meaning that they can
be included in both tenant line-ups, including tenants such as Clothestime,Hallmark cards and stationery,
and Radio Shack.
In comparison, Appendix B, which reflects the anticipated potential Scenario C tenancy, consistently
specified upscale or fashion as the tenant mix sought for placement of these stores. The income
preference is mid-high to high for these tenants. These two lists do not present a clear-cut division,with
some retailers representing crossover.
VALUE-ORIENTED RETAILERS
To obtain an insight-into the competitive nature of the value-oriented retail marketplace,the location of
selected retailers were compiled. Appendix C identifies the location with 10 miles of Huntington Center
for 80 retailers representing a cross section of retail categories. As can be determined from the Exhibit,
many retailers are in close proximity to Huntington Center. Within a five-mile radius are the following
selected value and category-killer retailers:
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 34 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 11
POTENTIAL TENANT TYPES
High-End Stores Tenants Moderate to Lower-End Stores Tenants
A Pea in The Pod Aaron Brothers
Abercrombie& Fitch Anna's Linen
Alfred Dunhill Ashley Stewart
American Eagle Outfitters Auto Zone
nn Taylor Babies R Us
Anthropologie Barbecues Galore
Armani Exchange Carter's for Kids
rte' De Mexico Casual Corner
Ashworth Chicks Sporting Goods
Aveda Chuck E. Cheese
Baby Gap Clothestime
Banana Republic Color-Tyme
Bang &Olufsen Contempo Casuals
Bath & Body Works Converse
BCBG Costcutters
bebe Country Clutter
Benetton Day Runner
Burke Williams Designer Labels For Less
Bernini Dollar Dazzle
Bose Donut Star
Brooks Brothers Dress Barn
Brookstone Dry Cleaners
Bruno Magli Factory-2-U
Buca De Beppo Famous Footwear
Bulgari Fashion Q
Cache FastFrame
California Pizza Kitchen Florsheim Shoes
Calvin Klein Forever 21
Cartier Glow
Chanel GNC
Chico's Hot Topic
Christian Dior Jay Jacobs
Coach Stores Jo-Ann Fabrics
Cole Haan Kay Bee Toys
Diesel Krause Sofa Factory
DKNY L.A. Fitness/Bally's
Eddie Bauer Lamps Plus
Escada Lane Bryant
Esprit Leather Loft
Express Hallmark
FAO Schwarz Mailboxes Etc.
Fendi Marshalls
Ferragamo Men's Wearhouse
Franklin Covey Clothes Michael's
Fred Meyer Jeweler Mikasa
Gap Home Modem Woman
Gap Kids Motherhood Maternity
Ghirardelli Chocolate&Soda Fountain Nail Salon
Gucci Nevada Bob's
Guess No Fear
Hammacher Schlemmer One Price Clothing
Hermes Payless Shoes
J. Crew Pep Boys
Jillian's Perfumania
Kenneth Cole PetsMart
Lalique Radio Shack
Liz Claibourne Redy Eye Clothing
Llardro Rent-A-Center
Louis Vuitton Rochester Big&Tall
MontBlanc Ross
Nine West Sally Beauty
Old Navy Sam Ash Music
Osh Kosh B'gosh Shoe Pavillion
Polo Skechers
Prada Spencers
Ralph Lauren Stein Mart
Reference Susie's Deals
Restoration Hardware T.J. Maxx
Ruth's Chris Steak House The Avenue
Sephora Totally 4 Kids
Sharper Image Tuesday Morning
Smith & Hawken Vans Skate Park
St. John Wiilson's Leather
Steve Madden Shoes Zales Jeweler
Structure
Sur La Table
The Gap
The Great Indoors
The Limited
Tiffany&Co.
Tod's
Tommy Bahama's
Tommy Hilfiger
Tourneau
Toy's International
Urban Outfitters
Versace
Victoria Secret
William Sonoma (Elm Street)
Z Gallerie
Zara
Joseph Bank
Ulta
Source: Ezralow Retail Properties
:\Files\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach CenteAexhibble 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
VALUE-ORIENTED AND CATEGORY-KILLER RETAILERS WITHIN A FIVE MILE
RADIUS
Tenants
Marshalls Ross Dress for Less TJ Maxx
C&R Clothiers Best Buy Comp USA
Fry's Electronics Good Guys Big 5 Sorting Goods
Sport Chalet Sport Mart Kids R Us
Toys R Us Kay Bee Toys Bed Bath&Beyond
Strouds Pier 1 Party World
Party City Party Time Petco
Michael's Arts&Crafts Jo Ann Fabrics&Crafts Calico Corners
PetSmart Aaron Brothers Art Mart
RETAILER CO-TENANCY INTERVIEWS
Four retailers from a cross section of retail categories were interviewed to ascertain what type of co-
tenancies are sought.As can be seen in Exhibit 12,tenants do stipulate co-tenancy requirements.Retailers
such as Banana Republic, Ann Taylor, J. Crew, Kenneth Cole, etc. like to congregate to create a
destination.These types of tenants would want to be next to Barnes&Nobles not Montgomery Wards.
These tenants may be in centers with more mid-level tenants but it depends on the layout and if there can
be some clustering in the same general vicinity.As indicated in the Exhibit,many prefer the higher-end
stores as co-tenants but can also benefit from complementary stores at the other end of the spectrum.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 38 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 12
PREFERRED CO-TENANTS
Retailer Co-Tenants Target Market
Ann Taylor Gap Mid - high income;
Macy's adult female
Victoria Secret
Pottery Barn
Bath and Body Works
Banana Republic
William Sonoma
Eddie Bauer
Nine West Nordstrom Mid - high income;
Macy's teen, adult, female
Ann Taylor
Bed Bath & Beyond Costco Mid - high income;
Marshall's adult, female
Macy's
Great Indoors Restoration Hardware Mid - high income;
Pottery Barn adult, female
Nordstrom
Macy's
Costco
Target
Source: dway Group.
:\Files\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits\exhibit 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
VI. RETAIL SALES BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Sedway Group projected sales for each of the three redevelopment scenarios in order to estimate potential
sales tax revenue. The City of Huntington Beach requested the identification of the scenario that
maximizes sales tax revenues. Adjustments were made to the sales projections to net out those sales from
which the city currently receives sales tax in order to determine the incremental sales tax revenue the city
will obtain from the new Crossings at Huntington.
METHODOLOGY
The general approach to estimating retail sales tax revenues in this analysis involved a four-step process.
The first step was to review the historical sales performance of the center. Second, Sedway Group
surveyed major retailers,shopping center operators,and other industry experts to determine the potential
range of retail sales per square foot for the three alternatives. Then, for comparative purposes, Sedway
Group obtained sales data for shopping centers in Southern California from primary and secondary
sources to estimate sales performance factors for the various retail categories. Finally, the level of
stabilized sales for each of the potential retailers was projected in current 2000 dollars.
There is a significant amount of uncertainty associated with a center that has not yet been developed.
Therefore, Sedway Group used a range of retail sales values to reflect the potential fluctuation in Orange
County's retail environment.Sedway Group therefore projected a high and low level of incremental sales
tax revenue for each of the three alternatives. Although this analysis focuses on the mall's incremental
taxable sales to the city, it should be recognized that existing sales in the city may be transferred to a
repositioned Huntington Center,thereby reducing the overall net benefit to the General Fund.
RECENT SALES PERFORMANCE OF HUNTINGTON CENTER
Huntington Center has suffered through a period of declining sales. Since 1990, the mall's sales tax
revenue to the General Fund has declined at an average annual rate of 6.4 percent.1 The lackluster
performance is attributed to poor performance and the high vacancy rate at the facility.In recent years,
MaceRich, the prior owner, and now Ezralow, the current owner, have been trying to reposition and
redevelop the center.Because the long-term direction of the mall has been in doubt,owners and potential
tenants alike have been reluctant to enter into new lease agreements, as space has become available at
the center.In addition,the aging traditional regional mall can not compete with the wide array of tenants
at Westminster Mall, South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island.
The center's revenue generating potential has been impacted by the extremely poor(i.e.,below industry
standards) sales performance of Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory. These two major
anchor tenants,accounting for 39 percent of Huntington Center's leasable area,have struggled in recent
years to maintain their customer base while promoting a strategy of value over style. Meanwhile, the
1 Reported figures from the City of Huntington Beach;Sedway Group.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 40 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
82,000 square foot Mervyn's store has been relatively successful as evidenced by sales levels that meet
industry standards, substantiating the attraction of shoppers to the center.
It is important to note that despite reduced customer traffic, several other stores at Huntington Center
have continued to increase their sales performance during the past four years.Most notably,since 1996
Barnes and Noble,the General Store,Romano's Macaroni Grill,and Circuit City have all increased their
per square foot sales figures at a rate well above inflation.This is a clear indication that the site location
offers an excellent opportunity for a retail development with the optimal tenant mix.
RECENT PERFORMANCE OF SHOPPING CENTERS IN ORANGE COUNTY
Huntington Center's primary trade area is dominated by three regional centers(Westminster Mall, South
Coast Plaza, and Fashion Island) each of which serves a distinct market niche. These malls alone
generated more than$1.7 billion in taxable retail sales in 1999,a 7.0 percent increase over the previous
year2. The lion's share of these sales was attributable to South Coast Plaza in Costa Mesa, which
experienced a 4 percent increase in sales from 1998(to$990.5 million).At 2.9 million square feet, South
Coast Plaza is one of the largest super-regional malls in the country. In an effort to increase its drawing
power, the mammoth center is about to complete a$100 million transformation that includes linking
together the former Crystal Court section on Bear Street to the main mall via a 600-foot pedestrian bridge.
South Coast Plaza continues to attract strong national and regional retailers.Recently,Crate&Barrel and
Borders Books Music and Cafe opened new operations.This year,more than a dozen new stores or newly
remodeled stores are set to open,including a 189,000 square foot Macy's Home Store,an 11,622-square-
foot Eddie Bauer store,a Banana Republic flagship store,and Ann Taylor.
Westminster Mall's sales performance was relatively lackluster in 1999,experiencing a mere 2 percent
increase in taxable sales per square foot. The center, which is anchored by Sears, Robinson's-May
Fashion Store,Robinson's-May Home Store, and JC Penney, is the dominant traditional regional mall
in the Huntington Beach trade area.However, it has not been renovated since 1989 and its market share
is being eroded.There are plans to replace the Robinson's-May Home Store with a Macy's department
store with construction commencing first quarter of 2001.
Fashion Island, the 1.25 million square foot upscale center in Newport Beach, posted an 11 percent
annual increase in taxable sales in 1999.The center has added five new retail stores this year:Quiksilver
Youth and Pacific Sunwear (both youth-oriented surfwear stores) Mayor's Jewelers, Build-A-Bear
Workshop and Mary Englebreit(a stationery store).
The newly renovated Shops at Mission Viejo is a prime example of a successful mall repositioning. By
1996,the center's overall occupancy rate had dropped below 50 percent. Subsequently,the developers
embarked upon a$150 million makeover,including a 45 percent increase in GLA the center is now 1.2
million square feet.The introduction of upscale anchors Nordstrom and Saks Fifth Avenue was a critical
factor in establishing the mall's image and attracting other retailers with a similar demographic base(e.g.,
Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Armani Exchange, Sharper Image). Notably; the developers
incorporated several retailers to increase the foot traffic allowing the center to benefit from the
2 Orange County Business Journal; July 10,2000,page 20
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 41 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
cumulative synergy generated by the mix of the stores.
Overall, in 1999,the 25 largest shopping centers in Orange County(see Exhibit 13)posted a 9.1 percent
annual increase in taxable sales to$4.8 billion.To provide context for the projected sales performance
under the three scenarios,the table below describes seven prominent shopping centers in Orange County;
relative to size,and anchors,and summarizes the sales performance factor(i.e.,sales per square foot)in
1999. The estimates provide benchmarks in analyzing the validity of Sedway Group's sales projections
under the three alternatives.
ORANGE COUNTY SHOPPING CENTERS
Gross 1999 Sales No.of
Shopping Center Leasable performance Stores Major Tenants
Sq.Ft.
South Coast Plaza 2,900,000 $342 260 Nordstrom,Macy's,
Costa Mesa Saks Fifth Avenue
Fashion Island Neiman Marcus,
Newport Beach 1,250,000 $392 220 Bloomingdale's,
Robinson's-May
Westminster Mall 1,200,000 $224 190 Sears,JCPenney,
Westminster Robinson's-May
Metro Pointe at South Coast Edwards Theatres,
Costa Mesa 485,720 $366 27 Nordstrom Rack,Best
Buy
The Shops at Mission Viejo 1 ,157 Macy's, Saks Fifth
Mission Viejo , ,644 $140 135 Avenue,Nordstrom
Irvine Spectrum Center Edwards 21 (IMAX),
Irvine 484,210 $182 75 Dave&Buster's,Barnes
&Nobles
Fullerton Metro Center 429,939 $113 44 Montgomery Ward,
Fullerton SportMart,Kids R Us
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 42 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 13
ORANGE COUNTY SHOPPING CENTERS
1999 Taxable % Change Gross Leasable Sales No.of Year
Shopping Center Sales from Year Ago Sq.Ft. Performance Stores Major Tenants Opened
South Coast Plaza $990,500,000 4% 2,955,000 $335 271 Nordstrom, Macy's, 1967
Costa Mesa Saks Fifth Avenue
Fashion Island $490,000,000 11% 1,250,000 $392 220 Neiman Marcus, 1967
Newport Beach Bloomingdale's,
Robinsons-May
Brea Mall $394,500,000 4% 1,331,650 $296 183 Nordstrom, Macy's, 1977
Brea Robinsons-May
The Market Place Tustin/Irvine $321,000,000 16% 1,608,140 $200 90 IKEA, Home Depot, 1988
Tustin Babies R Us
Main Place Mall $279,000,000 0% 1,115,000 $250 190 Nordstrom, Macy's, 1987
Santa Ana Robinsons-May
Westminster Mall $288,800,000 2% 1,150,000 $251 190 Sears, JCPenney, 1974
Westminster Robinsons-May
Laguna Hills Mall $169,600,000 5% 867,947 $195 96 Sears, JCPenney, 1973
Laguna Hills Macy's
Metro Pointe at South Coast $178,800,000 2% 485,720 $368 27 Edwards Theatres, 1996
Costa Mesa Nordstrom Rack, Best
Buy
Mission Viejo Freeway Center $133,200,000 13% 290,000 $459 15 Borders Books& 1994
Mission Viejo Music, CompUSA,
Best Buy
Anaheim Plaza $100,500,000 3% 478,838 $210 29 Wal-Mart, Mervyn's, 1954
Anaheim Ross Dress for Less -i
W
5
EXHIBIT 13
ORANGE COUNTY SHOPPING CENTERS
1999 Taxable %Change Gross Leasable Sales No.of Year
Shopping Center Sales from Year Ago Sq.Ft. Performance Stores Major Tenants Opened
The Shops at Mission Viejo $168,400,000 61% 1,157,644 $145 130 Macy's, Robinsons- 1979
Mission Viejo May, Nordstrom
Anaheim Hills Festival Mall $81,000,000 4% 569,347 $142 47 Target, Pavilions, 1992
Anaheim Hills Mervyn's
Buena Park Mall $74,000,000 -7% 1,100,000 $67 68 Sears, JCPenney, 1961
Buena Park Ross Dress for Less
Brea Union Plaza $85,000,000 24% 598,000 $142 39 Babies R Us,Wal- 1998
Brea Mart, HomeBase
Fullerton Metro Center $48,400,000 -5% 429,939 $113 50 Montgomery Ward, 1988
Fullerton SportMart, Loehmann's
Sources: Orange County Business Journal Book of Lists 2000; Sedway Group.
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits�exhibit 16.xislSheetl 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
SALES TAX IMPLICATIONS FOR THE THREE DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES
The City of Huntington Beach will receive increased revenues from a redeveloped Huntington Center.
However, the magnitude of the fiscal impact will vary significantly between the three alternatives.
During the first year of stabilized operation Sedway Group estimates that the center has the potential to
generate gross taxable sales in the range of $179,000,000 to over$305,000,000. The center currently
generates in taxable sales in excess of$88,000,000,therefore,the incremental sales revenue accruing to
the City of Huntington Beach from a redeveloped center, during its first year of stabilized operation
would range from a low of$899,600 to a high of$2,254,000.Exhibit 14 presents a tabulation of the high
and low estimates of stabilized sales for each of the three project concepts as well as the corresponding
incremental sales tax revenue to the city.
Scenario A: No Anchors Removed
As indicated in Exhibit 14,a redeveloped center,which retains the existing anchor tenants,Montgomery
Wards, Burlington Coat Factory, and Mervyn's, would realize incremental taxable sales between
$899,625 and$1,044,730(current dollars)during its first year of stabilized operation, or$185 to$200
on a per square foot basis.Although the introduction of a 90,000 square foot state-of-the-art movie theater
in conjunction with new in-line stores is expected to attract an increased number of shoppers,the center's
performance would be constrained by heavy competition from the large number of value-oriented
retailers in the trade area and the sub-par sales performance of existing anchor tenants. In 1999, the
median department store sales at West Coast regional centers was approximately$200 per square foot3.
By comparison, Sedway Group expects Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory to realize
taxable sales substantially below industry standards (based on historical data) during the first year of
stable operation;although sales projections reflect an increase above current performance levels.
Scenario B: Burlington Coat Factory Removed
The sales productivity of the center is slightly improved in Scenario B. Sedway Group projects
incremental taxable sales between $1,286,571 and $1,526,413, or $225 to $250 on a per square foot
basis.The improved performance is attributable to the enhanced utilization of the center's gross leasable
area. The removal of Burlington Coat Factory's 194,232 allows 28,475 square feet of specialty shops to
be included,with a significantly higher average sales per square foot.In addition,the potential inclusion
of Kohl's department store, a new retailing concept for Southern California, can increase the drawing
power of the overall center, thereby, increasing sales at nearby stores. Consequently, the City of
Huntington Beach could realize between $386,000 to $450,000 in additional incremental sales tax
revenue,relative to Scenario A.
Scenario C: Burlington Coat Factory and Montgomery Wards Removed
Taxable retail sales are maximized under Scenario C as compared to the other two alternatives. The
3 Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers:2000,page 86
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 45 SEPTEMBER 2000
EXHIBIT 14
SALES TAX SUMMARY
No Anchors Burlington Burlington &
Removed Removed Montgomery Ward's
Removed
Total Sq. Ft. 967,365 875,544 947,861
Total Taxable Sales / psf(2000 $)
Low $185 $225 $275
High $200 $250 $325
Total Incremental Sales Tax Revenue
Low $899,625 $1,286,571 $1,770,254
High $1,044,730 $1,528,413 $2,253,936
Source: Sedway Group
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibits\[exhibit 17.x1s]sales tax sum 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
addition of several department stores with formats new to Southern California will entice shoppers and
increase foot traffic at the repositioned center.Moreover,the proposed tenant mix of higher-end soft good
retailers with the potential to achieve sales revenues in excess of$350 per square foot and several unique
entertainment and dining alternatives with estimated retail sales potential of$500 per square foot or more
could propel the overall sales performance of the center to $275 to $325 per square foot. The
development of Scenario C would increase the incremental sales tax collection accruing to Huntington
Beach's General Fund by$90 to$125 per square foot over scenario A and the potential spread between
Scenario C and Scenario B is in the range of$50 to$75.
INCREMENTAL SALES TAX REVENUE
The projected incremental sales tax revenue to the city under each scenario are summarized below:
PROJECTED SALES TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY
Scenario Low High Average
Scenario A $899,600 $1,044,700 $972,200
Scenario B $1,286,600 $1,528,400 $1,407,500
Scenario C $1,770,300 $2,253,900 $2,012,100
Based on this analysis, Scenario C generates over$1 million more in incremental sales tax revenue to the
city than does Scenario A(107 percent),and over$600,000 more than Scenario B(43 percent). Based
on the redevelopment concept that maximizes public revenue, Scenario C is the optimum alternative.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 47 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDW.AY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
VII. CONCLUSIONS
This section of the report summarizes our key findings,conclusions,and recommendations relative to
determining the optimum redevelopment concept of Huntington Center. Based on the detailed research
described in the preceding sections of this report, Sedway Group recommends Scenario C for the
following reasons:
• the mall needs to be repositioned in order to return as a competitive force in the marketplace;
and
• the incremental sales tax revenue to the city is maximized(approximately$2 million),which
exceeds Scenario B by 43 percent and Scenario A by 107 percent.
Under this scenario,both Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory receive just compensation
for any interests in the center they may have and are receiving relocation benefits according to
redevelopment law.
The following synthesizes the major considerations in deriving the recommendations.
SCENARIO A
Scenario A redevelopment of Huntington Center retains both Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat
Factory as anchors. Sedway Group does not recommend Scenario A as the preferred scenario for a
variety of reasons:
• The retail project under Scenario A would compete with other value-oriented retailers already
in city. Selected value retailers in the immediate area(i.e.,within two miles)include:
VALUE-ORIENTED RETAILERS WITHIN TWO MILE RADIUS
Retailers
Target Kids R Us Toys R Us
Marshall's Ross Dress for Less Michael's
Big 5 Petco Party City
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 48 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
If the radius is expanded to five miles,the following additional retailers are located:
VALUE-ORIENTED RETAILERS IN A FIVE MILE RADIUS
Retailers
TJ Maxx C&R Clothiers Kay Bee Toys
Pier 1 Bed Bath&Beyond Strouds
Good Guys Fry's Electronics Comp USA
Best Buy Sport Chalet Sport Mart
PetSmart Party Time Party World
Aaron Brothers Art Mart Calico Corners Jo Ann Fabrics&Crafts
There is a substantial risk of value tenants relocating from existing centers into this new,prime
located project with freeway access and visibility. As a result, this migration could create
problematic vacancies at those other centers and could reduce their ability to attract shoppers.
• The site is at the gateway to the city and the economics of the project will not support a rich
architecturally detailed project. The project would look similar to other value-oriented and
power centers in the area along Edinger and Beach and would not contribute to the image we
believe the city is attempting to convey for this area.
Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are not strong performing anchors; however,
they account for 39 percent of the space.Their sales performance in comparison to Mervyn's is
an indication of their weak pull of shoppers and their hindrance to redevelopment of the mall to
much else than value-oriented center. Mervyn's is performing within industry standards with
Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory performing 60 to 70 percent below Mervyn's.
• According to a August, 1996 study by Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc.(RSG),commissioned by
the Redevelopment Agency,the assessed values in the Huntington Center Project Area dropped
23 percent between 1990 and 1996 (The mall accounted for 36 percent of the project area
acreage).This decrease has undercut the Agency's ability to fund needed improvements and has
contributed to the Agency's inability to remove blighting conditions, including"the increasingly
obsolete and deteriorating mall."According to an analysis of taxable sales trends of shopping
centers in the market area compiled by Hinderliter de Llamas and Associates, the mall has
steadily declined in the face of other centers' solid performance. Another study quoted in the
RSG report indicated that when the mall's sales declined by 34 percent between 1992 and 1994,
sales in the Edinger Corridor declined by 21 percent
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 49 SEPTEMBER 2000
'f
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
SCENARIO B
The following points summarize the major conclusions pertaining to Scenario B, which includes
Montgomery Wards remains a tenant and Burlington Coat Factory is relocated out of the project.
• Similar to Scenario A,the siting and value-orientation of the existing tenants(46 percent of the
gross leasable area)influences the possible repositioning of the center. Without Burlington Coat
Factory,there is room to allow the potential introduction of Kohl's Department Store (87,000
square feet)as another anchor. Given there are no other Kohl's in Southern California at this
time,this mid-tier department store could benefit the center by its uniqueness and complementary
merchandise. The center will still not be unable to draw higher-end retailers for basically the
same reasons described previously.
• While generating significantly more net fiscal benefit for the city than would Scenario A,
Scenario B does not contribute near the level of benefits associated with Scenario C.
• The physical quality of the center's architecture would be upgraded vis-a-vis Scenario A.
Although the financial investment in enhancing the structure will be significantly below Scenario
C. The level of improvements would resemble a typical "community center"upgrade such as
at Main Street and Yorktown Avenue.
SCENARIO C
The following bullet points summarize the major conclusions pertaining to Scenario C,which assumes
that both Montgomery Wards and Burlington Coat Factory are compensated to locate out of the center.
• While a retail development can have a mix of higher-and lower-end retailers,there needs
to be the right balance and layout which cannot be accomplished under Scenario A.
• Initial letters of intent received by Ezralow Retail Properties,totaling 420,000 square feet,
show the potential for a repositioned center.
• There are retail concepts unique to Southern California,which have expressed strong interest
in the Scenario C development,which can help differentiate the project.
• A higher-end tenancy can be attracted to Scenario C given the ability for co-tenancies and
clustering to reposition the center.
• The Scenario C project will contribute to the image of the city given the architecturally
distinctive plans for this project,ambiance,unique tenants,etc.
• The project, as proposed,will attract shoppers from different trade areas given the variety
of tenant types envisioned. For example,a tenant such as the Great Indoors could pull from
15 or more miles given its unique nature,while more typical tenants may have a trade area
in the range of 5 miles.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 50 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
• The type of entertainment/lifestyle center proposed does not compete directly with other
retail centers in the city. The city has the opportunity to capture untapped retail sales
potential from Huntington.Beach residents and from other surrounding communities.
• Scenario C contributes, by far, the largest net increment sales tax benefit to the city,
estimated to be $1,770,000 to $2,254,000. This incremental tax revenue to the city is 43
percent greater than under Scenario B and 107 percent greater than achieved under Scenario
A. In addition,there is the potential for the city to share in upside participation.
• Scenario C would free up space to introduce new tenants to re-orient the center which
contribute to a more impressive image and generate significantly larger fiscal benefits to the
city. The city is in the process of developing a specific plan for the Edinger Corridor area.
The Edinger Corridor area is an important contributor to the sales tax revenues for the city.
Given the size and location of the mall within the Edinger Corridor, it is a major force
influencing property recycling,rehabilitation,and overall sales performance of surrounding
properties. The area has lost its competitiveness from a regional standpoint
The decline of older suburban retail districts is becoming a common problem.The experience of other
communities provides an excellent basis for determining efforts that have worked and those that have
produced few successful results. With the increasing sophistication of retailers and of retail centers,each
center must be highly specialized and carefully targeted in its approach and appeal. A center must be
carefully positioned and fulfill a particular market niche under-represented in the market area. A
repositioned center which competes with the existing value-oriented retail in the trade area could
potentially cannibalize sales from existing retailers,thereby,reducing the net fiscal benefit to the city.
There is the potential to redevelop the center and carefully position the mall to fulfill a particular market
niche under-represented in the market area. The Huntington Center site presents a real opportunity.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 51 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
APPENDIX A
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIOS A & B
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 52 SEPTEMBER 2000
APPENDIX A
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIOS A& B
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Anna's Linens bed &bath linens discount, grocery enclosed regional mall, low-mid income adult, female
power center, community
strip center, neighborhood
strip center
Casual Corner women's apparel fashion enclosed super regional mid-high income adult, female
mall, regional mall, outlet
center, community strip
center, downtown/central
business district,
freestanding
Chicks Sporting Goods sporting goods, athletic entertainment, community strip center, mid-high income adult
wear upscale freestanding
Clothestime women's apparel fashion, enclosed super regional mid income teen, adult, female
entertainment, mall, regional mall, power
discount, outlet center, outlet center,
community strip center,
downtown/central business
district, freestanding
APPENDIX A
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIOS A& B
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Converse sporting goods, athletic fashion, outlet enclosed super regional mid income child, teen, adult
wear, off-price, outlet mail, power center, outlet
stores center, community strip
center, strip center pad
site/outparcel, freestanding
Designer Labels for Less men's, women's apparel all considered community strip center
Famous Footwear shoes fashion, discount, enclosed super regional mid-high income mothers
outlet mall, regional mall, power
center, outlet center,
community strip center,
neighborhood strip center,
mall pad site/outparcel,
strip center pad site/
outparcel, downtown/
central business district,
freestanding
Fast Frame art, collectibles, frames upscale power center, community high income adult, female
strip center, freestanding
APPENDIX A
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIOS A& B
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Kay Bee Toys toys, games,video fashion, discount enclosure super regional mid income adult, senior
games mall, regional mall, power
center, outlet center,
neighborhood strip center
Hallmark cards, stationery fashion enclosed super regional mid-high income teen, adult, senior,
mall, regional mall, power female
center, community strip
center, neighborhood strip
center, mall pad
site/outparcel, strip center
pad site/outparcel,
downtown/central business
district, freestanding
Mikasa cutlery, kitchenware fashion enclosed super regional mid-high income adult, female
mall, regional mall, power
center, outlet center
APPENDIX A
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIOS A& B
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Payless Shoes shoes fashion, discount, enclosed super regional low-mid income child, teen, adult
outlet mall, regional mall, power
center, outlet center, mall
pad site/outparcel, strip
center pad site/outparcel,
downtown/central business
district, freestanding
Radio Shack computers, software, all considered outlet center, community mid-high income teen, adult, senior
electronics strip center, neighborhood
strip center, downtown/
central business district,
freestanding
Ross children's, men's, fashion, discount, enclosed super regional mid-high income adult
women's apparel, bed & outlet, grocery mall, regional mall, power
bath linens, china/ center, outlet center,
glassware, home d6cor, community strip center,
lamps, drapes neighborhood strip center,
downtown/central business
district, freestanding
APPENDIX A
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIOS A& B
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Skechers shoes downtown/central business
district, freestanding
Stein Mart children's, men's, fashion, upscale enclosed regional mall, mid-high income
women's apparel, cards, power center, community
stationery, bed & bath strip center
linens
Source: 2000 Retail Tenant Directory; Sedway Group.
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach Center\exhibitsgexhibit 12.x1siSheet1 9/12/00
Y '
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
APPENDIX B
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIO C
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 58 SEPTEMBER 2000
APPENDIX B
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIO C
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Abercrombie& Fitch children's, men's, upscale enclosed super regional, teen, adult
women's apparel regional mall, downtown/
central business district,
freestanding
Ann Taylor women's apparel upscale enclosed super regional
mall, regional mall,
community strip center,
neighborhood strip center,
downtown/central
business district,
freestanding
Anthropologie men's, women's apparel, fashion, all strip center pad site/ mid-high income teen, adult, female
art, collectibles, frames, considered outparcel,
home d6cor, lamps, downtown/central
drapes business district,
freestanding
Bath & Body Works cosmetics, body care, fashion enclosed super regional mid-high income female teen, adult
fragrance mall, enclosed.regional
mall
APPENDIX B
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIO C
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Preference Customer Base
Brooks Brothers children's, men's, fashion, upscale enclosed super regional high income
women's apparel mall, regional mall, outlet
center, downtown/central
business district,
freestanding
Brookstone housewares, small all considered enclosed super regional high income adult, senior, male
appliances, specialty mall, regional mall,
gifts downtown/central
business district, airport/
transportation center
Express woman's apparel fashion, enclosed regional mall mid-high income teen, adult, female
entertainment
F.A.O. Schwarz toys, games, video entertainment, enclosed super regional high income child, teen, adult,
games upscale mall, regional mall, power senior
center, mall pad site/
outparcel, freestanding
The Gap children's, men's, fashion, upscale enclosed super regional mid-high income child, teen, adult
women's apparel, mall, regional mall, outlet
accessories/costume center, community strip
jewelry center, downtown/central
business district,
freestanding, airport/
transportation center
APPENDIX B
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIO C
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Jillian's amusement, play entertainment enclosed super regional mid-high income adult
centers, child care, mall, regional mall, power
education center
Nine West shoes upscale enclosed super regional mid income teen, adult, female
mall, regional mall, outlet
center, downtown/central
business district
Restoration Hardware home d6cor, lamps, all considered enclosed regional mall, mid-high income adult, senior, college
drapes downtown/central educated
business district
The Limited women's apparel all considered enclosed regional mall, mid-high income teen, adult female
community strip center,
strip center pad
site/outparcel, downtown/
central business district,
freestanding
Urban Outfitters men's, women's apparel, fashion, all strip center pad site/ mid-high income teen, adult, female
art, collectibles, frames, considered outparcel, downtown/
home d6cor, lamps, central business district,
drapes freestanding
APPENDIX B
RETAIL TENANT SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
SCENARIO C
Store Category Tenant Mix Type of Center Income Customer Base
Preference
Victoria's Secret women's apparel all considered enclosed regional mall, mid-high income adult, female
community strip center,
downtown/central
business district,
freestanding
Williams-Sonoma bed &bath linens, china, fashion, upscale enclosed regional mall, high income adult, senior
glassware, cutlery, outlet center,
kitchenware, home downtown/central
d6cor, lamps, drapes business district,
freestanding
Ulta beauty salons, barber, fashion community strip center, mid-high income teen, adult, female
cosmetics, body care, neighborhood strip center
fragrance
Source: 2000 Retail Tenant Directory; Sedway Group.
CAFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach CenteAexhibitslexhibit 13.x1s]Sheetl 9/12/0011
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 64 SEPTEMBER 2000
t
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Grocery
Bristol Farms 9.8 Long Beach 2080 North Bellflower Blvd.
Pavilions 0.6 Westminster 16450 Beach Blvd.
4.6 Garden Grove 9852 Chapman Avenue
8.9 Newport Beach 3443 Viaduct Lido
Henry's None
Trader Joe's Company 2.6 Huntington Beach 18681 Main Street,#A
Whole Foods Market 7.9 Costa Mesa 1870 Harbor Blvd.
Wild Oats None
Apparel
Abercrombie& Fitch 7.5 Costa Mesa 3333 Bear Street
Ann Taylor 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
Banana Republic 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
9.9 Long Beach 5019 E. 2nd Street
Gap also includes Gap Kids 1.7 Westminster 1070 Westminster Mail
also includes Baby Gap 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
8.0 Costa Mesa 1870 Harbor Street
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 Main Street
J. Crew 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
Limited Express 1.7 Westminster 1008 Westminster Mall
Talbots 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
Victoria's Secret 1.8 Westminster Westminster Mall
7.5 Costa Mesa 3333 Bear Street
7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 Main Street
Off-Price Apparel
Burlington Coat Factory 0.0 Huntington Beach Huntington Center
C&R Clothiers 1.3 Huntington Beach 15039 Goldenwest Street
Kohl's None
Marshalls 0.8 Huntington Beach 16672 Beach Blvd.
4.7 Garden Grove 9939 Chapman Avenue
7.5 Costa Mesa 901 South Coast Drive
Men's Warehouse None
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Miller's Outpost 1.7 Westminster 1050 Westminster Mall
7.9 Costa Mesa 211 East 17th Street
7.9 Buena Park 8221 On The Wall
8.3 Anaheim 586 North Euclid Street
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
Old Navy Clothing Co. 2.6 Huntington Beach 18543 Main St.
7.5 Costa Mesa 901 South Coast Drive
7.8 Orange 20 City Blvd.
Ross Dress for Less 0.9 Huntington Beach 7201 Warner Avenue
5.2 Cypress 6900 Katella Avenue
5.8 Garden Grove 13200 Harbor Blvd.
7.9 Santa Ana 3900 South Bristol Street,#D
7.9 Costa Mesa 289 East 17th Street
8.3 Anaheim 560 North Euclid Street
Steinmart None
' T J Maxx 3.3 Fountain Valley 18295 Brookhurst Street
Office Supplies
Office Depot 0.1 Huntington Beach 7742 Edinger
3.3 Fountain Valley 18100 Brookhurst
4.5 Fountain Valley 11190 Talbert Avenue
4.9 Garden Grove 11100 Garden Grove Blvd.
7.4 Costa Mesa 2200 Harbor Blvd.
7.7 Santa Ana 3309 South Bristol Street
8.2 Anaheim 517 E. Katella Avenue
Office Max 0.4 Huntington Beach 16272 Beach Blvd.
6.8 Garden Grove 12110 Harbor Blvd.
8.4 Anaheim 620 North Euclid Street
Staples 0.0 Huntington Beach Huntington Center
5.2 Cypress 6816 Katella Avenue
5.5 Santa Ana 2900 S. Harbor Blvd.
5.9 Garden Grove 13031 Harbor Blvd.
7.7 Santa Ana 3430 South Bristol Street
8.1 Costa Mesa 620 West 17th Street
9.5 Orange 330 S. Main Street
Comp uters/Electronics
Best Buy 1.7 Westminster 500 Westminster Mall
7.5 Costa Mesa 901 South Coast Drive
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Circuit City 0.0 Huntington Beach Huntington Center
0.4 Huntington Beach 16182 Gothard Street
Circuit City cont'd 7.6 Santa Ana 2445 S. Bristol Street
7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
8.0 Buena Park 8371 La Palma Avenue
9.7 Orange 1407 W. Chapman
CompUSA 2.5 Fountain Valley 9380 Warner Avenue
8.3 Anaheim 550 N. Euclid
Fry's Electronics 4.3 Fountain Valley 10800 Kalama River Avenue
Good Guys 0.8 Huntington Beach 16672 Beach Blvd.
7.0 Anaheim 3021 West Lincoln Avenue
9.6 Santa Ana 146 S. Main Street
Music and Video
Tower Records/Video/Books 7.2 Anaheim 220 North Beach Blvd.
8.0 Costa Mesa 1726 Superior Avenue
8.1 Costa Mesa 2930 Bristol Street
Virgin Megastore 7.8 Orange 20 City Blvd.
8.2 Costa Mesa 1875 Newport Blvd.
Wherehouse 1.0 Huntington Beach 16929 Beach Blvd.
1.7 Westminster 1023 Westminster Mall
3.3 Fountain Valley 18533 Brookhurst Street
4.6 Garden Grove 9861 Chapman Avenue
5.2 Santa Ana 3770 West McFadden Avenue
6.4 Buena Park 6038 Ball Road
6.9 Seal Beach 1190 Pacific Coast Hwy.
7.2 Costa Mesa 2320 Harbor Blvd.
7.9 Costa Mesa 435 East 17th Street
10.0 Fullerton 1365 S. Harbor Blvd.
Sporting Goods
Big 5 Sporting Goods 1.3 Westminster 14970 Goldenwest Street
7.0 Anaheim 2320 South Harbor Blvd.
7.2 Costa Mesa 2324 Harbor Blvd.
7.2 Buena Park 8990 Knott Avenue
Chick's Sporting Goods None
Oshman's Sporting Goods 6.6 Santa Ana 3300 South Fairview Street
REI None
Sport Chalet 0.4 Huntington Beach 16242 Beach Blvd.
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Sportmart 1.9 Fountain Valley 9065 Warner Avenue
7.9 Santa Ana 3900 South Bristol Street,#B
9.8 Fullerton 1515 S. Harbor
Sports Authority 4.7 Fountain Valley 17880 Newhope Street
Children's and Infant's Wear
Babies R Us None
Carter's None
Kids R Us 0.1 Huntington Beach 7600 Edinger Avenue
7.9 Santa Ana 3923 South Bristol Street
9.9 Fullerton 1447 S. Harbor Blvd.
Toy Retailers
F.A.O. Schwartz 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
Kay Bee Toy& Hobby Shop 0.0 Huntington Beach Huntington Center
1.7 Westminster 2062 Westminster Mall
6.6 Costa Mesa 2701 Harbor Blvd.
8.2 Buena Park 8211 On The Mall
Kay Bee Toy Works None
Toys International 7.8 Orange 20 City Blvd West
7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
Toys R Us 0.5 Huntington Beach 7212 Edinger Avenue
7.2 Anaheim 2232 South Harbor Blvd.
7.9 Santa Ana 3900 South Bristol Street
Zany Brainy 0.0 Huntington Beach Huntington Center
8.9 Newport Beach 900 Avocado Avenue
Book Retailers
Barnes&Noble Inc. 0.0 Huntington Beach Huntington Center
7.5 Costa Mesa 901 South Coast Drive,#B150
8.0 Costa Mesa 1870 Harbor Blvd.,#B126
8.4 Long Beach 6326 East Pacific Coast Hwy
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
9.4 Orange 791 S. Main Street
Borders Books &Music 7.8 Orange 20 City Blvd. West
8.2 Costa Mesa 1890 Newport Blvd.
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Crown Books 2.3 Westminster 6765 Westminster Blvd.,#D
3.3 Fountain Valley 18309 Brookhurst Street,#5
8.2 Costa Mesa 1835 Newport Blvd. East
9.3 Long Beach 650 N. Bellflower Blvd.
9.7 Orange 1411 W. Chapman Blvd.
Home Furnishings/Housewares
Bed Bath & Beyond 2.5 Huntington Beach 18641 Main Street
The Bombay Company 1.7 Westminster 1107 Westminster Mall
7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
8.2 Anaheim 480 N. Euclid
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
Brookstone 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
7.9 Orange 20 City Blvd.West
Brookstone cont'd 9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
Container Store 7.5 Costa Mesa 901 South Coast Drive
Cost Plus World Market 7.9 Santa Ana 1313 West Sunflower Avenue
Crate& Barrel 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol Street
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
Elm Street None
Hold Everything 7.5 Costa Mesa 3333 Bear Street
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
Linens'n Things 7.5 Costa Mesa 901 South Coast Drive,#9M
Pier 1 Imports 1.0 Westminster 15400 Goldenwest
6.9 Costa Mesa 2710 Harbor Blvd.
Pottery Barn 7.5 Costa Mesa 3333 Bear Street,#315
Restoration Hardware None
Sears Homelife Furniture Store None
Strouds 0.8 Huntington Beach 16672 Beach Blvd.
7.9 Costa Mesa 1835 Newport Blvd.,#B129
10.0 Fullerton 1361 S. Harbor
Three D Bed & Bath 5.3 Costa Mesa 3535 Hyland Avenue
Williams-Sonoma 7.9 Costa Mesa 3333 Bristol
9.2 Santa Ana 2800 N. Main Street
APPENDIX C
SELECTED RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Z Gallerie None
Party Supplies
Party City 0.4 Huntington Beach 16100 Beach Blvd.
7.7 Santa Ana 3357 South Bristol Street
8.1 Anaheim 418 North Euclid Street
9.4 Orange 763 South Main Street
Party Time 1.8 Westminster 1025 Westminster Mall
Party World 2.6 Huntington Beach 18681 Main Street
9.8 Fullerton 1521 S. Harbor
Pet Supplies
Petco 1.3 Huntington Beach 15041 Goldenwest Street
4.1 Huntington Beach 8909 Adams Avenue
4.3 Huntington Beach 19050 Brookhurst Street
7.4 Cypress 9111 Valley View Street
7.4 Los Alamitos 10690 Los Alamitos Blvd.
Petco cont'd 8.2 Costa Mesa 1815 Newport Blvd.
8.5 Costa Mesa 3033 Bristol Street
8.5 Anaheim 430 North Euclid Street
8.7 Long Beach 5700 East 2nd Street
PETsMART 4.9 Garden Grove 9561 Chapman Avenue
5.0 Fountain Valley 17940 Newhope Street
Specialty Retailers
Aaron Brothers Art Mart 0.1 Huntington Beach 7470 Edinger
8.3 Costa Mesa 1714 Newport Blvd.
10.0 Fullerton 1150 S. Harbor Blvd.
Calico Corners 2.6 Huntington Beach 18585 Main Street
Jo Ann Fabrics&Crafts 1.1 Westminster 15412 Goldenwest Street
1.3 Huntington Beach 15031 Goldenwest Street
4.8 Huntington Beach 1011 Adams Avenue
5.3 Cypress 6802 Katella Avenue
6.8 Anaheim 2251 West Ball Road
7.7 Costa Mesa 2200 Harbor Blvd.#H
7.7 Anaheim 2270 West Lincoln Avenue
Michael's Arts&Crafts Inc. 0.2 Huntington Beach 7600 Edinger Avenue#A
8.1 Santa Ana 3309 South Bristol Street
8.2 Costa Mesa 610 West 17th Street
APPENDIX C
SELECTED'RETAIL LOCATIONS
Category Retailer Distance City Address
Note: Distance judged from 7777 Edinger Blvd.
Sources: Bigbook.com and Seday Group.
:AFi1es\BKC\3696.11 Huntington Beach CenteAexhibitslexhibit 14.x1s]anchors 9/12/00
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
APPENDIX D
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 72 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
SEDWAY GROUP
EXPERTISE, SKILLS, AND CAPABILITIES
Founded in 1978, Sedway Group is a nationally recognized full-service real estate and urban economics
consulting firm with offices in San Francisco and Los Angeles. In November 1999, Sedway Group
became a subsidiary of CB Richard Ellis,a full-service international real estate services firm.Although
the Sedway Group name will remain,and likely expand,this association provides the firm with access
to in-depth research and other resources unrivaled among real estate consulting firms that enhance our
ability to provide quality client services.
The strength of Sedway Group's practice is derived from the firm's strong complement of seasoned
professionals, each with specialized real estate industry knowledge and experience. The firm's
professional staff have substantial experience as valuation,market,and financial analysts,as well as in
economic development,real estate investment and development,and asset management. Sedway Group
draws upon an established knowledge base yet is innovative in formulating new solutions to constantly
evolving real estate challenges.Our multidisciplinary approach to solving complex real estate challenges
generates cutting-edge solutions that maximize investor and community returns on real estate assets.Our
capabilities are further augmented by many quality colleagues at CB Richard Ellis.
Sedway Group offers expertise in all major land uses (residential, retail, office, industrial, hotel, and
mixed use),and the firm is a recognized national leader in specialized areas such as entertainment retail,
transit-oriented development,public/private transactions,redevelopment,and economic revitalization.
Our services include the following major real estate consulting areas:
Market Research and Analysis- Market supply and demand projections, highest and best use
studies,tenant mix studies,product and pricing recommendations,development strategies.
Financial Analysis - Pro forma projections, due diligence, financial modeling, financial and
development feasibility studies, land residual analysis,transaction structuring.
Real Estate Strategy and Asset Management-Asset evaluation and positioning,acquisition and
disposition strategies, strategic business plans, portfolio review, negotiation support, RFP/RFQ
preparation and developer selection.
Economic Development and Redevelopment - Community-based economic development,
neighborhood and commercial revitalization,business attraction and retention,economic base and
target industry analyses,public/private ventures,military base reuse.
Valuation Services-Narrative appraisals for financing,valuations for strategic business planning,
appraisal review,appraisal process management.
Economic and Fiscal Impact-Economic analyses,fiscal impact analyses,economic multiplier
studies.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 73 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Litigation Support and Expert Witness Testimony- Case research and analysis,expert witness
testimony.
Negotiation and Public Private Partnerships- Analysis and structuring for public and private
sector clients.
CLIENT BASE
Sedway Group's broad skill base has enabled the firm to develop a national clientele comprising a wide
array of private and public sector clients,including investors,advisors,and financial institutions; local,
county,regional, state, and federal governments;corporations;developers; law firms; foundations and
universities.Representative clients in each of these categories include the following:
Investors,Advisors,and Financial Institutions-Washington Mutual,AEW Capital Management;
AMB Institutional Realty Advisors, Inc.; Bank of America; Citibank; Construction Lending
Corporation;Embarcadero Center;Equitable Real Estate Investment Management;Estate of James
Campbell; GE Capital Investment Advisors; Hearthstone Advisors; Jones Lang Wootton;
Metropolitan Life Insurance;Pacific Bank; RREEF Funds;Tiger Real Estate Partners.
Local and County Governments-Columbia, SC; Denver,CO; Huntington Beach; Los Angeles;
Oakland; Phoenix, AZ; Portland, OR; Sacramento; San Diego; San Francisco; San Jose; Santa
Barbara; St.Louis,MO; Spokane,WA.
Other Governmental Agencies - National Park Service, Bay Area Rapid Transit District;
California Department of Justice;Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Golden Gate National
Parks Association;Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority; Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority; Stapleton Development Corporation, Denver, CO; U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development; U.S.Department of Labor;U.S. General Services Administration.
Corporations-Cisco Systems,Apple Computers,Inc.;Fireman's Fund Corp.;Ford Motor Land
Development; Hewlett-Packard Company; Lucasfilm; Pacific Gas and Electric Co.; Santa Cruz
Seaside Company; Siemens;Silicon Graphics; Sony;Squaw Valley Associates; Sun Microsystems;
Tandem Computers.
Developers - Bohannon Development Company, Burnham Pacific Properties, Inc.; Catellus
Development;LCOR;Forest City Development;Kaufman&Broad;The Koll Company;Lincoln
Property Company;Millennium Partners; Sobrato Development;William Wilson and Associates.
Law Firms-Bianchi,Engel,Keegin&Talkington;Brobeck,Phleger&Harrison;Coblentz,Patch,
Duffy&Bass;Ellman Burke Hoffman&Johnson;Hale and Dorr;Hoge,Fenton,Jones&Appel;
Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk&Rabkin;Latham&Watkins;McCutchen,Doyle,Brown
& Enersen; Morrison & Foerster; Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe; Pillsbury Madison & Sutro;
Sidley&Austin; Steefel,Levitt&Weiss; Weil,Gotshal&Manges.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 74 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Foundations and Educational Institutions-Davies Medical Center,James Irvine Foundation,
Stanford University,University of California at San Francisco,University of California at Santa
Barbara,University of California Regents; San Francisco State University; California Polytechnic
University, San Luis Obispo,University of California Berkeley.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 75 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
APPENDIX E
RESUMES
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 76 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Lynn M.Sedway, CRE,Executive Managing Director-Ms. Sedway founded Sedway Group in 1978.
In late 1999,the firm was acquired by CB Richard Ellis. The Sedway Group name and staff continue,
with a broader platform and access to greater resources. As president of Sedway Group,she heads the
management team. She has actively participated in all the firm's practice areas, including major expert
witness and negotiation assignments and studies for institutional, developer, and public clients. Ms.
Sedway's major areas of specialization include public-private partnerships, REITs, negotiation,
redevelopment, market studies, and complex valuation analyses, with extensive experience in market
trends for the major land uses including,housing,retail,office,and mixed-use developments.The firm .
also writes the three Urban Land Institute market profiles for the Bay Area. Ms.Sedway has testified as
an expert witness in Superior Court and Federal District Court in the areas of market and financial
feasibility,valuation,and the economics of real estate.
She is a national leader in the field, serving as Vice president of the Counselors of Real Estate, Vice
President of the Board of Trustees of the Urban Land Institute,she is a member of the Policy Advisory
Board of the Fisher Center for Real Estate,and a board member and the past president of the Golden Gate
Chapter of Lambda Alpha,an international honorary land economics society.
Lynn Sedway is active on corporate and community boards, including AMB Properties,Inc.,Alexander
&Baldwin,the Swig Company,Bridge Housing,and the International Women's Forum. She is a frequent
speaker at major real estate conferences. She has been an adjunct faculty member and is a frequent guest
lecturer at the University of California in the Haas School of Business. She is a state certified appraiser
and has a broker's license.Her education includes a Master of Business Administration degree in real
estate and urban economics and marketing from the University of California at Berkeley,(now the Haas
School)and a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from the University of Michigan.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 77 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
Carol A. Fredholm,Principal—Ms.Fredholm has been involved in the real estate industry since 1979
as consultant and project manager for both private firms and public agencies. She has provided real estate
and urban economic advisory services for a wide range of real estate projects for developers, financial
institutions,corporations,attorneys,cities,and redevelopment agencies.She is experienced in all major
land uses including office, industrial,high technology,retail,hotel,residential,and mixed-use projects.
The scope of her professional services includes market and financial feasibility studies,highest and best
use analyses,valuations, litigation support,transit-oriented development strategies,asset management,
redevelopment studies,economic development strategies, and developer solicitation and negotiation for
joint development projects. Prior to joining Sedway Group in 1995, Ms. Fredholm held positions as
partner with a national real estate economics firm;project manager,Joint Development Department of
the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority, where she was responsible for all activities
related to the development of selected MTA properties;and senior financial analyst for an international
hospital holding company,where she recommended strategic real estate opportunities relative to land or
building acquisition, building development, or master leasing. She is a member of the Urban Land
Institute, International Council of Shopping Centers, and California Redevelopment Association. Ms.
Fredholm holds a Master of Business Administration degree,with a concentration in Finance/Marketing,
and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California at Los Angeles.
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 78 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
APPENDIX F
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 79 SEPTEMBER 2000
SEDWAY GROUP
Real Estate and Urban Economics
ASSUMPTIONS AND GENERAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
Sedway Group has made extensive efforts to confirm the accuracy and timeliness of the information
contained in this study. Such information was compiled from a variety of sources, including interviews
with government officials,review of City and County documents,and other third parties deemed to be
reliable.Although Sedway Group believes all information in this study is correct,it does not warrant the
accuracy of such information and assumes no responsibility for inaccuracies in the information by third
parties. Other assumptions are explained within the body of the report. We have no responsibility to
update this report for events and circumstances occurring after the date of this report. Further, no
guarantee is made as to the possible effect on development of present or future federal, state or local
legislation, including any regarding environmental or ecological matters.
The accompanying projections and analyses are based on estimates and assumptions developed in
connection with the study. In turn, these assumptions, and their relation to the projections, were
developed using currently available economic data and other relevant information. It is the nature of
forecasting, however, that some assumptions may not materialize, and unanticipated events and
circumstances may occur.Therefore,actual results achieved during the projection period will likely vary
from the projections, and some of the variations may be material to the conclusions of the analysis.
Contractual obligations do not include access to or ownership transfer of any electronic data processing
files,programs or models completed directly for or as by-products of this research effort,unless explicitly
so agreed as part of the contract.
This report may not be used for any purpose other than that for which it is prepared.Neither all nor any
part of the contents of this study shall be disseminated to the public through publication advertising
media,public relations,news media, sales media,or any other public means of communication without
prior written consent and approval of Sedway Group.
A:\3696TA—I.VvTD
HUNTINGTON CENTER EVALUATION 80 SEPTEMBER 2000
Three Embarcadero Center, Suite 1150
San Francisco, CA 94111
415.781.8900
Fax 415.781.8118
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3295
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.613.1800
Fax 213.217.4904
Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project Environmental Assessment
No. 0010 and Redevelopment Agency
Resolution No. 313 and City Council
Resolution No. 2000-94, Notice of
Determination filed on
October 3, 2000
ATTACHMENT #9
' r.�.•eS»�t�,�'•i'"'����"f`'w• ��'1� �� •x Y n��x< �;�#a���^z M� t{,'�{.G �� "s� ` tl �M m
JM xiti .
wti.
't ' 4` as `E.•;4 a'* "..
RN"
�{ ���:�,�., ����, ���: ,�,, : � �'�p�� �. K �� ��1�►- �AYSSE�SS:�N��� T��; . 0.:0-��0 .� ��
' 7y.::•a '` `��,'`"r' ; ff"'-�,.:�+. "S^i
1. PROJECT TITLE: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project;
Owner Participation Agreement between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
and Huntington Center Associafes, LLC
Concurrent Entitlements: None
2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Jane James, Associate Planner
Phone: (714) 536-5271
3. PROJECT LOCATION: Huntington Beach Mall - bounded by Beach Boulevard,
Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and Southern Pacific Rail
Road (Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan/Huntington
Center Redevelopment Sub-Area)
1. PROJECT PROPONENT: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
Contact Person: David C. Biggs, Economic Development Director
Phone: (714) 536-5582
5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CR-F2-SP-MU (F9)= Commercial Regional—0.5 FAR—
Specific Plan Overlay—Mixed Use Overlay— 1.5 (MU-0.5
[C]/25du/acre)
6. ZONING: Specific Plan No. 13
7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has been active since 1976. During that
period of time six project areas were created. One project area was completed and closed. The other five
were merged into one project area in 1996,now called the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
This project area encompasses the Huntington Center shopping mall as well as other areas of the city.
Factors which led to formation of the redevelopment project areas and the inclusion of the Huntington
Center mall as a blighted property include the following: The age and configuration of existing structures,
inadequate transportation and infrastructure,building and safety code violations,the presence of soil
contamination, economic deterioration and obsolescence, building deterioration, and economic
deterioration.
The project,which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment, is the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project and its implementation through the proposed Owner Participation Agreement
(OPA)between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC, which will include the redevelopment,refurbishment and economic repositioning of the
existing Huntington Center shopping mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of
approximately 1 million square feet.
The Owner Participation Agreement:
The proposed Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC, proposes a financial agreement for the future
redevelopment of the Huntington Center shopping mall. The agreement is a legal document that provides
the developer the opportunity to seek financing, to redevelop the existing Huntington Center shopping
mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of approximately 1 million square feet. The
shopping center is located adjacent to Interstate 405,bordering Beach Boulevard on the east, Edinger
Avenue on the south, the Southern Pacific rail lines on the west, and Center Avenue on the north. On
August 7, 2000 the City Council approved the Specific Plan to guide any future development of the
Huntington Center shopping mall. Additional permits and approvals will be required of the developer
through the Planning, Building and Safety, Fire, and Public Works Departments.
The project envisioned by the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) could lead to the displacement of
some businesses within the mall after approval of the OPA. These businesses will be provided relocation
assistance in conformance with State Relocation Law. All will be financially assisted in finding a suitable
location within the Redevelopment Project Area, if possible, or to other locations.
8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Environmental
Impact Report(EIR)No. 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The OPA is in
accordance with and subject to the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project(the"Merged Redevelopment Project"), which was adopted on December 16, 1996 by
Ordinance No. 3343. According to Public Resources Code("PRC") Section 21090, "all public or
private activities or undertakings pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall be
deemed to be a single project", with further environmental review for such activities or undertakings
to be conducted only if any of the events in PRC Section 21166 have occurred. Because the
redevelopment proposed by the OPA is an activity pursuant to and in furtherance of a redevelopment
plan, the OPA may rely on the environmental impact report("EIR")prepared for the redevelopment
plan, and a supplemental or subsequent EIR will not be required for the OPA unless the events
described in PRC Section 21166 occur.
9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None
Page 2
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/Traffic ❑ Public Services
❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems
❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics
❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources
❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation
❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ 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 the project is found to be EXEMPT. ❑
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 MITIGATED 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 potentially significant effect(s)on the
environment, but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document
pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures
based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be Eladdressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further ❑
is required.
X
SO4LAL eamgAn--
SigiUture U Date
Jane James Associate Planner
Printed Name Title
Page 3
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.
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 XVIII,"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 XVIII 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 XVIII. Other sources used or
individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions.
7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G 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).
SAMPLE QUESTION:
Potentially Potentially Less Than No
ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Significant Unless Significan Impact
Impact Mitigation t Impact
Incorporated
Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts
involving:
Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) a
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).
Page 4
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or El 0
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,
local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
(Sources: 1,2,6)
b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑
natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1,6)
c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1,3, El El F-1 0
6)
Discussion: There is no impact on or conflict with the General Plan or other policy documents adopted for the purpose of
mitigating an environmental effect. The Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) is not changing any land use, zoning, or
conservation plans and will not physically divide an established community. The OPA may result in the acquisition of land and
site consolidation. Any potential impacts were already analyzed in EIR No. 96-2 and the OPA does not result in any significant
environmental impacts beyond that which was already analyzed.
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly El
(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly
(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)?
(Sources: 1,6)
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating ❑ ❑ 0
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:
3,6)
c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the
1-1 El El
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:3,
6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates , LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide entitlements for development, even though a development project may
ensue from the proposed agreement. Potential growth impacts were evaluated in EIR No. 96-2. The Huntington Beach Mall
property does not contain any residential units. Therefore, no housing units or residents will be effected by this project. Any
potential impacts were already analyzed in EIR No. 96-2 and the OPA does not result in any significant environmental impacts
beyond that which was already analyzed.
III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects,including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving:
Page 5
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the El 13 9
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 1,2,4,
6)
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 1,2,4,6)
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?
11 El
(Sources: 1,2,4,6)
iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1,2,4,6)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, 11 El El Z
grading,or fill? (Sources:1,2,4,6)
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,and
potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1,2,4, 6)
d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to
life or property? (Sources: 1,2,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates , LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide entitlements for development, even though a development project may
ensue from the proposed agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential geology or soils impacts beyond that
contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No
geology or soils impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El El z
requirements? (Sources: 1,4, 6)
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere Ela
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted? (Sources: 1,4,6)
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or El 0
area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream
Page 6
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orEl ❑ ❑ Z
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-
site? (Sources: 1,4,6)
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ 0
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
(Sources: 1,4,6)
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 1,4, El ❑ a
6)
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mappedEl El a
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1,2,4,
6)
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ El ❑X
would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1,2,4,6)
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury11 El ❑X
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1,2,4,6)
j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 1,4,6) El Z
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development, even though a development project may
ensue from the proposed agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential hydrology impacts beyond that
contained in EIR No. 96-2, will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No
hydrology impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
V. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria
established by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or a
projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (Sources: 1,4,6)
Page 7
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of El El ❑ Z
people? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ❑ ❑ El ❑X
quality plan? (Sources: 1,4,6)
e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any ❑ ❑ ❑X
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard(including releasing emissions which exceed
quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1,4,
6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates , LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide entitlements for development, even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential air quality impacts beyond that contained
in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No air quality
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project. Any potential impacts were already analyzed in EIR 96-2 and the
project does not result in any significant environmental impacts beyond that which has already been analyzed.
VI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to El ❑X
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at
intersections? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service 0
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,4,6)
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses?
(Sources: 1,4,6)
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,4,6) 11 El El 0
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1,4,6) El El El 0
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative El 11
transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1,
4,6)
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. Potential transportation impacts were evaluated in EIR No. 96-2. No transportation or traffic
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project. Any potential impacts were already analyzed in EIR No.96-2 and
the project does not result in any significant environmental impacts beyond that which has already been analyzed.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through 0
habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the Califomia-Department of
Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,
4,6)
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or El 0 0
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service? (Sources: 1,4,6)
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected a
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including,but not limited to,marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling,hydrological interruption,or
other means? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 11 El 19
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,4,
6)
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting El El 1E
biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? (Sources: 1,'4,6)
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat El El0
Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or
other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation
plan? (Sources: 1,4,6)
Discussion:The proposed OPA project does not conflict with any adopted habitat conservation plans or affect biological resources.
The proposed project is a legal agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center Associates , LLC and does
not provide any entitlement for development. The area is already developed with urban uses, and no development is proposed in
conjunction with the request even though a development project may ensue as a result of this agreement. Potential biological
impacts were evaluated in EIR No.96-2. No biological impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
Page 9
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resourceEl ❑ El 0
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑
11
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 1,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development, even though a development project may ensue
as a result of this agreement. The proposed project would not result in the loss of mineral resources or mineral resource sites. Any
significant new information relating to potential mineral resource impacts beyond that contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated
from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No mineral resources impacts are anticipated as a
result of the proposed OPA project.
IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El El M0
through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous
materials? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El 11 El 0
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment? (Sources: 1,4,6)
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely El 19
hazardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? (Sources: 1)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where El
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
(Sources: 1,2,3,4,6)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area? (Sources: 1,2,3,4)
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El a
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
Page 10
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
plan? (Sources: 1,6)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, ❑ 0
or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1,3,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates,LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted or proposed activities that would
expose persons to hazards or hazardous materials. Any significant new information relating to potential hazard impacts beyond
that contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No
hazard impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
X. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess El 0
of standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies?
(Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑
vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1,4,6)
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in theEl 0
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
(Sources: 1,4,6)
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise El ❑X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project? (Sources: 1,4,6)
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where El ❑ ❑X
such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport,would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels? (Sources: 1,3,4;6)
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the El
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,3,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential noise impacts beyond that contained in
EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No noise impacts are
anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
Page 11
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? (Sources: 1,4,6) El 11 Elm
b) Police Protection? (Sources: 1,4,6) El El E = a
c) Schools? (Sources: 1,4,6) ❑ 11 El Z
d) Parks? (Sources: 1,4, 6) El El El z
e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 1,
4, 6)
11 El
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development, even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. The project will not result in the need for additional or create impacts to public services. Any
significant new information relating to potential public services impacts beyond that contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated
from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No public services impacts are anticipated as a result
of the proposed OPA project.
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable El a
Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities,the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? (Sources: 1,4, 6)
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 0
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project El El
from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1,4,6)
Page 12
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact .
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1,4,6) J
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity toEl F-1 El 19
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
(Sources: 1,4,6)
g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (Sources: 1,4,6) F-1 El El 19
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential utilities and service system impacts
beyond that contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as
appropriate. No utilities or service system impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources:
1,4,6)
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not El El F-1 0
limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1,4,6)
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
11 1-1 El 19
the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,4,6)
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would F-1 El El 19
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources:
1,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates,LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlements for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement Any significant new information relating to potential aesthetics impacts beyond that contained
in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No aesthetics
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
El 99
archaeological resource pursuant to 815064.5? (Sources: 1,3,
4,6)
Page 13
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1,3,4,6)
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of El El 0
formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1,3,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates,LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlements for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement The proposed project area is already developed with urban uses, and no development is
proposed in conjunction with the OPA request. Any significant new information relating to potential cultural resources impacts
beyond that contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as
appropriate. No cultural resources impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
XV. RECREATION. Would the project:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood,
community and regional parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1,4,6)
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:
1,4,6)
c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 1,4,6) El El z
Discussion:-The proposed project is a legal agreement(OPA)between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates,LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlements for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential recreation impacts beyond that contained
in EIR No.96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action,as appropriate. No recreation
impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
XVI. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining
whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the
California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in
assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of
Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 3,4,6)
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a 0
El El Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1,2,6)
Page 14
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due
to their location or nature,could result in conversion of
Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates,LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlements for development,even though a development project may
ensue as a result of this agreement. Any significant new information relating to potential agricultural impacts beyond that
contained in EIR No. 96-2 will be evaluated from an environmental perspective at the time of that action, as appropriate. No
agricultural impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed OPA project.
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of a
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? (Sources: 1,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates , LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development,even though a development project may
:nsue from the proposed agreement. The OPA project will not affect the quality of the environment or reduce habitat areas of
plants or animals.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" M
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: 1,4,6)
Discussion: The proposed project is a legal agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC. The proposed OPA does not provide any entitlement for development,even though a development project may
ensue from the proposed project. The 1996 Redevelopment Plan contains provisions that may have the effect of encouraging
growth in the Project Area through redevelopment of underutilized properties, development of vacant properties and through
improvements to infrastructure. These improvements may make areas more desirable and-or feasible for development. The
proposed project would assist in implementing the 1996 Redevelopment Plan. Any development that may occur would be
consistent with the City's General Plan and Zoning Code and the analysis and information contained in EIR No.96-2.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or El
indirectly? (Sources: 1,2,3,4,6)
Discussion: See discussion of Sections I through XVI above.
Page 15
XVIII. 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 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning
Dept., Planning/Zoning Information
Counter, 3rd Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance
3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1
4 1996 Redevelopment Plan Amendment EIR No.96-2 City of Huntington Beach Economic
(State Clearinghouse No. 96041075) Development Dept.,
5th Floor
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach
5 California Health& Safety Code(Redevelopment Law) "
Section 33000 et. Seq.
6 Project Narrative See Attachment#2
Page 16
I a8nd— I •off ivauuqanl;v
H V38 JV0.LJAlIJjVJ2H J0 d.LI3 3HL
01-00 'ON IuauzsSOSSV jMUQUIUOJTnug
a� nsT�TaTn
R.
cl
T '^•
•{:•..:5:S•• �,',:J:}}}:'•'}S•' i J,J,'•{}•S S•Sr}:•.}SS;.,{�:ti.S•:}'• •:ti'}:}:S:•}:•'1
� '•'''rill:{Sf{:.}'':{•:r�:::{r�: ;;:f•:•{•:{:•;'j:;:•}:•:•}:•:•:{{}f}.: ..,.....�
� ..}:, }S'hSS••;•5,., •S S SS SS}SSSS7"'"•�ti":{Y}:•:{':{•:•:•:'
S 'to :}:}:• ::}:.S•:•Y:: :.•i.•:•}
/ -- A
/ � a
f
0�0JIY•.
MOZEUi /
1 1
rtat►1n• ✓�+►
mwwvww �
1
/
W WL®►/
cmn�•
tttt •♦ ♦
aarni
asrs
alas
laaro Id
1 'ON 1N3WH3V1_LV
�; ,s:*. -"�,- -sy tom,,,} ^d,,f �, � ?s�p:xW ,*rF➢�' r�<»»_..` ,��.x;y`,�`'`=�'r�-i'.
;w
-' .,�•.,+ .._s"•,'�' -.. . "k` s �sc � � "'.. rd. °#`��; :�" f g �e-,„+A;• '?.5 't,�t•.- +y�,'•^v;<'h?.r.�
'apv -a_ - ;� �` .a»ay, '': '�.:. ,."'. ' -Ear.ir a ^'4 �'e�< '`"`-`+�'i`=it:,�':.. .` 'x.„> 'J;•r,"' ;,,•
=evr' y�'ax^' E-. '.xr .vS ^'dr - "., -,'` a" .3'-°" '" i,, . '..:. s u"*..✓,g P,.a fr,-�',, {-` 'S�', '�A�.r
x •r �'�
�' '� �.T `"�•€.�`z,.A" . � '=_ t�MM v 2 s ;rm•v�t
��:x�. � ,-_:� �°' -io►>T�TACHMENT�NO:
zJ
ey„ 3" dt" .++',fie.-�"'c r * "i n. r .riad 'e. .ierzi,,.., ,+PS - `r am 'a- -.@.= •,?e '
X, r ;T �' "n'rF, 4�"' 4 s^., t�s w ,.r�Z' .r.Y. „E '"fi`f,'- ',`,-3$• i',` 3~` 't}`
t3:M1 .W ,/i
�,M' � ,''g�x .8m <�.,^ „� �,^ S nwr�, ..•� .�r '�: �P
# '�- `_ max , f ,�=rR0aVIT�NARRATIU �
�:-�`kKr'T• � 'y rt� '1 `�'t~W"' {«^yc`..k 4�'? fi:" ?a v.ke'` *a:.'�K. e Z`•-tip -"•�4fi"�„ d YF'd`..i µ.:� "4ir`i� `1 v.y
eti ,u,.,i ,..` `tz Ra .,hir"^ ;!.xit .. .<.:'^h =,�•x ,; ,:.i +b<.3
t , -V LOPMENI"O NTINGTON,xC;ENTE
t•C ��'N`"z rt y� .',SE;n�;,' .°di'" ,�'.-+�,,j oK", �< ,,?? 5w'p ah.t ti, xr" --� '^'S„
t.,�`<,-.,',�-f�t`:��'x^s,' ji� k "i`Y� K<�<n� .w.. �'cC e�..ad'?,�` ^�`i r J,:Rp:^ �k d 3+�yY"y'..%.. '!,°+�3x',. ya,✓i.� a� S,'3. Y'*. `�<4 eiC"'$,''�. ,✓ 3d'f�.a1"
`:y: .'� '°�'n �x- �,:;ur•. tt4r. ��{ ��".t��?�,. i,:""; ,� x,..F:s'��; f^`:..'G �'d,.;.y 's z',:�5 M'- m. �.. `" .7'
� � --;a.: .`�f r-s R� ''*�'�%i .,,F+a,: ,.,�;a�. -�'.. n� �"ai. ..d�:, .z:sr..�, see.-a s`• a..._ -�,.- .:,�,:�s�,'�"�s.w,f i ^r ;,9s`.::.z<„s,.�1
;ci a R±. ,.@'• �� € �.;.* �'t" �"r^ „a .a;i*����^ � �<, y,�`i}.�.�.,�s.;>�,>^-� w ?ems.;:•t z.-t.�.,-�"- ..5`au a;..;r...w«���1•--
Background:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has been active since 1976.
During that period of time six project.areas were created. One project area was completed and
closed. The other five were merged into one project area in 1996, now called the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project. This project area encompasses the Huntington Center
shopping mall as well as other areas of the city.
Factors which led to formation of the redevelopment project areas and the inclusion of the
Huntington Center mall as a blighted property include the following: The age and configuration
of existing structures, inadequate transportation and infrastructure, building and safety code
violations, the presence of soil contamination, economic deterioration and obsolescence,
building deterioration, and economic deterioration.
The project, which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment, is the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project and its implementation through the proposed Owner Participation
Agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and
Huntington Center Associates, LLC, which will include the redevelopment, refurbishment and
economic repositioning of the existing Huntington Center shopping mall with a proposed retail
and entertainment center of approximately 1 million square feet.
The Owner Participation Agreement:
The proposed Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC, proposes a financial
agreement for the future redevelopment of the Huntington Center shopping mall. The
agreement is a legal document that provides the developer the opportunity to seek financing, to
redevelop the existing Huntington Center shopping mall with a proposed retail and
entertainment center of approximately 1 million square feet. The shopping center is located
adjacent to Interstate 405, bordering Beach Boulevard on the east, Edinger Avenue on the
south, the Union Pacific rail lines on the west, and Center Avenue on the north. On August 7,
2000 the City Council approved the Specific Plan to guide any future development of the
Huntington Center shopping mall. Additional permits and approvals will be provided to the
developer through the Planning and Building Departments.
Attachment No. 2-Page I
The project envisioned by the Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) could lead to the
displacement of some businesses within the mall after approval of the OPA. These businesses
will be provided relocation assistance in conformance with State Relocation Law. All will be
financially assisted in finding a suitable location within the Redevelopment Project Area, if
possible, or to other locations.
PRIOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
On May 13, 1996, the City Council certified EIR No. 94-1. The program EIR analyzed the
update of the City's General Plan. The EIR identified that the General Plan would result in
significant unavoidable adverse impacts for three environmental issue areas, regardless of the
proposed policies and/or mitigation measures. These environmental issue areas are:
Transportation/Circulation, Air Quality,and Noise. The City adopted a Statement of'Overriding
Considerations in order to adopt the General Plan.
On October 7, 1996, the City Council certified EIR No. 96-2. The program EIR addressed the
proposed amendment and merger of the five previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects
within the city. The amendment/merger would combine the five project areas into one called
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The amendment/merger was initiated to provide
the City's Redevelopment Agency the ability to expand the Agency's financial and statutory
authority and be consistent with the City's General Plan update. With the implementation of the
mitigation measures contained in the EIR, their are no significant unavoidable adverse impacts
of the amendment/merger beyond those set forth in the EIR on the General Plan Update. A
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted for the significant unavoidable adverse
impacts in the areas of short-term construction air quality and cultural resources.
Attachment No. 2-Page 2
RESOLUTION NO. 313
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS INT CONNECTION WITH
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON CENTER
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project (the "Project") was prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach(the "Agency") and was certified
by the Agency on November 18, 1996 by Resolution No. 279, and certified by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach(the "City Council") on October 7, 1996 by Resolution No. 96-
93 ("EIR 96-2"); and
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach(the "City Council") adopted
Resolution No. 96-100 on November 18, 1996, making certain findings and determinations
concerning EIR 96-2 and the environmental impacts of the Project, and adopting a mitigation
monitoring reporting program and statement of overriding considerations for the Project; and
The Agency has conducted negotiations with Huntington Center Associates, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation("Developer") for rede-t elopment of the Huntington
Center, which is comprised of certain real property(the "Site") located within the Project area of
the City of Huntington Beach, as more particularly described in a proposed Owner Participation
Agreement between the Agency and Developer; and
This Agency has reviewed the proposed Owner Participation Agreement between the
Agency and the Developer for redevelopment of the Site; and
This Agency has prepared and reviewed an Initial Study which examines the potential
environmental impacts of the redevelopment proposed by the Owner Participation Agreement,
Now, therefore, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. Neither the approval nor the implementation of the proposed Owner Participation
Agreement will cause substantial changes in the Project or the circumstances under which the
Project is undertaken such that new significant environmental impacts will result which would
require important revisions in or additions to the EIR 96-2 previously certified for the Project
due to the involvement of new significant impacts not covered in said previous EIR 96-2.
2. No new information of substantial importance to the Project has become available
since the time that EIR 96-2 for the Project was certified as complete.
1
4-s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA-1
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
R
Res. Nd. 313
3. Neither the approval nor the implementation of the proposed Owner Participation
Agreement will have a significant effect on the environment other than those addressed in the
previously certified EIR 96-2.
4. No subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Supplement to said previously
certified EIR 96-2 is necessary or required.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held'on the 2nd day of Oct ber 2000.
��
Chairman Pro Tem
ATTEST: / Z - APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Agency Clerk t*- o-& Agency General Counsel
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IN'ED A APPROVED:
E ecutive Director irector of Economic Develop ent
2
4-s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA-1
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
Res. No. 313
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular
meeting of said Redevelopment Agency held on the 2nd day of October,
2000 and that it was so adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Garofalo
Clerk of the RedevelopmerreAgency
of the City of Huntington Beach, CA
RESOLUTION NO. 2 0 0 0-9 4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
APPROVING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH
THE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED HUNTINGTON CENTER
OWNER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project (the "Project") was prepared in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines
by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach (the "Agency")and was certified
by the Agency on November 18, 1996 by Resolution No. 279, and certified by the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach (the"City Council") on October 7, 1996 by Resolution No. 96-
93 ("EIR 96-2"); and
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 96-100 on November 18, 1996, making certain
findings and determinations concerning EIR 96-2 and the environmental impacts of the Project,
and adopting a mitigation monitoring reporting program and statement of overriding
considerations for the Project; and
The Agency has conducted negotiations with Huntington Center Associates, LLC; a
Delaware limited liability corporation ("Developer") for redevelopment of the Huntington
Center,which is comprised of certain real property(the"Site") located within the Project area of
the City of Huntington Beach, as more particularly described in a proposed Owner Participation
Agreement between the Agency and Developer; and
This City Council has reviewed the proposed Owner Participation Agreement between
the Agency and the Developer for redevelopment of the Site; and
This City Council has reviewed an Initial Study prepared by the Agency which examines
the potential environmental impacts of the redevelopment proposed by the Owner Participation
Agreement,
Now,therefore, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. Neither the approval nor the implementation of the proposed Owner Participation
Agreement will cause substantial changes in the Project or the circumstances under which the
Project is undertaken such that new significant environmental impacts will result which would
require important revisions in or additions to the EIR 96-2 previously certified for the Project
due to the involvement of new significant impacts not covered in said previous EIR 96-2.
2. No new information of substantial importance to the Project has become available
since the time that EIR 96-2 for the Project was certified as complete.
1
4-s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA-2
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
Res. No. 2000-94
3. Neither the approval nor the implementation of the proposed Owner Participation
Agreement will have a significant effect on the environment other than those addressed in the
previously certified EIR 96-2.
4. No subsequent Environmental Impact Report or Supplement-to said previously
certified EIR 96-2 is necessary or required.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2"d day of October 2000.
Mayor Pro Tem
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk 1&-i ,o- ,iCity Attorney
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA D A APPROVED:
Cffy Administrator Di(ector'6f Economic Development
2 u
4-s:4-2000 Resolutions:Huntington Center OPA-2
RLS 2000-916
9-21-00
Res. No. 2000-94
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of'the City Council
of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was
passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the
members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd
day of October, 2000 by the following vote:
AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Green, Dettloff, Bauer
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: Garofalo
City Clerk and ex-officio C rk of the
City Council`of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
Recorded in Official Records, County of Orange
Gary Granville,Clerk-Recorder
11111111111{111111101111111111111111111NIIINIIIIIIINIIIIIINO FEE
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 170 9 201 20008500079211:52am 10/03100
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
To: From:
❑ Office of Planning and Research City of Huntington Beach
1400 Tenth Street,Room 121 Planning Department E D
Sacramento,Ca 95814 2000 Main St.,3rd Mr. P 0 S T
Orange County Clerk Recorder's Office
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 O C T 0 3 2000
■ .
Public Services Division
P.O.Box 238 GARY L.GRAN ILLE Clerk-Recorder
Santa Ana,CA 92702 By DEPUTY
SUBJECT:Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public
Resources Code.
Project Title: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project;
Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach and Huntington Center Associates,LLC
State Clearinghouse Number: Contact Person:Jane James Phone: (714)536-5271
Project Location: 7777 Edinger Avenue(approximately 63 acres bounded by Beach Boulevard, Edinger
Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad) FILED
,Project Description:
O C T 0 3 2000
(� Back>sround•
GARY L.GR VILLE Clerk•Raeo
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has been active since 1976. DurinAnat pgriM 0
time six project areas were created. One project area was completed and closed. The other five were merged
into one project area in 1996, now called the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. This project area
encompasses the Huntington Center shopping mall as well as other areas of the city.
Factors which led to formation of the redevelopment project areas and the inclusion of the Huntington Center
mall as a blighted property include the following:The age and configuration of existing structures,inadequate
transportation and infrastructure,building and safety code violations,the presence of soil contamination,
economic deterioration and obsolescence, building deterioration,and economic deterioration.
The project,which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment, is the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project and its implementation through the proposed Owner Participation Agreement(OPA)between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates, LLC,which will
include the redevelopment,refurbishment and economic repositioning of the existing Huntington Center
shopping mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of approximately I million square feet.
The Owner Participation Agreement:
The proposed Owner Participation Agreement(OPA)between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates,LLC,proposes a financial agreement for the future
redevelopment of the Huntington Center shopping mall. The agreement is a legal document that provides the
developer the opportunity to seek financing,to redevelop the existing Huntington Center shopping mall with a
proposed retail and entertainment center of approximately I million square feet. The shopping center is located
adjacent to Interstate 405,bordering Beach Boulevard on the east,Edinger Avenue on the south,the Southern
Pacific rail lines on the west,and Center Avenue on the north. On August 7,2000 the City Council approved
the Specific Plan to guide any future development of the Huntington Center shopping mall. Additional permits
and approvals will be required of the developer through the Planning,Building and Safety,Fire, and Public
Works Departments.
The project envisioned by the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA)could lead to the displacement of some
businesses within the mall after approval of the OPA. These businesses will be provided relocation assistance
in conformance with State Relocation Law. All will be financially assisted in finding a suitable location within
the Redevelopment Project Area, if possible,or to other locations.
This is to advise that the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach has approved the above described
project and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project:
1. *The project ■will, ❑ will not, have a significant effect on the environment.
2. *■ An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA
(General Plan EIR certified by the Huntington Beach City Council on May 13, 1996 and the
Redevelopment Plan EIR certified by the Huntington Beach City Council on October 7, 1996).
❑ A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.
3. **Mitigation Measures ■ were, ❑were not,made a condition of approval of the project.
4. **A Statement of Overriding Considerations ■ was, O was not,adopted for this project.
*See Attachment No. 1
**Completed at the time of certification of Environmental Impact Reports for General Plan and Redevelopment
Plan
This is to certify that the final ■ Environmental Impact Reports,0 Negative Declaration,with comments
and responses and record of the project approval are available to the General Public at:
Cj City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,CA 92648
October 2.2000
Date of Final Action S nature
Associate Planner
Title
f
I
I
I
G:Uames\Crossings\NODopa.doc Page 2 Of 5
I
Attachment No. 1
Notice of Determination
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project;
Owner Participation Agreement between the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
and Huntington Center Associates, LLC
The OPA is in accordance with and subject to the Redevelopment Plan for the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project(the"Merged Redevelopment Project"),which was adopted on December 16,
1996 by Ordinance No. 3343. According to Public Resources Code("PRC") Section 21090, "all
public or private activities or undertakings pursuant to, or in furtherance of, a redevelopment plan shall
be deemed to be a single project", with further environmental review for such activities or undertakings
to be conducted only if any of the events in PRC Section 21166 have occurred. Because the
redevelopment proposed by the OPA is an activity pursuant to and in furtherance of a redevelopment
plan, the OPA may rely on the environmental impact report("EIR")prepared for the redevelopment
plan, and a supplemental or subsequent EIR will not be required for the OPA unless the events
described in PRC Section 21166 occur. The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach have both determined that none of the events described in PRC Section 21166
have occurred.
G:Uames\Crossings\NODopa.doc Page 3 of 5
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
CERTIFICATE OF FEE EXEMPTION
De Minimis Impact Finding
Project Title: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project;
Owner Participation Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and
Huntington Center Associates, LLC
Project Location: 7777 Edinger Avenue (approximately 63 acres bounded by Beach
Boulevard,Edinger Avenue, Center Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad)
Project Description:
Background:
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach has been active since 1976. During that
period of time six project areas were created. One project area was completed and closed. The other
five were merged into one project area in 1996, now called the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project. This project area encompasses the Huntington Center shopping mall as well as other areas of
the city.
Factors which led to formation of the redevelopment project areas and the inclusion of the Huntington
Center mall as a blighted property include the following: The age and configuration of existing
structures, inadequate transportation and infrastructure, building and safety code violations, the
presence of soil contamination, economic deterioration and obsolescence, building deterioration, and
economic deterioration.
The project, which is the subject of this Environmental Assessment, is the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project and its implementation through the proposed Owner Participation Agreement
(OPA)between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center
Associates, LLC, which will include the redevelopment, refurbishment and economic repositioning of
the existing Huntington Center shopping mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of
approximately 1 million square feet.
The Owner Participation Agreement:
The proposed Owner Participation Agreement(OPA) between the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach and Huntington Center Associates,LLC, proposes a financial agreement for the
future redevelopment of the Huntington Center shopping mall. The agreement is a legal document that
provides the developer the opportunity to seek financing, to redevelop the existing Huntington Center
shopping mall with a proposed retail and entertainment center of approximately 1 million square feet.
The shopping center is located adjacent to Interstate 405,bordering Beach Boulevard on the east,
Edinger Avenue on the south, the Southern Pacific rail lines on the west, and Center Avenue on the
north. On August 7,2000 the City Council approved the Specific Plan to guide any future
development of the Huntington Center shopping mall. Additional permits and approvals will be
G:Vamcs\Crossings\NODopa.doc Page 4 of 5
required of the developer through the Planning, Building and Safety,Fire, and Public Works
Departments.
The project envisioned by the Owner Participation Agreement(OPA)could lead to the displacement of
some businesses within the mall after approval of the OPA. These businesses will be provided
relocation assistance in conformance with State Relocation Law. All will be financially assisted in
finding a suitable location within the Redevelopment Project Area,if possible,or to other locations.
Findings of Exemption:
The City of Huntington Beach has prepared the General Plan EIR and the Redevelopment Project Area
Merger EIR to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts and has determined the
following:
There is no evidence before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department that the
proposed project has any potential for individual or cumulative adverse effects on wildlife
resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code.
Certification:
I hereby certify that the public agency has made the above finding and that the project will not
individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2
of the Fish and Game Code.
Howard Zelefsky
Planning Director
By: 94A6L M--
Signa
Associate Planner
Title
City of Huntington Beach
Lead Agency
October 3,2000
Date
G:Vames\Crossings\NODopa.doc Page 5 of 5
Redevelopment Plan Environmental
Impact Report for the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project
(EIR 96-2) December 16, 19969
Resolution No.
96-279 and Resolution No. 96-93
ATTACHMENT # 10
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
EIR NUMBER 96-2
(STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER 96041075)
PREPARED FOR--
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Contact: Stephen V.Kohler,Project Manager
(714) 536-5582
or
Linda Niles, Community Planning Department
(114) 536-5271
PREPARED BY
LSA Associates,Inc.
One Park Plaza,Suite 500
Irvine,CA 92614
Contact: Robert W.Balen,Principal
(714) 553-0666
LSA Project#RSG630
July 19, 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.1 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
1.5 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-11
1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-12
2.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-1
2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM EIR . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
2.3 DOCUMENT FORMAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-2
2.4 PROJECT APPROVAIS/INTENDED USES OF THE
PROGRAM EIR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
2.5 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5
2.6 LEAD AGENCY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-7
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION/GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING . . . . . . . . . 3-1
3.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-5
3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-7
3.5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION/
STATUS OF PROCESSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10
4.0 EXISTING SETTING,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . 4.1-1
4.1 LAND USE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-3
4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.3 EARTH RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-1
4.4 WATER QUALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4-1
4.5 AIR QUALITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-1
4.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-1
4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH (HAZARDS) . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8-1
4.9 NOISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-1
4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-1
4.11 AESTHETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11-1
4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.12-1
4.13 SCHOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4.13-1
5.0 ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . 5-1
5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1-NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 -ALTERNATIVE FINANCING . . . . . . . . . . . .5-7
5.3 ALTERNATIVE 3-ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION . . . . . . . 5-9
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4-INCREASED DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
7/19i9&1:W"30\MMT0C.WPD*
r
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5 -REDUCED DEVELOPMENT
ALTERNATIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-10
5.6 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11
6.0 LONG-TERM[EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR . . . . . . . 6-1
6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE
PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED . . . . . . 6-4
6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF TIME PROPOSED
ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-4
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 7-1
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8-1
9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1
10.0 REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10-1
APPENDICES
A - NOP/INIIIAL STUDY/COMMENT LETTERS
B - CULTURAL RESOURCES
C - BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7/19/96ocI:\RSG630%EMTOC.WPD» iii
LIST OF FIGURES
PAGE
3.1 - Regional Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-2
3.2 - Redevelopment Project Areas . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3-3
4.1.1 - Existing Land Use: Huntington Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-5
4.1.2 - Existing Land Use: Oakview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-6
4.1.3 - Existing Land Use: Talbert-Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-7
4.1.4 - Existing Land Use: Yorktown-Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-8
4.1.5 - Existing Land Use: Main-Pier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-9
4.3.1 - Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-4
4.6.1 - Existing Network of Arterial Streets and Highways . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-2
4.6.2 - Existing Daily Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-7
4.6.3 - Existing Intersections and Roadway Segments Operating
Below LOS C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-11
4.6.4 - Intersections and Roadway Segments Operating Below LOS
C-Post-General Plan Update Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-19
4.7.1 - Huntington Beach Natural Open Space with Biological
Resource Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7-2
4.9.1 - Land Use Compatibility with Community Noise Environments . . 4.9-4
4.10.1 - Flood Hazard Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-7
4.13.1 - Schools Serving the Redevelopment Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13-2
7/19/964(1 ARSG63O EIR=C.WPD» iv
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
1.A - Summary of Project Specific Impacts, Mitigation Measures,
and Level of Significance After Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
2A - Future Discretionary Actions for the Asnendment/Merger . . . . . . . 2-6
3A - Proposed Infrastructure Projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
4.1A - Existing Land Uses Within the Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . 4.1-3
4.2A - Population Comparisons 1970-1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-1
4.2.B - Housing Trends: 1980-1988 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.2-2
4.2.0 - Housing,Population,Employment and jobs-Housing Ratio . . . 4.2-3
4.3A - Active/Potentially Active Faults That May Affect the Merged
Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-6
4.3.B - Liquefaction Susceptibility in Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . 4.3-7
4.5 A - Ambient Air Quality Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-3
4.5.B - Air Pollutant Descriptions and Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-5
4.5-C - Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Los Alamitos and
Costa Mesa Air Monitoring Stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-7
4.5.D - Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction Emissions . 4.5-11
4.5.E - Screening Table for Estimating the Construction Period for
Various Land Uses That Will Remain Within the Significance
Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-13
4.5.F - Number of Pieces of Construction Equipment That Can Be
Operated on a Daily Basis and Will Not Exceed the SCAQMD
Daily Significance Threshold by Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-14
4.5.G - Approximate Land Uses, Densities and Daily Trips from
Estimated Projects within the Amendment/Merger . . . . . . . . . 4.5-17
4.5.H - Operational Emissions from Estimated Projects within the
Amendment/Merger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5-18
4.6A - City of Huntington Beach Design Criteria for Arterial Streets
andHighways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-1
4.6.B - Existing Merged Project Area Roadway Characteristics . . . . . . . . 4.6-4
4.6.0 - Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4.6-8
4.6.D - Existing A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized
Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-12
4.6.E - 2010 Merged Project Area Roadway Level of Service
Summary .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-15
4.6-F - Year 2010 A.M. and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized
Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6-18
4.6.G - Merged Project Area General Plan Roadway Segments
Change in Roadway Classification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4.6-20
4.9 A - Sound Levels and Human Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-3
4.9.B - Exterior Noise Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 4.9-6
4.9.0 - Interior Noise Standards . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-6
4.9.D - Existing and Future Noise Levels (Ldn) at 50 Feet from
Centerlines of Major Traffic Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.9-7
4.10A - Fire Stations Servicing the Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-2
4.10.B - Fire Operations Staffing Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 4.10-2
4.10.0 - City of Huntington Beach Public Libraries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.10-4
4.11A - Relevant Urban Forms in Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11-2
4.13A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.13-3
7A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . .7-3
7/19N6«I:VtSG630\EIR\TOC.WPDH v
GLOSSARY
Agency Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Amendment/Merger Proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Amendment/Merger
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BMPs Best Management Practices
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAA Clean Air Act Amendment of 1971
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA Guidelines The CEQA Guidelines is a document produced by the
State of California to provide interpretation of CEQA
and provide guidance regarding document
preparation and procedures for implementing CEQA
CERCIA Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMP Congestion Management Program
DAMP Drainage Area Master Plan
DFG California Department of Fish and Game
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EMA County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency
ERC Environmental Resources/Conservation Element
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIN Federal Implementation Plans
GMP County of Orange Growth Management Plan
GTE General Telephone and Electric
Hazmat Orange County Hazardous Materials
HBCSD Huntington Beach City School District
HBUHSD Huntington Beach Union High School District
HCD California Department of Housing and Community
Development
HHWE Household Hazardous Waste Element
Huntington Center The Huntington Center Commercial District
Redevelopment Project (previously adopted)
HWMP Orange County Hazardous Waste Management Plan
ICU Intersection Capacity Utilization
7/1&96(dARSG630\EIR\T0C.WPD» vi
LOS Level of Service
Main-Pier Main-Pier Redevelopment Project (previously
adopted)
Merged Plan Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Plan (combined previous'redevelopment plans)
Merged Project Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project(combined previous redevelopment projects)
Merged Project Area Formal name: Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project Area (combined previous redevelopment
project areas)
MWD Metropolitan Water District
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Oakview The Oakview Redevelopment Project(previously
adopted)
OCEMA Orange County Environmental Management Agency
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OVSD Ocean View School District
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCG Southern California Gas
SCHWMA Southern Hazardous Waste Management Authority
SIPS State Implementation Plans
SRRE Source Reduction and Recycling Element
SWPPP Stone Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
Talbert-Beach The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project (previously
adopted)
TDM Transportation Demand Management
UBC Uniform Building Code
UD Urban Design Element
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSD Westminster School District
Yorktown-Take The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project
(previously adopted)
7/18/96«I:NRSG63WMT 0C.WP1> vii
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Executive Summary has been prepared for the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger (Amendment/Merger) in accor-
dance with Section 15123 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines. This Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been pre-
pared by the City of Huntington Beach to analyze the AmendmentNerger's po-
tential impacts on the environment, to discuss alternatives, and to propose
mitigation measures that will offset, lessen or avoid significant environmental
impacts. For a detailed description of the Amendment/Merger, its im-
pacts/recommended mitigation, and alternatives,the reader is referred to Chap-
ters 3.0, 4.0,and 5.0,respectively.
1.1 SUMMARYPROfECT DESCRIP77ON
The project analyzed in this Program EIR is a proposed amendment and merger
of the five previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects within the City of
Huntington Beach (City). The five previously adopted Redevelopment Projects
established since inception of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
(Agency) on March 1, 1976,are as follows:
• Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (Hun-
tington Center)
• Main-Pier Redevelopment Project(Main-Pier)
• Oakview Redevelopment Project(Oakview)
• Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project(Talbert-Beach)
• Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project(Yorktown-Lake)
The proposed actions would combine the adopted Redevelopment Projects into
a single Project called the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The
Amendment/Merger is being initiated to provide the Agency the ability to expand
the Agency's financial and statutory authority as follows:
1) Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the five Projects into a single Rede-
velopment Plan (Merged Plan) to be designated as the merged Hunting-
ton Beach Redevelopment Project (Merged Project) and Project Area
(Merged Project Area).
i
2) Increase the dollar limit on the cumulative amount of tax increment
revenue the Agency may be allocated from the Merged Project and elimi-
nate all preexisting annual limits.
3) Increase the dollar limit on the amount of indebtedness that may be
outstanding at any one time.
I -
7n9A6«i:\xsc.630\EmSEcn-o.wpn» 1-1
4) Extend the time frame within which the Agency may incur indebtedness
on behalf of the Merged Project.
5) On a selective basis,extend the time frame within which the Agency may
employ eminent domain proceedings on nonresidential properties on
the Main-Pier and Huntington Center Commercial District areas.
6) Extend the time periods within which the Agency may undertake rede-
velopment activities and receive tax increment.
7) Expand the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that the
Agency may undertake within the Merged Project Area.
The Amendment/Merger will allow the Agency to finish the redevelopment
programs within the previously adopted Project Areas. No additional properties
are added to the Redevelopment Project Area by the Amendment/Merger.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The project location is in the City of Huntington Beach,Orange County, Califor-
nia. Figure 3.1 in Chapter 3.0,Project Description,illustrates the regional loca-
tion of the City.
The Merged Project is composed of five existing redevelopment project areas,
totaling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. .Each of the
five areas of the Merged Project Area is non-contiguous within the City bound-
aries,as shown in Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3.0.
A profile of the Merged Project is provided in Chapter 3.0,Project Description.
1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Following is a list of project objectives:
1. Enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development
activities,2)infrastructure improvement projects,3) commercial rehabil-
itation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing
opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation programs and
elimination of blight.
2. Provide a redevelopment plan consistent with the City's General Plan
Update to guide future redevelopment of the Merged Project Area.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Table 1A summarizes potential project impacts, mitigation measures, and the
level of impact after mitigation has been implemented.
7/19i96«I.\RSG630=E SECn-0.WPD>> 1-2
Table 1.A-Summary of Project Specific Impacts, Mitigation Measures, and Level of Significance After Mitigation
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
4.1 Land Use
None. The proposed Amendment/ None. Less than significant.
Merger implements the General
Plan.
4.2 Population and Housing
May result in displacement of low 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low Less than significant.
and moderate income families and moderate income displaced by a redevelopment pro-
and/or loss of affordable housing ject. The Agency shall adopt and implement a relocation
units within the Merged Project plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the
Area. California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan
ensures that no families or single persons of low and
moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment pro-
ject until there is a suitable housing unit available and
ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be avail-
able at rents comparable to those at the time of displace-
ment. Further, housing units for relocation are to be
suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and
must be decent,safe,sanitary,and otherwise standard
dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be
relocated with the minimum of hardship.
4.3 Barth Resources
Future redevelopment within the None. Less than significant.
Merged Project Area will be ex-
posed to increased exposure to
fault rupture/ground shaking, near
surface water/liquefaction impacts.
City codes and General Plan poli-
cies will mitigate.
7/19/96«It\RSG63O\XIR\,SECTI.O.WPD» 1-3
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
Future development and redevel- None. Less than significant.
opment in areas of active oil fields
experience increased exposure to
the risk of ground subsidence. City
codes and General Plan policies
will mitigate.
Future development and redevel- None. Less than significant.
opment within Yorktown-Lake and
Main-Pier may experience expo-
sure to methane gas. City and
State codes,development review
processes,and General Plan poli-
cies will mitigate these potential
impacts.
4.4 Water Resources
Redevelopment within the Merged None. Less than significant.
Project Area may increase the
amount of urban runoff and water
pollution, including siltation/
sedimentation. Existing regula-
tions requiring water quality man-
agement plans and NPDES permit-
ting prior to construction reduce
effects to less than significant.
4.5 Air Quality
Future redevelopment within the 4.5 A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is Mitigated below a level of sig-
Merged Project Area will result in limited. However,exhaust emissions from construction nificance.
short-term construction and vehi- equipment shall be controlled by the applicant's contrac-
cle exhaust emission impacts. for in a manner that is consistent with standard mitiga-
tion measures provided within the AQMP,to the extent
feasible. The measures to be implemented are as fol-
lows:
7/19/'96 I:\ASG630\EIM5ECT1-0.WPD» 1-4
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
• Use low emission on-site mobile construction
equipment;
• Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's
specifications;
• Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered
equipment;
• Use reformulated, low-emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gasoline powered equip-
ment for diesel powered equipment,where fea-
sible;
• Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling
for prolonged periods (i.e., more than five min-
utes); and
• Curtail (cease or reduce)construction during
periods of high ambient pollutant concentra-
tions (i.e.,Stage 2 smog alerts).
• The City shall verify use of the above measures
during normal construction site inspections.
May result in an increase of fugitive 4.5-B The applicant shall implement standard mitigation mea- Mitigated below a level of sig-
dust during construction within the sures in accordance with SCAQMU Rules 402 and 403,to nificance.
Merged Project Area. control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that nuisance
dust conditions do not occur during construction.These
measures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site,unpaved roads,and
in parking areas;
• Water the site and equipment in the morning
and evening;
7/19i96ahVtSG630V'.IR\SCC'r1-0.VWPD» 1-5
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction
site through seeding and watering;
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of
large areas to erosion over extended periods of
time;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of
exposed excavated soil during and after the end
of work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accor-
dance with local ordinances and use sound engi-
neering practices;
• Restore landscaping and irrigation removed dur-
ing construction, in coordination with local pub-
lic agencies;
• Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried
over to adjacent public thoroughfares or occurs
as a result of hauling;
• Suspend grading operations during high winds
in accordance with Rule 403 requirements;
• Wash off trucks leaving site;
• Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on
haul trucks; and
• Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or
other suitable means.
4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt pav- Mitigated below a level of sig-
ing material will raise significant quantities of VOC emis- nificance.
sions during their application.
7/19/96«Ii\RSG630U.'IR%4GCT1-0.WPD» 1-6
Potential
_ Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
• Where feasible,emulsified asphalt or asphaltic
cement shall be utilized. The use of rapid and
medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided
whenever possible.
• Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers,and
coatings,as well as precoated materials,shall be
specified.
During grading within the Merged 4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamina- Mitigated below a level of sig-
Project Area,an increase of con- tion,a site assessment will be conducted before any con- nificance.
taminated soil,dust and other pol- struction takes place at that locale. At locations where
lutants may result. spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process
has occurred, the soils will be remediated using appro-
priate techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination
will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and
its attendant odor. These activities would fall under the
direction of both local and State agencies,which would
"sign off'on the remediation effort upon completion. If
unforseen areas of subsurface contamination are en-
countered during excavation activities, these activities
would be curtailed in this area until the area could be
evaluated and remediated as appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos
survey performed by personnel trained and certified in
asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos will be re-
moved and disposed in accordance with sound engineer-
ing practice and federal regulations. Implementation of
these measures will reduce potentially significant con-
tamination issues to a level that is less than significant.
7/19/96«I;VLSG630\1!IR%SLCTi-0.wPD» 1-7
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
4.7 Biological Resources
No significant impacts are identi- None. Less than significant.
fied. Minor wetlands impacts of
development of the waterfront site
at PCH and Beach Boulevard could
occur,and a minor increase in hu-
man intrusion could occur,but are
not considered significant.
4.8 Public Health (Hazards)
Tuture development and redevel. None. Less than significant.
opment within the Merged Project
Area may incrementally increase
exposure to hazardous materials,
during construction or operation.
However,existing City and State
codes and General Plan policies
will mitigate impacts.
4.9 Noise
May result in increased construe- None. Less than significant.
tion related noise in the Merged
Project Area. Current City codes
and General Plan policies will miti-
gate potential impacts.
4.10 Public Services and Utilities
Increased demand on existing pub- None. Less than significant.
lic services and utilities that can be
accommodated by existing facilities
are mitigated by General Plan poll-
cies limiting growth if infrastruc-
ture is not available.
7/19/96«IS\ItSG630\EIWECTIA.WPD» 1-8
1
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significnnce
4.11 Aesthetics
Future redevelopment within the None. Less than significant.
Merged Project Area will alter exist-
ing views. However,City develop-
ment review processes,design
guidelines and General Plan poli-
cies reduce impacts to a level that
is less than significant.
4.12 Cultural and Scientiric
Resources
Future projects within the Merged 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new construction that Mitigated below a level of sig-
Project Area may disrupt or impact would displace or require demolition of potentially sig- nificance.
historical resources. nificant resources,a complete assessment shall be pre-
pared for any of the potentially historic buildings identi-
fied in the present report within the Merged Project Area.
At a minimum, this assessment shall include the follow-
ing documentation:
A) A full description of each building including ar-
chitectural style, roof design,window design,
type of foundation,exterior wall treatments,spe-
cial architectural features,etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or
more facades of each building.
C) A determination of construction date from exist-
ing records such as building permit record
books on file in the Planning llepartment at the
City. In the event that records cannot be located
for some of the buildings, interviews should be
conducted with members of the local historical
society or other individuals who may have rele-
vant data to share.
7/19/96<41;\RSG630VIIR�,5ECT1-0.WPD» 1-9
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
D) A competent architectural historian should be
consulted prior to the demolition of any of the
potentially historic buildings identified in the
present study. Additional measures may be im-
plemented as a result, if necessary to prevent an
adverse impact.
Future projects within the Merged 4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,archaeological resources or Less than significant.
Project Area may encounter previ- paleontological resources be uncovered during grading
ously unknown archaeological and or excavation,a County of Orange certified archaeologist
paleontological resources. or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community
Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of
the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to pro-
tect such resources,3) ascertain the presence of addi-
tional resources,and 4) provide additional monitoring of
the site, if deemed appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and
heavy equipment monitoring shall be on site during
grading operations.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collec-
tion of historic documents on file at the Huntington
Beach Central Library or another suitable local archive.
7/19/96c<I:\RSG630\EIR�$ECTIA.WPD» 1-10
1
Potential
Environmental Impact Mitigation Measure Level of Significance
4.13 Schools
The Amendment/Mergcr within the None. Less than significant.
Merged Project Area may
incrementally increase student en-
rollment in affected school dis-
tricts. However,this will not result
in a physical impacts on the envi-
ronment. In addition,develop-
ment fees,State financing,and re-
quirements for continued levels of
tax funding for affected school dis-
tricts lessen potential impacts.
7/19/96«I..\RSG630\EIR\,SCCTl-0.WPD» 1-11
For each of these potential impacts, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce
the extent of,or to avoid,the environmental impact. These mitigation measures
will reduce the extent of the impact to below a level of significance. There are
no impacts considered to be significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the
Amendment/Merger.
Z-S ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR include a reasonable range of alterna-
tives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the project and that could
avoid or lessen project impacts. A No Project/No Build Alternative is also re-
quired. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)sets the requirements for the Alter-
natives discussion.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative is defined as build out of the land uses as specified in
the City's existing General Plan. As a subset of the No Project Analysis, a No
Build Alternative is provided. The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that
no additional development would occur within the Merged Project Area.areas.
This alternative assumes no growth, development or change from the existing
condition and reflects conditions essentially the same as the existing conditions.
Alternative Financing Alternative
This alternative addresses the other options the City might use to promote the
basic objectives of the Amendment/Merger.
Alternative Site
This section discusses the fact that there are no alternative locations that could
feasibly attain Amendment/Merger objectives.
Higher Intensity Alternative
This alternative discusses different land use intensities and development stan-
dards that are higher intensity and would achieve basic Amendment/Merger
objectives.
Lower Intensity Alternative
This alternative discusses lower intensity land use/development standards and
associated environmental consequences.
7/19i9&IARSG630T=ECn-0.wpI>+ 1-12
1.6 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
Areas of Controversy
Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines also requires that the EIR Summary
identify areas of controversy, including issues raised by other agencies and the
public. The areas of controversy are reported from the responses received from
distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP). The NOP and all response letters
are included in Appendix A. The following areas of controversy have been
identified:
• NOP response letter received by the City with a request by the Hunting-
ton Beach Union High School District (HBUHSD) to be recognized as a
"Responsible Agency."
• NOP response letter request by HBUHSD for detailed environmental
analysis of specific issues that are not a part of the proposed Amend-
ment/Merger.
• NOP response letters from HBUHSD and Ocean View School District
expressed concern regarding potential impacts to school facilities result-
ing from the Amendment/Merger.
• NOP response letter from the Resources Agency of California,Division of
Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources requested that abandoned oil wells
in close proximity to the boundaries of the Merged Project Area be iden-
tified, and the City give the assurance that proper review of future build-
ing projects and their relationship to abandoned and active oil wells be
provided in future discretionary actions.
• NOP request by the County of Orange Environmental Management
Agency (EMA) that the Amendment/Merger consider a linear recreation
corridor along the railroad right-of--way near the boundaries of the
Merged Project Area.
• NOP request by EMA that recreation facilities, including opportunities
for riding and hiking trails and on-road and off-road bikeways, be ad-
dressed in the environmental documentation.
7/1"6«L•\.RSG630 ZUC SECT1-0.wPD» 1-13
r
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach (City Council) activated the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency(Agency) on March 1, 1976. In order
to improve those areas within the City that were in need of redevelopment,the
Agency created five separate Redevelopment Projects within the City. These
projects and their dates of establishment are as follows: Oakview Redevelop-
ment Project (September 20, 1982); Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project
(September 20, 1982);Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project (September 20,
1982) Main-Pier Redevelopment Project (November 1, 1982) and, Huntington
Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project (November 26, 1984).
Several of these Redevelopment Projects have been amended since the original
adoption dates. For further information on each project adoption and amend-
ment, please see the Department of Economic Development, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, 92648, Attention: Stephen Kohler, (714) 536-5582. A de-
tailed description of each of these preexisting Redevelopment Projects is pro-
vided in Chapter 3.0, Project Description.
Progress towards the achievement of the goals established for each of the Rede-
velopment Projects has been hindered by various funding constraints and limits
on redevelopment activities. In order to improve funding and to finish out the
redevelopment programs initiated for the five existing Redevelopment Projects,
the Amendment/Merger was proposed by the Agency. The City subsequently
determined that,prior to approval of the Amendment/Merger,preparation of an
EIR would be necessary.
2.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THIS PROGRAM En?
The City has determined that an EIR is required: 1) to assess the environmental
effects of the Amendment/Merger, and 2) to identify mitigation measures that
will lessen or avoid potentially significant impacts. The Amendment/Merger is a
program made up of various components that include policies,land use plans,
public infrastructure improvements, construction of public facilities, develop-
ment of affordable housing, and actions to promote commercial rehabilitation
and economic development. The Amendment/Merger qualifies as a"Program"
as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized
above,and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168. This EIR prepared for
the Amendment/Merger is a Program EIR,wherein all public and private activi-
ties or undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Amendment/Merger
constitute a single project according to CEQA Statutes, Section 21090. A Pro-
gram EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are:
1) logical parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically;3)
a lam set of regulations, or a set of c t are art of a
p re8 contemplated actions that p
P
continuing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the same
authorizing authority(CEQA Guidelines,Section 15168).
On April 16, 1996, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed to public
agencies soliciting comments on environmental subjects to be addressed in the
7/17i96«I;\RS"30\EIIt$ECr2-0.WPD» 2-1
EIR. The NOP, the NOP Distribution List and response letters from all agencies
are included in Appendix A.
An Environmental Checklist and Environmental Effects and Consequences
Analysis included in the NOP describes the potential environmental effects of the
Amendment/Merger. . The Environmental Effects and Consequences discussion
was used to guide preparation of this EIR. The responses to the NOP were also
used to assure that agency and public concerns are adequately addressed in this
EIR.
2.3 DOCU.MKF.NT FORMAT
This Program EIR is organized as follows:
• Chapter 1.0 contains the Executive Summary of this document, listing
all project related environmental impacts,mitigation measures that have
been recommended to reduce any significant impacts of the
Amendment/Merger, and the level of significance of each impact follow-
ing mitigation. This chapter also discusses potential areas of controversy
attached to the project.
• Chapter 2.0 contains a discussion of the EHVs purpose, project back-
ground,an outline of the document's format and the intended purpose
of the EIR. A summary discussion of the effects found not to be signifi-
cant and not further addressed in this EIR is also included.
• Chapter 3.0 contains the location and description of the proposed
Amendment/Merger and the objectives of the Amendment/Merger.
• Chapter 4.0 contains the environmental analysis of the Amendment/
Merger. Discussion of environmental setting,impacts,and mitigation by
environmental topic(e.g.,biological resources,air quality,land use,etc.)
is organized under the following fi-amework:
The environmental setting provides the reader with the"base line"from
which future impacts are analyzed,and provides a standard against which
to measure these impacts.
An analysis of potential significant impacts of implementation of the
Amendment/Merger is presented in this section. As required by CEQA,
potential impacts caused by additional growth within the Merged Project
Area and on a cumulative basis outside of the Merged Project Area are
identified.
Mitigation measures are proposed to lessen or avoid any potentially
significant impact of the Amendment/Merger. References to their timing
and the party(ies) responsible for their implementation are included.
The level of significance of the potential impacts after mitigation is pro-
vided.
7/17/964cI.\ILSG630�E=ECT2-0.WPD» 2-2
• Chapter 5.0 contains a discussion of alternatives to the Amendment/
Merger. As allowed by CEQA,the impacts of these alternatives are evalu-
ated at a more general level than in Chapter 4.
• Chapter 6.0 contains discussions of additional topics required by CEQA,
including long-term implications of the Amendment/Merger, significant
irreversible environmental changes,and growth inducing impacts.
• Chapters 7.0, 8.0, 9.0 and 10.0 contain the Mitigation Monitoring Pro-
gram, listings of organizations and persons consulted in preparation of
the EIR,the EIR preparers, and reference documents used.
• An Appendix document contains copies of the NOP and NOP comment
letters, technical reports, and relevant correspondence received during
the preparation of this Program EIR.
2.4 PROJECT APPROVALS/INTT-NDED USES OF THE PROGRAM ELR
The primary use of this Program EIR is to inform decision makers and the public
of the environmental effects of implementing the Amendment/Merger. This
Program EIR documents the impacts of the Amendment/Merger on an area-wide
basis resulting from physical changes to the environment. This Program EIR will
measure the potential effects of ongoing and future redevelopment activities and
related discretionary actions as allowed under the Amendment/Merger.
This Program EIR analyzes the effects of the project as defined in Chapter 3.0.
A Program EIR is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as applying to
related or sequential projects or programs that may be environmentally cleared
in one EIR A Program EIR is a type of EIR designed to address a series of related
actions that are: 1) logical parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related
geographically;3)a plan,set of regulations,or a set of contemplated actions that
are part of a continuing program;or 4) individual activities carried out under the
same authorizing authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168). The Amend-
ment/Merger is a program made up of various components which carry forth
already established redevelopment programs included in the existing Redevelop-
ment Projects aimed at infrastructure, housing and commercial rehabilitation
and promotion of economic development. The AmendmenVMerger qualifies as
a"Program"as defined by the CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories
summarized above,and as fully described in Guidelines Section 15168.
CEQA recognizes that some proposed projects are specific (and that their im-
pacts can be specifically addressed) and that some projects will require future
actions to implement their provisions. The Amendment/Merger falls into the
latter category. As defined in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines,Program
EIRs are intended to address macro-scale environmental impacts. One of the
major advantages of a Program EIR is that it allows the Lead Agency to examine
the cumulative effects of a large-scale project such as the Amendment/Merger.
Section 15168 states:
7/17y964<I:\RSG630�EIMEC -O.WPD» 2-3
"...Use of a Program EZR can...(1)provide an occasion for a more ex-
haustive consideration of effects and alternatives than would be practi-
cal in an ED? on an individual action, (2) ensure consideration of
cumulative impacts that might be slighted in a case-by-case analysis,
and (3) allow the Lead Agency to consider broad policy alternatives
and program-wide mitigation measures at an early.time when the
Agency hasgreaterflexibility to deal with basicproblems or cumulative
impacts."
Recognizing that a Program EIR can adequately address macro-scale impacts,
CEQA provides for its use in the environmental review of general policies or
programs and the subsequent projects that result from the policy or program. In
this way, this Program EIR would be consulted to determine whether a specific
subsequent project is either of the following:
• Within the general limits of the potential physical changes examined in
this Program EIR.
• Likely to create site specific impacts that are of a scale not examined in
this Program EIR. Such impacts could include traffic impacts related to a
specific intersection, or modification of a specific landform feature that
may not be included in the Program EIR,thus requiring further environ-
mental analysis.
CEQA defines how a Program EIR relates to the preparation of environmental
documents on individual projects in Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines,
under the heading of"Use with Later Activities." Subsequent activities in the
program must be examined in the light of the Program EIR to determine
whether an additional environmental document must be prepared according to
the following criteria:
• If a later activity would have effects that were not examined in the Pro-
gram EM a new Initial Study would need to be prepared, leading to
either an EIR or a Negative Declaration.
• If an agency finds that,pursuant to Section 15162,no new effects could
occur or no new mitigation measures would be required,the agency can
approve the activity as being within the scope of the project covered by
the Program EM and no new environmental documentation would be
required.
• An agency shall incorporate mitigation measures developed in the Pro-
gram EIR into subsequent actions relying on the Program EIR.
• Where the subsequent activities involve site specific operations, the
agency should use a written checklist or similar device to document the
evaluation of the site and the activity to determine whether the environ-
mental effects of the operation were covered in the Program EM
Subsequent redevelopment projects will be subject to future review and approv-
al by the City Council,Redevelopment Agency,Planning Commission and other
7/17/96«I.WG630T RI$ECT2-0.WPD» 2-4
i
appropriate decision making bodies and may require additional environmental
review if it is demonstrated that there are significant environmental impacts not
fully documented in this EIR. Should additional environmental reviews be
required for subsequent projects within the Merged Project Area, public input
will be solicited and considered prior to action on the project, in accordance
with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines.
In summary, this Program EIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the area-
wide impacts of implementing the Amendment/Merger and the physical changes
that might result in changes in the environment. Review of future projects en-
abled or undertaken as a result of adoption of the Amendment/Merger and the
environmental effects of specific projects will receive independent determina-
tions by City staff,consistent with CEQA requirements. It is also recognized that
this Program EIR can serve as a basis for future environmental review of subse-
quent projects and, therefore, future environmental reviews may be able to
incorporate by reference applicable portions of the analysis presented in this
document.
Table 2A identifies the Lead Agency (City of Huntington Beach), Responsible
Agencies,and Trustee Agencies that may use this EIR when making future discre-
tionary decisions on projects within the Merged Project Area. Section 15381 of
the CEQA Guidelines defines Responsible Agencies as public agencies other than
the Lead Agency that will have discretionary approval power over the "project,"
as defined under CEQA. For purposes of this EIR, Responsible Agencies are
defined as public agencies that will have discretionary approval of future actions
implementing the Amendment/Merger.
2.5 F.FFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Based on the Initial Study conducted by the City in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines,it was determined that the Amendment/Merger will not have signifi-
cant effects on certain environmental issues/resources. Therefore, these topics
are not addressed further in this EIR_ The following summarizes the conclusions
of the Initial Study(contained in Appendix A as part of the NOP) for the topics
for which the proposed project will have no impact.
• Conflsct udih general plan designation or zoning? The proposed
Amendment/Merger conforms to the City's General Plan and by exten-
sion to zoning that implements the General Plan. There are currently
some areas where zoning is different from the General Plan Land Use
designation due to the recent adoption of the General Plan. In addition,
the Coastal Element of the General Plan for the areas within the Coastal
Zone is planned for update by the Coastal Commission by late 1996.
After Coastal Commission action, the General Plan Update for the
Coastal Zone areas will be agendized for City Council action. A Citywide
zoning code/map amendment process will be undertaken to make the
changes necessary to bring the zoning into conformance with the Gen-
eral Plan,as updated.
7/17i9&1.\ItSG63ONEIR'SECT2-0.WPD» 2-5
Table 2 A-Future Discretionary Actions for the
Amendment/Merger
f
Agency Action
Lead agency
City of Huntington Beach Public infrastructure,public facilities
and private and public development
project approvals within the Merged
Project Area
Trustee Agencies
California Department of Fish and Discretionary Actions within DFG ar-
Game (DFG) eas of responsibility
Responsible Agencies
California Regional Water Control Notice of Intent under Statewide
Board General Construction Activity Permit
Municipal Stormwater Permit
South Coast Air Quality Management Stationary Source Permits
District
Orange County Sanitation District Industrial Wastewater Discharge
Permit
Southern California Edison Relocation/replacement of facilities
The Gas Company Relocation/replacement of_facilities
7/17i96«I:\RSG630\EII SECT2-0.WPDo 2-6
r -
The Amendment/Merger proposes land uses,streets, highways and pub-
lic facilities consistent with the General Plan and has provisions that
make it consistent with future General Plan amendments. Because the
Amendment/Merger is consistent with the General Plan and,in turn,will
comply with the underlying zoning, there are no specific environmental
impacts associated with the project.
• Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to soils
or farmlands; or impacts from incompatible land uses)? Some
agricultural land uses are still active in Huntington Beach;however,to a
large extent, they have been replaced by residential, commercial and
industrial development and related infrastructure. None of the areas
currently in agricultural production in the City of Huntington Beach are
within or adjacent to the Merged Project Area. Therefore, the Amend-
ment/Merger will not affect existing agricultural resources or operations,
nor will it propose incompatible land uses in the existing agricultural
production areas.
• Rail, waterborne or air tra.ffzc impacts? No impacts to rail,water or
air traffic are foreseen by the Amendment/Merger in that it proposes to
facilitate commercial rehabilitation, housing opportunities, street im-
provements and public infrastructure projects within the Merged Project
Area and, therefore, it will not create any physical effects on the subject
transportation facilities.
2.6 LEAD AGENCY
Questions regarding the preparation of this report, its assumptions, or its con-
clusions should be referred to the following persons:
Lead Agency:
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Community Development
2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention:Ms. Linda Niles
(714) 536-5271
Amendment/Merger Proponent
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648
Attention:Mr.Stephen V.Kohler
(714) 536-5582
7/17i96((I:\.RSG630\Ent2 SECT2-0.VPD» 2-7
i
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 INTRODUCTION
After initially identifying certain development goals and planning objectives for
the downtown area as early as 1969 (see City Council Resolution 3082,Novem-
ber 17, 1969), the City Council activated the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Agency on March 1, 1976. Since that time, the Agency created five Redevelop-
ment Projects within the City: Huntington Center Commercial District Redevel-
opment Project; Main-Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment
Project; Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown-Lake Redevelop.
ment Project.
Certain limitations with each of the existing Redevelopment Projects hinder the
Agencys ability to correct blighting conditions,promote economic development,
and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. The project analyzed in
this EIR is a Redevelopment Plan/Project Amendment/Merger. The Amend-
ment/Merger is proposed by the Agency to allow the Agency to finish out the
redevelopment programs begun by the agency by continuing the Agencys finan-
cial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight,revitalize commercial
areas, protect residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public
improvements and facilities, and develop affordable housing. Each of the five
existing Redevelopment Projects (described in more detail below) is included in
the Amendment/Merger.
3.2 PROJECT LOCATION/GEOGRAPHICAL SETTING
The project location is in the City of Huntington Beach,Orange County,Califor-
nia. Figure 3.1 illustrates the regional location of the Merged Project Area. The
Merged Project Area is composed of five existing Redevelopment Project Areas,
totaling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the
five areas of the Merged Project Area is non-contiguous within the City bound-
aries,as shown in Figure 3.2.
The profile of each Redevelopment Project is provided below.
Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Pr4ect
Established via Ordinance No.2743 adopted by the City Council on November
26, 1984, the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project
encompasses 160 acres of retail and office commercial uses,and is located in the
vicinity of Edinger Avenue,Beach Boulevard,and the San Diego Freeway(1-405).
The Huntington Center area includes the 960,000 square foot Huntington Beach
Mall (Area 1 on Figure 3.2), but excludes an area surrounded by Huntington
Village Way to the north and east, McFadden Avenue to the north, Southern
Pacific Railroad to the west,and Center Avenue to the south.
7n8/96<a:Fsc,630\EMsEcr3-0.WPD* 3-1
Oakview Redevelopment Project
The Oakview Redevelopment Project of 68 acres was initially established on
November 1, 1982, by City Council Ordinance No. 2582. The Oakview area is
generally located between Warner Avenue and Slater Avenue, from Oak Lane to
Beach Boulevard (Area 2 on Figure 3.2). On July 5, 1989, the City Council
amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Oakview Redevelopment Project with
Ordinance No. 3002 to extend certain time and financial limits. The Oakview
area includes existing general commercial, medium density and high density
residential land uses.
Talbert Beach Redevelopment Project
The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project was established via Ordinance No.
2577 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Talbert-Beach
area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor Drive,west of Beach Boule-
vard. The Talbert-Beach area encompasses 25 acres of existing low, medium,
and high density residential,and general industrial land uses (Area 3 on Figure
3.2).
Yorktown Lake Redevelopment Project
The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project was established by Ordinance No.
2576 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Yorktown-Lake
area encompasses 30 acres of existing medium density residential and public
land uses such as the Huntington Beach Civic Center and Police Department.
The Yorktown-Lake area is located in the vicinity of Main Street,Yorktown Ave-
nue,Lake Street,and Utica Avenue (Area 4 on Figure 3.2).
Main Pier Redevelopment Project
On September 20, 1982,the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578,which
created the original five block Main-Pier Redevelopment Project. On September
6, 1983, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 2634,enlarging the Main-Pier area
to 336 acres. The Main-Pier area is located along Main Street, between Palm
Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along Pacific Coast Highway, be-
tween Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Area 5 on Figure 3.2). The
Main-Pier area includes existing retail, tourist, recreational,public,and residen-
tial land uses.
The Amendment/Merger does not propose to add property to or delete property
from the Merged Project Area.
7n8i96<<I:\Rsc,630%EMISEcr3-0.WPD» 3-4
i
3.3 PROJECT CHARAC7ERIS77CS
The Amendment/Merger will modify the existing Redevelopment Plans as fol-
lows.
Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Existing Projects into a Single
Redevelopment Plan (Merged Plan) to be Designated as the Merged
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project(Merged Project)and Project Area
The Agency's current Redevelopment Plans have been frustrated by an imbalance
of resources and needs among the existing Redevelopment Projects. Redevelop-
ment law generally prohibits redevelopment agencies from transferring tax
increment revenues from one project to another. In order to move funding re-
sources between the Redevelopment Projects,the Agency proposes to merge the
five Redevelopment Projects into the single Merged Project. For example, de-
clines in tax increment revenues in Huntington Center have resulted in a down-
grading of the Agency's 1992 Tax Allocation Revenue Bonds. By merging the
existing Redevelopment Projects,resources from the Agency's other Redevelop-
ment Projects could be made available to Huntington Center.
Establish a New Dollar Limit on the Amount of Tax Increment Revenue the Agency
May be Allocated from the Project
Presently,Yorktown-Lake exceeds its annual$250,000 tax increment cap. Given
moderate growth projections,it is projected that Talbert-Beach will also exceed
its tax increment limit prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan. With-
out an increase in the tax increment limits,-the additional tax increment revenue
will not be available to the Agency to fund redevelopment projects and pro-
grams
In conjunction with tax increment revenue limit amendments, bond indebt-
edness limit increases are needed to permit the Agency to raise additional capital.
and invest in new redevelopment projects and programs.
Extend the Time Frame Witbin Which the Agency May Incur Indebtedness on Behalf
of the Project and Establish New Time Periods Within Which the Agency May Incur
Debt, Undertake Redevelopment Activities, and Receive Tax Increment
With the exception of Huntington Center, generally the Agency is prohibited
from incurring debt after 2002; 2004 for Huntington Center. In the event that
the Agency wishes to pursue new projects and/or incur debt after these time
frames,an amendment is necessary.
7/18/96<NW"3mt1sECr3-0.VPD* 3-5
On a Selective Basis, Extend the Time Frame Within Whicb the Agency May Employ
Eminent Domain Proceedings on Nonresidential Properties in the Main Pier and
Huntington Center Areas
In order for the Agency to implement redevelopment projects involving land
acquisition,eminent domain authority may be a useful tool to acquire nonresi-
dential property. Presently,the authority to use eminent domain has expired in
all but Huntington Center and Oakview. The Huntington Center Redevelop-
ment Plan's eminent domain provisions expire in November, 1996, and the
Oakview Redevelopment Plan's provisions expire in July, 2001. Through the
Amendment/Merger,the Agency proposes to establish a new 12 year time frame
during which the Agency may employ eminent domain on nonresidential prop-
erties in the Main-Pier and Huntington Center areas.
Expand the List of Infrastructure and Public Facility Projects That the Agency May
Undertake Within the Merged Project Area
When adopted, the Merged Plan will amend and merge all existing Redevelop-
ment Plans for the five Redevelopment Projects, and will guide all future rede-
velopment activities, infrastructure and public facility projects,and programs in
the Merged Project Area, in furtherance of the original objectives of the five
Redevelopment Plans/Projects (please see discussion on page 2-1, Section 2.1,
Background and History.) The Amendment/Merger will not affect the Agency's
outstanding obligations or indebtedness.
CONFORMANCE W2 27I THE C=S GENERAL PLAN
Redevelopment Land Uses
The land uses permitted in the Merged Project Area are in conformance with the
City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and any other State and local building
codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended.
Principal Streets
The principal streets within the Merged Project Area include Beach Boulevard,
Edinger Avenue,Talbert Avenue, Gothard Street,Main Street,Yorktown Avenue,
Lake Street, Warner Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The
layout of principal streets and those that may be developed in the future shall
conform to the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update as currently
adopted or as hereafter amended.
Existing streets within the Merged Project Area may be closed,widened or other-
wise modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper
pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the
General Plan.
7/18i9&1.\Rs"30NMDSEC13-0.WPD» 3-6
Proposed Population Densities
Permitted densities within the Merged Project Area shall conform to the General
Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter amended,and shall conform to applica-
ble City ordinances and local codes.
Proposed Building Intensities
Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: 1) the percentage of the
building site covered by the building (site coverage); 2) the ratio of the total
floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor area
ratio);3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site;and 4)
the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be established
in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and
local codes and ordinances,as they now exist or are hereafter amended. The site
coverage, sizes and location of the buildable areas will be limited, as is feasible.
and appropriate,to provide adequate open space and parking.
Proposed Building Standards
Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable
local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive require-
ments and may incorporate such requirements into the Merged Plan in the
interest of the public health,safety and welfare.
Potential Public Infrastructure,Facilities,Housing and Economic Development Projects
The Agency is currently funding infrastructure improvements and public facili-
ties projects, assisting with housing projects, and participating in economic
development and commercial rehabilitation projects. These projects will con-
tinue under the Amendment/Merger. Agency funding of these projects may
include but are not limited to those in Table 3A.
The Agency has completed some projects under existing Projects/Plans,and the
Amendment/Merger will enable the Agency to finish remaining tasks in further-
ance of project objectives.
3.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Project objectives include:
1. Enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development
activities,2)infrastructure improvement projects,3) commercial rehabil-
itation activities, 4) provision of market rate and affordable housing
opportunities,and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation and protection
programs and elimination of blight.
7/1"6«L•\FSG630MMECt34.WPD* 3-7
r
Table 3A-Proposed Infrastructure Projects
Programs and Projects
Proposed Possible Implementation Activities
Housing Programs Increase and improve the community's supply
of housing affordable to very low, low and
moderate income households
Affordable Housing Assist development of single family,multifamily,
Development Projects and senior housing inside and outside the Merged
Project Area pursuant to housing requirements.
Housing Code Enforcement Continue program throughout Merged Project
Program Area.
Housing Rehabilitation Continue program throughout Merged Project
Program Area.
Infrastructure Programs Improve pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
tra„8scflows, upgrade utilities and drainage
systems, enbance public safety, and promote
recreational opportunities.
Oakview Complete improvements to streets,street lights,
alleys,and landscape.
Talbert-Beach Monitor maintenance requirements of public
infrastructure.
Center Avenue Complete construction of Center Avenue street
improvements and traffic signal,and
improvements to signage and landscaping at the
Huntington Beach Mall.
Interstate 405 Improve I-405 off-ramp access to Huntington
Center. Improve I-405 cloverleaf landscaping and
widen McFadden/I-405 overpass.
Edinger Avenue Street Seek adoption of the specific plan and
Alignment construction of street improvements,including
consolidation of ingress/egress points,unified
signage and landscaping.
Gothard Street and Hoover Construct street improvements to connect
Street Connection Gothard and Hoover Streets to create another
north-south arterial to alleviate traffic congestion
on other north-south arterials.
Public Facility Program Develop community facilities that meet the
needs of the community's residents
Branch library Complete construction of the Oakview branch
library.
7/18/96«I:\RSG630\EM\,SEC13-0 WPI)► 3-8
7
Programs and Projects
Proposed Possible Implementation Activities
Community Development Protect residential neighborhoods to enhance
Programs public safety and provide positive community
development opportunities.
Neighborhood Plan Review plan and update recommendations as
appropriate.
Community Services Police Continue assistance program for gang prevention
Assistance in Merged Project Area.
Operation LOGOS Continue youth employment neighborhood
cleanup program in Merged Project Area.
Commercial Rehabilitation/ Revitalise deteriorating and substandard
Economic Development commercial facilities.
Huntington Beach Mall Prepare a market and development strategy with
the mall owner and facilitate repositioning of the
Mall.
The Waterfront Implement and monitor terms of development
agreement,as they currently exist or may be
subsequently amended.
New Development/ Encourage Merged Project Area private
Construction development to recycle blighted properties,and
identify sites with the potential for consolidation
for redevelopment.
Commercial Leasing Cooperate and assist in leasing of commercial/
office space in Merged Project Area.
Rehabilitation Assist property owners with renovations and other
improvements to deteriorating commercial and
industrial properties in the Merged Project Area.
Planning Activities Prepare and implement downtown parking master
plan,downtown specific plan,Pacific Coast
Highway/lst Street property master plan,and
other plans to coordinate development in Merged
Project Area.
7n8/9&<L\FSCY63a\EM\SECT3.0.WPDu 3-9
I
2. Provide a Redevelopment Plan consistent with the City's General Plan to
guide future redevelopment of the Merged Project Area.
3•5 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTA270N/STATUS OF PROCESSING
The Merged Project Area is primarily an area previously developed that is being
served by an aging and sometimes inadequate infrastructure. In many instances,
streets, water delivery pipelines, storm drainage systems and landscaping are
ending their useful life or have demands upon them that exceed their capacity.
The City and Agency,recognizing the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades,
aging infrastructure replacement and general infrastructure repair, have initiated
public infrastructure improvement construction projects. In addition, the City
and Agency have identified projects and programs deemed necessary to attain
the redevelopment and affordable housing objectives included in Section 3.4
above. These projects are ongoing projects or projects initiated in the previously
approved Redevelopment Project Areas that will be completed under the
Amendment/Merger. Projects that have been approved or are ongoing programs
within the Merged Project Area are included below. The status of their environ-
mental processing (CEQA) clearances are included.
I. Affordable Housing Programs Status of Environmental Processing
A. Bowen Court Affordable Hous- Negative Declaration No.94-22 (project
ing Development Project scheduled for public hearing)
B. Housing Code Enforcement Ongoing City program
Program
C. Housing Rehabilitation Program Ongoing City program
II. Infrastructure Programs Status of Environmental Processing
Public Infrastructure in Talbert- Ongoing monitoring and maintenance
A Pub O m ni
g g g
Beach Area
B. Storm Drain Improvements in Negative Declaration No.95-7 for storm
Oakview drain improvements on Warner between
Oak and Nichols
C. Street Improvements
1. Oakview Area
• Improvements along Negative Declaration No.92-29
segments of Oak,Ash,
Elm,Sycamore,Cy-
press,and Keelson
• Creation of a cul-de-sac Negative Declaration No.92-5
at Keelson and Elm
• Improvements at the Negative Declaration No.91-45
intersection of Warner
and Gothard,and
Gothard south of
Warner)
7n8/96«L\XsG630X MECT3-o VPD» 3-10
2. Center Avenue (Gothard to Caltrans Project Report Complete-con-
Beach) struction anticipated in 1996
3. Interstate I-405
• McFadden Bridge Negative Declaration No.95-1
Overcrossing Widening
4. Edinger Avenue Street
Alignment
• Construction of street Mitigated Negative Declaration No.92-8
improvements,includ- for Precise Plan of Street Alignment for
ing unified signage and Edinger Avenue between Beach Boule-
landscaping. vard and Gothard Street
5. Gothard Street and Hoover Screencheck EIR completed in August,
Street Connection 1991. Project pending.
III. Public Facility Programs Status of Environmental Processing
A. Branch Library Negative Declaration No.93-11 for con-
struction of the Oakview Branch Library
Negative Declaration No.90-52 and 91-
36 for the Central Library expansion and
Talbert parking lot
IV. Community Development Pro- Status of Environmental Processing
grams
A Neighborhood Plan None required
B. Community Services Police As- None required
sistance
C. Operation LOGOS None required
V. RehabIIitation/Ecoaomic Status of Environmental Processing
Development
A Huntington Beach Mall No specific proposal considered now
B. Waterfront Supplemental EIR No.82-2 certified in
1988
C. Commercial Leasing None required
D. Rehabilitation(Assistance in None required
rehab of industrial/commercial
properties)
E. Planning Activities None required
1. Implementation of the
Downtown Specific Plan,
etc.
7/'1"&A:\xsc630\EMEci3-0-VPD» 3-11
4.0 EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES
CITY GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR DOCE31 NT TO BE INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE
The City of Huntington Beach City Council adopted an Update to the General
Plan on May 13, 1996,for all non-Coastal Zone portions of the City. The Califor-
nia Coastal Commission will consider those areas in the Coastal Zone,and com-
plete their review and give their approval by fall/winter, 1996. Accompanying
the General Plan was an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) dated July 8, 1995,
which was circulated for public review and comment, and certified by the City
Council on May 13, 1996.
The CEQA Guidelines, Section 15150, allows the use of existing environmental
documents to assist in describing or evaluating impacts for a project for which an
EIR or Negative Declaration is being prepared. Section (a) states that"An EIR or
Negative Declaration may incorporate by reference all or portions of another
document which is a matter of public record or is generally available to the
public Where all orpart of another document is incorporated by reference, the
incorporated language shall be considered to be set forth in full as part of the
text of the FLR or Negative Declaration." Information included in the General
Plan Update EIR is particularly useful and relevant to this EIR analysis of the
Amendment/Merger. As previously mentioned in Chapter 2.0,Introduction,the
land use designations within each of the five Redevelopment Projects mirror the
designations of the General Plan Update. In effect,the General Plan defines the
land uses for the Merged Project Area. All land uses will be consistent with the
City's General Plan, City Codes and ordinances,as reflected in the General Plan
and analyzed in the General Plan Update EM Consequently, portions of the
General Plan Update EIR (State Clearinghouse No.94091018) are incorporated
by reference in several of the sections of this document.
The General Plan Update EIR includes a description of the General Plan Update
as follows:
"Tie General Plan is a comprehensive, long-term planning document
which serves as the qfflcial statement of the City of Huntington Beach
regardingpolicies, standards, and actions needed to achieve the short
and tong-term pbysica4 economic, social and environmental goals of
the City."
This Program EIR does not attempt to duplicate all of the discussions contained
in the City's General Plan, but rather refers the reader to those sections of the
City's General Plan that contain the required information, where appropriate,
and incorporates this information by reference.
SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FIR
Two development scenarios were evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR: the
Theoretical Scenario and the Policy Scenario. The Theoretical Scenario repre-
7/18/9&1:\RSG630\EMSECT".WPD» 4.1-1
sents the amount of development that could occur if all the proposed land use
designations were developed to their maximum potential, significantly higher
than what realistically may be assumed given historical trends and current City
policies. The Policy Scenario reduces the Theoretical Scenario build out through
a set of hand Use Element Policies (Policies 2.1.4, 2.1.5,and 2.1.6) that correlate
land use development with supporting infrastructure and services. The City
Council selected the Policy Scenario for adoption. This scenario allows (in
addition to existing conditions) a build out increase of 18,500 dwelling units;
4,737,500 square feet of commercial office and retail land uses; 2,505,000
square feet of industrial uses;and 2,200 hotel rooms.
Environmental topics evaluated in the General Plan Update EIR include land
use, housing/population, transportation/circulation, air quality, noise, geology
and soils, biological resources, water quality, aesthetics/visual resources, cul-
turalJhistorical resources, human health/hazardous materials, infrastructure/
utilities and public services.
Significant unavoidable adverse impacts were identified as follows:
• Transportation/Circulation
• Air Quality
• Noise.
Alternatives analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR included 1) No Project
Alternative (build out under the then existing General Plan Update), 2) No
Growth Alternative, and 3) Reduced Build out Alternative. The No Project
Alternative would generate more adverse environmental impacts than the Gen-
eral Plan Update and the remaining alternatives because it would permit the
greatest amount of development; also, it would not meet the objectives of the
General Plan Update. The No Growth Alternative would result in the fewest
environmental impacts as it is the lowest growth alternative.
The City Council has adopted Resolutions 96-35 and 96-36, certifying the Gen-
eral Plan Update EIR and approving the General Plan,respectively. The City,in
certifying the EIR and adopting the General Plan,adopted overriding consider-
ations for the significant unavoidable impacts mentioned above.
CEQA GUIDELINES INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE
This Program EIR references the CEQA Guidelines throughout. The CEQA
Guidelines are hereby incorporated in their entirety by reference.
7/1s/96«I:\ItsG63o\EM4ECT".WPD» 4.1-2
4.1 LAND USE
4.1.1 EUSTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The existing setting for Section 4.1,Land Use, describes the land uses that cur-
rently occur in the Merged Project Area. Existing land uses have been deter-
mined through aerial photo interpretation and a survey.
Existing Land Uses
There is a variety of land uses within the Merged Project Area. The primary land
uses are commercial/residential, civic uses (public facilities)' and industrial.
These uses are described below for each location:
Table 4.1A-Existing Land Uses within the Merged Project Area
Acreage
Location Existing Land Uses of Use
Huntington Center(160 acres) Commercial 152
Right-Of--Way(Caltrans and Railroad) 8
Oakview(68 acres) Commercial 11
Residential 54
Vacant 3
Talbert Beach(25 acres) Residential 14
Vacant 2.25
Civic(Park) 2.50
Industrial 6.25
Yorktown-Lake(30 acres) Residential 11.50
Vacant 0.50
Civic(Civic Center) 18
Main-Pier(336 acres) Commercial 45
Residential 113
Vacant 24.25
Industrial 2
Beach 145
Civic(Fire Station,Art Center, 6.75
Church)
Total(619 acres) Commercial 208
Residential 192.50
Vacant 30
Civic 27.25
Industrial 8.25
Beach 145
Right.of--Way(Caltrans and Railroad) 8
Total Acreage 619
7118N64<I:NRSG630JMMECr".WPD* 4.1-3
Other land uses identified in the Merged Project Area include vacant parcels and
roadways and railway corridors. Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.5 illustrate the land
uses within the Merged Project Area.
Under current conditions, several locations within the Redevelopment Projects
include land uses that are incompatible with adjacent or surrounding land uses.
These are noted as follows: 1) oil production and gas production next to urban
uses (Main-Pier), 2) older deteriorated strip commercial adjacent to residential
uses (Oakview), 3) residential uses among or adjacent to industrial uses (Main-
Pier),and 4)residential uses among predominantly commercial uses (Oakview).
The existing land use incompatibilities have occurred over many years due to the
piecemeal transition within the Merged Project Area. These land use incompati-
bilities contribute to the conditions originally responsible for,establishing the
five Redevelopment Projects.
In addition to the existing land use incompatibilities, there are blighted and/or
underutilized structures and vacant parcels. Some residential structures,as well
as commercial and industrial uses, show signs of neglect, poor maintenance,
structural deterioration, underutilization, and vacancy or abandonment. These
conditions reflect incompatible land uses, or failure of sustained business or
residential viability in these areas of transition.
A survey by LSA Associates, Inc. (May, 1996) revealed that areas in transition
from one use to another may be contributing to uncertain land use patterns,and
possibly some of the visible deterioration. Some buildings that formerly housed
one land use have transitioned into another (e.g., single family residential to
commercial),which has prompted further transition. Similarly,as land uses and
buildings have changed, some buildings have become obsolete and require
significant maintenance or improvement to remain economically viable. As
buildings are abandoned or vacated, the surroundings become devalued, pro-
ducing a downward economic trend and further transition.
City of Huntington Beacb General Plan
The Merged Plan designates permitted land uses within the Merged Project Area
consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Future projects
within the Merged Project Area must be found to be consistent with the Merged
Plan and, therefore,must be consistent with the City's adopted General Plan.
7/18i964(I:WG63a1EIR\SECT4 O.WPD» 4.1-4
PARKSIDE LN
fill
KC
L HER LN
A
?LILIL immumm
a 119.11W."AN
11,14 11�14 lljol�lmjll
nov_W_,W?w3:11:110'11:111�.11l Southern Pacific Railroad'
GOTHARDST
LEGEND:
———Project Boundary
Commercial Uses:
® Commercial
®Office Commercial WARNER AVE
Other Uses:
Residential
FIR DR
Vacant
SYCAMORE�AYE
BELSTTO DR
:CYPRESS VE -
o a
m
a
N
..
z
00
Y sss
c�
n '1vIANDRELL _-------__=� n
........................................:...................................
x -
vri •.'•::t::.� tom.,
DR
° 7C
WAGON DR
>�
SLATER AVE
Source:LSA.
7ii scRsc63o> Figure 4.11
N
Scale is Fat Existing Land Use
LSA
Oakview 0 200 aoo 4.1-6 Redevelopment Project
z
J TALBERT AVE
Is
`Mil
:. .
rr rr -rrr'rr rr rr .rrr.rrrrrT�-
T.
PA IC1►I
4
p
J
p.:
::;5{:
................
I:
••I
••I
•'I
r:
f'
r
9
ti::J:titi'ti'titi:::t:'tit'•'
ro
..I
..I
+ +++ ++.**+ +;++-++•++-++-+ +±+ **+w►!+*:I LEGEND:
'+'+'+'+•+'+'+•+'+•«-+•+•+'+•+'+•+•+'� Project Boundar
+.+,+_+_+,+,+.+•+-+,+.+.+.+.+•+,+-+.+ TAYL.OR DR
Residential
Industrial
+±+ Civic-Park
Qvacant
Source:LSA.
7/16/96(RS0630) Figure 4.1.3
N Existing Land Use
Scale in Peet
Talbert-Beach
LSA 0 150 300 J
Redevelopment Project
P
LEGEND:
-- Project Boundary
YORK TOWN AVE Residential
® Civic Center
Vacant
{
:_�
3�
PARK; _
3
a
z
1
•.1
............ ..........................................
::�
56,
-----------------
•:<:•
:y
..............................................
UTICA AVE
Source:JLSA. /
716/96(RSG630) Figure 4.1.4
v
Existing Land Use
s=in m ect °Yorktown-Lake
LS-A 0 100 200 4.1$ Redevelopment Project
LECENL
---Project Boundary
Commercial Uses:
® Commercial . Jk►
l T
Q Hotel
/// Mixed Use-Residential w/1st Floor Retail v� �O 40y
P �y
Other Uses:
Residential
Beach �q 4
Industrial SST O
® Civic-Fire Station,Church,Art CenterPJ�'
:•:-:"�-:- Vacant
PALM AVE
ACACIA AVE
'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a 'a `a 'a 'a 'a '�I: /// <� <!;? :;>'�:•._`'� �'✓ 4
PECAN AVE
OHAVH O / :•::R. RAN /::�?'• �
r+
�O
OLIV B AV H
3.;;`• ;;
:`.
WALNUTAVH IX.
I LLL
:..
•'S'I'I-IWYr _ --
IFI •'COi1•PAC C
J.'i�•�'.•...-.r.rrW•r'1+I ai tat
Source: ;.• .l••••••.jy= �•y,•�•����
Source:LSA.
7//17/96(RSa630) Figure 4.1.5
Existing Land Use
Scale in Feet
�� Main-Pier
0 600 120o Redevelopment Project
L SD
In the City's recently adopted General Plan, three policy references are specifi-
cally relevant to the evaluation of the Merged Plan's land use plans:
• Limit the total additional new development citywide (above that existing
in 1990) that can be accommodated in the City to the following, or an
equivalent number of trips that can be generated ("trip budget'), pro-
vided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Ele-
ment are implemented:)
Residential Units (single family, multifamily and 18,500
mixed use)
Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000
Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000
Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000
Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500
The permitted development, or"trip budget,"shall be allocated to spe-
cific subareas of the City, as determined by the City's traffic model used
in the preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses that are permit-
ted may be varied provided that the total "trip budget" is not exceeded
(Policy 2.1.4).
• Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and
densities on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy 7.1.1,'when it
can be demonstrated that additional transportation improvements have
been implemented or are funded,or demands have been reduced (based
on highway Ievel of service and vehicle trips) (Policy 2.1.5).
• Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water, sewer, and other)
and services, and establish appropriate limits on development should
their utilization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of
service(Policy 2.1.6).
The policies above establish general growth and development parameters for the
entire City of Huntington Beach, including the Merged Project Area. Growth
and development were projected;and appropriate policies have been adopted
to guide this growth, including the development projected within the Merged
Project Area, as long as such growth is consistent with the guiding principles
established by the above policies.
Pursuant to Section 33000 of the California Redevelopment Law(CRL),a jurisdic-
tion's Redevelopment Plan must be consistent with its General Plan. To ensure
such conformity,the Merged Plan adopts by reference the General Plan and any
subsequent amendments thereto. The Merged Plan, therefore, proposes only
actions,improvements and land uses that would be permitted under the Gen-
eral Plan.
1 The trip budget incorporates development projects approved prior to
the adoption of the 1996 General Plan.
7/18/9&I:WG63aZN$ECT"-WPD* 4.1-10
Because the Merged Plan references and relies upon the City's General Plan for
all allowable uses,and requires that any subsequent project must be consistent
with the General Plan, it is appropriate to judge Merged Plan land use issues
within the context of the City's adopted policies as reflected in the General Plan.
Special Development Areas
There have been several special development areas designated throughout the
City since the late 1960s. Two of the Redevelopment Projects include areas that
are affected by Specific Plans. Main-Pier is overlapped by the Downtown Specific
Plan,adopted in 1982. (This area has received a substantial amount of land use
planning attention and economic development activity sponsored by the City
and the Redevelopment Agency over the years,beginning in 1969 with adoption
of Resolution 3082 by the City Council,approving the"Top of the Pier"(levelop-
ment plan for downtown). The"Top of the Pier"Plan has been incorporated in,
and superseded by, the Downtown Specific Plan and the Main-Pier Redevelop-
ment Plan has been approved for implementation by the California Coastal
Commission.
The second area included in a Specific Plan is the northerly portion of Hunting-
ton Beach Mall (north of Center Drive). The North Huntington Center Specific
Plan has been implemented.
4.1.2 TTHtESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Tbresbolds of Significance
This EIR establishes thresholds of significance to determine potentially signifi-
cant land use impacts. A significant impact would result if the threshold limits
are exceeded due to the implementation of the Amendment/Merger. The pro-
posed Amendment/Merger could generate a significant impact on the environ-
ment if one of the following conditions results:
• Creation of substantial (noticeable)alteration to Huntington Beach's or
the Merged Project Area's community character.
• Creation of land uses that are incompatible (in terms of density and type
of use)with surrounding uses.
• Creation of unbalanced land use mix.
In addition to the above thresholds of significance, the 1996 CEQA Guidelines
(Appendix G) provide other criteria by which to measure potentially significant
impacts that are applicable to the project analyzed in this EIR. As stated in the
CEQA Guidelines,a project will normally have a significant effect on the environ-
ment if it will:
• Conflict with adopted environmental plans and goals of the community
where it is located;or
7/1"&IARSG630T.=ECT"-VPD» 4.1-11
• Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community.
4.1.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
The Amendment/Merger allows redevelopment activities and financing incen-
tives to continue in areas that are demonstrated to be in need of these efforts. As
mentioned in Section 4.1.1, Existing Environmental Setting, incompatible land
uses and blight exist within the Merged Project Area. It is the intent of the
Amendment/Merger to provide a vehicle for the Agency to assist the City in
eliminating incompatible land uses and/or blight, and to promote economic
development. Other possible implementation activities may include efforts to
assemble parcels for redevelopment and to encourage new development that is
compatible with surrounding uses and consistent with the City's General Plan.
Additionally, a substantial effort will be directed towards maintaining and up-
grading infrastructure that supports economic development and investment in
private property maintenance within the Merged Project Area.
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger does not include authoriza-
tion of any specific project, and is limited to the objectives detailed in Chapter
3.0,Project Description.
Current revenue projections for the Merged Project indicate that there are lim-
ited opportunities to assist in development projects within the Merged Project
Area. The following is an estimate of development that could be assisted by
redevelopment activities associated with the Amendment/Merger:
• 530 Single Family Homes
• 80 Multiple Family Units
• Huntington Beach Mall Refurbishment
• 600 Hotel/Time Share Rooms
• 260,000 square feet of Commercial Uses
• 3,000 square feet of Industrial Uses
Because there are no specific land use changes identified by the Merged Plan,
and there are no specific development projects included within the Merged
Project Area, there is no land use conflict or incompatible use that would occur
with approval of the Amendment/Merger. As future projects, both public and
private,are submitted to the City for approval,each project will be reviewed for
consistency with the Merged Plan and General Plan Land Use Element and other
General Plan policies, as well as the City's zoning ordinance and development
codes which further restrict new development density and type. In addition,the
City will conduct the appropriate environmental review of each project in com-
pliance with CEQA to determine whether further environmental documentation
will be required beyond this EIR. If, during their review, City staff determines
that a project could have a significant impact that has not been identified in this
EIR, the City will require subsequent environmental documentation to fully
evaluate any potential impacts.
7/18/9&1.\rSG630^E=ECT4-0.WPD3* 4.1-12
Community Cbaracter and Land Use Compatibility
There will be no change in the redevelopment boundary areas with the Amend.;
ment/Merger. The Amendment/Merger is a reorganization of redevelopment
processes and extensions of time for incurring indebtedness and condemnation
proceedings.
This reorganization does not amend the land use designations within the Merged
Project Area. Land uses will continue to reflect the designations in the General
Plan,as required in the Merged Plan,in the same manner as with the previously
adopted Redevelopment Projects.
A time extension for incurring indebtedness and raising the limit on tax incre-
ment revenues will not directly affect land use; rather, it will enhance the
Agency's ability to fully utilize financial resources that would otherwise not be
available for redevelopment, infrastructure improvements and economic devel-
opment purposes. With additional financial resources and an extension of time
available, the Agency could conduct additional redevelopment activity in accor-
dance with the Merged Plan. This is considered a beneficial impact,in view of
current signs of deferred maintenance,structural deterioration,underutilization,
and vacancy or abandonment.
The adopted General Plan identifies development districts, along with specific
development guidelines for all areas of the City and for specific subareas within
the City. Specific Plans for several districts have been adopted, as explained in
the Special Development Areas subsection, above. The Specific Plans that are
relevant to the Merged Project Area are: 1) the Downtown Specific Plan,and 2)
North Huntington Center. The Merged Project is consistent with both Specific
Plans. These Specific Plans further ensure that new development,infrastructure
improvements and refurbishment of businesses occurring through Agency assis-
tance will be compatible with the community character expressed in these
Specific Plans.
The Specific Plans established for these areas within the Merged Project Area
ensure that environmental protection is enforced, that land development is
carried out consistent with adopted objectives; and that design guidelines are
implemented in a cohesive and interrelated fashion.
The General Plan includes pedestrian, historic and design overlays for certain
subareas of the City, all of which include some portions of the Merged Project
Area. Taken together,the General Plan Land Use Element policies for permitted
uses, overlay district requirements and development guidelines for specific
subareas,substantially avoid the potential to impact community character within
the Merged Project Area. Specific projects will be subject to individual review for
consistency with General Plan and Zoning Code provisions through the entitle-
ment process.
The General Plan Update EIR(pages 5.1-16 and 5.1-17) discusses land use com-
patibility relevant within the Merged Project Area.
7n8/96«IAxsc630\E=ECT".WPJ> 4.1-13
The General Plan Update EIR includes the following specific analysis in land use
compatibility that is relevant to Main-Pier, Huntington Center, Oakview and
Talbert-Beach
"With regard to localized incompatibilities along Beach Boulevard
there are several policies which reduce the potential impact. Policy LU
10.1.5 requires that buildings, parking and vehicular access be sited
and designed to prevent impacts on adjacent residential neighbor-
boods. Policy LU 10.1.6 requires that commercial projects abutting
residential properties adequately protect the residential use from exces-
sive or incompatible impacts of noise, light, vehicular traffic, visual
character and operational hazards. Policy 10.1.7 requires that parking
structures located on commercial parcels abutting residential uses be
designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission impacts and incor-
porate ardsitectural design elements to provide interest. Finally,Policy
LU 10.1.8 requires that entertainment, drinking establishments and
other uses characterized by high patronage provide adequate physical
and safety measures to prevent negative impacts on adjacent proper-
ties. Incompatibilities that may occur in mixed use developments are
minimized through Policy LU 11.1.5 (which requires that mixed use
developments mitigate potential conflicts between the residential and
commercial components) and Policy LU 11.1.6 (wbich requires that
housing be placed on upper floors, or at the rear end, of mixed use
structures). Consequently, existing and potential land use incompati-
bilities created by the juxtaposition of residential and commercial uses
alongBeacb Boulevard are considered to be reduced to less than signif-
icant levels with inclusion of tbese policies"
Given the requirement that the Merged Plan mirror and fully implement the
General Plan,any subsequent development within the Merged Project Area must
be consistent with the policies included in the analysis above, which fully ad-
dresses land use compatibility issues.
Land Use Balance
The land use mix proposed in the Merged Plan is the same as in the General Plan
Land Use Element. The land use mix and distribution of land uses included in
the General Plan for the Merged Project Area are not proposed to be changed by
the Amendment/Merger. Potential impacts from an inappropriate land use mix
would be avoided through implementation of General Plan land uses, as pro-
posed in the Merged Plan.
Effects on Open Space
The Amendment/Merger does not involve changes or redesignations of any lands
designated as"open space"to other land use categories. Therefore,with imple-
mentation of the AmendmenVMerger, the amount of designated open space
acreage will not diminish from that adopted on the General Plan land use map.
7/18r96«I:\RSG630 JM$ECT"-VPD)P 4.1-14
A limited number of vacant parcels exist throughout portions of the Merged
Project Area, encompassing approximately 30 gross acres (or 4.7 percent of the
entire Merged Project Area). Existing land uses, including vacant parcels, are
shown on Figures 4.1.1 through 4.1.5. The General Plan land use map desig-
nates these vacant parcels for future development. It is reasonably expected that
these vacant parcels will be developed with permitted uses, with or without
redevelopment assistance,consistent with the Merged Plan and General Plan.
Potential impacts due to development of currently vacant parcels will be miti-
gated to a level of insignificance through implementation of the General Plan
policies. Subsequent development within the Merged Project Area is required to
be consistent with General Plan policies to preserve and protect open space.
Consistency with Adopted Plans and Established Community
The CEQA criteria cited above state that a project will normally have a significant
impact if it will"conflict with adopted plans and goals." The Merged Plan con-
forms to the existing policies and environmental plans in the recently adopted
General Plan and in the applicable Specific Plans,as explained in the preceding
analysis.
The second CEQA criterion, "disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community,"is addressed in the analysis below. Amendment/Merger
does not include any large-scale infrastructure improvements or major reconfig-
uration of streets or roadways that are typically associated with division of com-
munities. In addition, the land uses and infrastructure improvements will be
consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning, and would not disrupt the
arrangement of established communities as defined by the General Plan.
4.1.4 CUMUZA77VE IMPACTS
For purposes of this EIR,the appropriate potential cumulative land use impact
area is the entire City. Because the the Merged Project Area extends from the
City's southern boundary to the northern boundary, and because these areas
make up a significant amount(15.7 percent)of the commercial areas of the City,
the cumulative study area has been determined to be the entire City.
The General Plan Update EIR,contains citywide growth projections for the 20
year period 1990-2010. Residential dwelling units are anticipated to increase by
18,500, or 10.46 percent, during this 20 year time frame, with commercial/
industrial square footage increasing by 15,867,540 square feet,or 21.9 percent,
over the same 20 year time fiame. The land uses and anticipated projects within
the Merged Project Area are included in these General Plan projections.
Given that the City has recently adopted the General Plan (May 13, 1996),and
that the land use designations and intensities proposed under the Amendment/ -
Merger are identical to those analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, this
analysis can rely data and analysis included in the General Plan Update EIR. The
City's General Plan Update EIR addresses the potential land use impacts from
�ns�6«t�xsco�sEcr4 0�vr� 4.1-15
implementing the General Plan program, and found that there were no signifi-
cant environmental impacts related to 1)land use compatibility,2)alteration of
community character,3)resultant land use imbalance,and 4)substantial loss of
open space.
The General Plan correlates land use development with supporting infiastruc-
ture and services. The General Plan sets a cap on development that cannot be
removed unless public infrastructure is upgraded or expanded and service
improvements are implemented,particularly with regard to transportation. The.
practical development potential of the City is identified in Policy LU 2.1.4, in-
cluded in the Setting Section on page 4.1-10. The Amendment/Merger is consis-
tent with the General Plan and thereby provides policies and development
guidelines that lessen and avoid cumulative land use impacts. Because the
Amendment/Merger does not include specific development projects and does
not change land use designations assigned by the General Plan Land Use Ele-
ment,there are no cumulative impacts.
4.1.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan includes several policies contained in the Land Use Element of
the General Plan that serve to minimize potential land use impacts. The policies
applicable to the Amendment/Merger that reduce or avoid project related im-
pacts are identified below.
• Require that new and recycled industrial projects be designed and devel-
oped to achieve a_high level of quality,distinctive character,and be com-
patible with existing uses(Policy LU12.1.4).
Require that new and recycled industrial structures and sites be designed
to convey visual interest and character and to be compatible with adja-
cent uses,considering the(Policy LU 12.1.$):
Use of multiple building masses and volumes to provide visual
interest and minimize the visual sense of bulk and mass;
Architectural design treatment of all building elevations;
Use of landscaping in open spaces and parking lots, including
broad landscaped setbacks from principal peripheral streets;
Enclosure of storage areas with decorative screening or walls;
Location of site entries to minimize conflicts with adjacent resi-
dential neighborhoods;and
Mitigation of noise,odor,lighting,and other impacts.
• Require that heavy industrial uses incorporate landscape setbacks,
screening walls,berms,and/or other appropriate elements that mitigate
7/18/964(L•Vi.SG,O ECT4-0 WPD» 4.1-16
visual and operational impacts with adjacent land uses (Policy LU
12.1.8).
• Require that heavy truck and vehicle access be controlled to minimize
potential impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods and commercial
districts (Policy LU 12.1.9).
• Require that buildings, parking, and vehicular access be sited and de-
signed to prevent adverse impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods
(Policy LU10.1.5).
• Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties ade-
quately protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible
impacts of noise,light,vehicular traffic,visual character,and operational
hazards (Policy LU 10.1.6).
• Require that parking structures located on commercial parcels abutting
residential uses a) be designed to prevent adverse noise and air emission
impacts and b)incorporate architectural design elements,such as facade
articulation, offset planes,and landscape,to provide visual interest and
compatibility with the residences(Policy LU 10.1.7).
• Require that entertainment, drinking establishments, and other uses
provide adequate physical and safety measures to prevent negative im-
pacts on adjacent properties(Policy LU 10.1.8).
• Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential
conflicts between the commercial and residential uses,considering such
issues as noise, lighting,security,and truck and automobile access(Pol-
icy LU 11.1.5).
• Require that the ground floor of structures that horizontally integrate
housing with commercial uses locate commercial uses along the street
frontage (housing may be located to the rear and/or on upper floors)
(Policy LU 11.1.6).
• Accommodate the development of public parks, coastal and water re-
lated recreational uses,and the conservation of environmental resources
in areas designated for Open Space on the Land Use Plan Map and in
accordance with Policy 7.1.1 (Policy LU14.1.1).
• Permit the acquisition and/or dedication of lands for new open space
purposes in any land use zone where they complement and are compati-
ble with adjacent land uses and development,contingent on City review
and approval(Policy LU141.2).
4.1.6 MMGA7YON MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
7/18/96KI:\RSSG63GWMsEC r"WPD» 4.1-17
4.1.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFFM MTITGATION
Implementation of the General Plan policies will reduce the potential land use
impacts resulting from the Amendment/Merger to a level below significance.
7/18/96«IATSG630=N$ECT4-0 WPD* 4.1-18
4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.2.1 EUS777VG FEN MONMENTAL SE777NG
Population
From 1980 to 1992, the population of Huntington Beach increased by almost
nine percent, as shown in Table 4.2.A. In 1980, the City had a population of
181,519,while the population in 1992 was 185,000.
For the past 20 years, the City has consistently experienced a higher rate of
growth than either Orange County or the State of California. While the average
annual population increase in California was 2.1 percent from 1970 to 1980,and
2.3 percent from 1980 to 1990, Huntington Beach experienced average annual
increases of 4.05 percent and 6.27 percent respectively, during these two
periods. As a comparison, Orange County experienced annual growth rates of
3.1 percent and 2.3 percent,respectively,during the 1970s and 1980s.
Table 4.2A-Population Comparisons 1970-1990
Compound
Annual
Growth Rate
1970- 1980-
1970 1980 1990 1980 1990 19961
California 19,241,000 23,668,145 29,760,021 2.09% 2.31% 32,231,000
Orange County 1,421,000 1,932,709 2,410,556 3.12% 2.23% 2,624,300
Huntington Beach 114,593 170,505 181,519 4.05% 6.27% 187,200
Source: 1970, 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census; and Department of Finance 1996
Estimates.
Housing
Housing Growth
The City of Huntington Beach's housing stock experienced substantial growth
during the 1980s, but significantly slowed in the 1990s due to diminishing
supply of available land and the economic recession. In 1980, Huntington
Beach had a housing stock of 63,686 units, and by January, 1988, the number
had increased to 70,179, an increase of more than ten percent. By 1994, the
number of housing units reached 74,179,a 16 percent increase over the 63,686
units.
' The California Department of Finance.
7/19/96«I:\W"30X=EG74-2 WPD» 4.2-1
Housing Type and Tenure
Although Huntington Beach experienced significant growth in its housing stock
during the 1980s, the composition of the housing stock(single versus multiple
family) has experienced little change. Single family dwelling units make up
three-fifths of the housing type in the City (42,326 units in 1988). Multifamily
units, however, experienced a greater rate of growth during the 1980-1988
period, increasing.by 13 percent (to 25,170 in 1988), as compared to the 9
percent increase for single family units. Construction of condominium.units
declined in the mid-1980s;however, condominium activity has increased since
then. Condominium units comprise over half of the City's multiple family hous-
ing stock,with two-thirds of the units in the southeast and Downtown/Old Town
neighborhoods (13,151 units in 1988).
The tenure of a community's housing stock (owner versus renter) influences
several aspects of the local housing market. Tenure preferences are primarily
related to household income,composition,and age of the householder. For the
past several decades,Huntington Beach has been a predominantly owner occu-
pied community;however,the ratio of owner occupied to renter occupied units
has steadily declined since 1970,when 70 percent of the City's households were
owner occupied. In 1980,owner occupied housing comprised 58 percent of the
City's households,decreasing to 53 percent by 1988.
Existing housing in the Merged Project Area consists of the following:
Subarea #Units
Oakview 641
Main-Pier 915
Yorktown-Lake 81
Talbert-Beach 336
Huntington Center 0
Total(Approximately) 1,973
Housing Element Objectives
The City of Huntington Beach Housing Element outlines the existing housing
needs within the City,based on SCAG projections,and identifies strategies that
the City will employ to achieve its housing objectives. The City is currently in
the process of updating its Housing Element';however,the update is still in the
preliminary draft phase and is not complete. Therefore,for the purposes of this
' The Housing Element Update will address the projected housing needs
for the next cycle (1996-1998). SLAG staff has not prepared an RHNA
for the 1996-1998 Housing Element period. Given the absence of re-
gional estimates,the State has directed all cities to utilize the 1989 RHNA
figures. Following a review of historical growth trends,regional growth
forecasts, and lands that are or could reasonably be made available for
new housing development,the Housing Element revision will determine
the housing needs for the City during the 1996-1998 period.
7n9/q6"IAxsc630\E=ECT4-2 wrn* 4.2-2
review, the analysis of consistency with Housing Element Objectives will be
based upon the 1989 Housing Element. As indicated on page 2-20 of the Hous-
ing Element, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) prepared by
SCAG identified a future housing need for Huntington Beach of.6,228 units to
be developed over the five-year period from 1989 to 1994. This span was ex-
tended by recent legislation adopted by the State to extend the valid date of the
RHNA figures,as well as postpone the mandatory deadline for Housing Element
Updates (for Cities within the SCAG Region) to June, 1998. Of these 6,228
units, housing needs for the very low income group total 984 units, 1,264 for
the low income group, 1,370 for the moderate income group,and 2,610 for the
upper income group.
The Housing Element identifies that through a combination of residential devel-
opment potential on vacant, underutilized, redeveloped, non-residential and
surplus sites in the City,an estimated 7,527 additional units could be developed
in the City. Of the 7,527 units identified, 904 of these units were to be con-
structed within Main-Pier. Previously, the Agency has assisted in the construc-
tion of 724 dwelling units within the five Redevelopment Projects since 1982.
Employment
According to the City's General Plan Technical Background Report, there were
60,869 jobs in Huntington Beach in 1992. Of the 60,869 jobs,25 percent were
in the retail trade,24 percent in manufacturing,and 17 percent in business and
personal services.
General Plan
The General Plan build out will provide for additional new housing build out,as
shown in Table 4.2.B.
Table 4.2.B-Housing,Population,Employment and Jobs-Housing Ratio
(Policy Plan Adopted by City Council May 13, 1996)
Existing Additional New Build %Increase
Units Housing Out Above Exsting
Dwelling Units 74,1791 18,500 92,679 24.94%
Population. 181,5192 48,470 233,4701 28.62%
Employment 60,869' 22,413 83,282 36.82%
Jobs-Housing Ratio 0.82 1.21 0.90 9.51%
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EDk July, 1995.
1 City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,1994.
2 General Plan Technical Background Report(TBR),Chapter 2,1992.
s Assumes 1990 persons per household ratio of 2.62(Table SD-2 of the TBR)
` Table ED-1,TBR
7n9y964ct Nxs"30\EMECT4-2 VPD► 4.2-3
4.2.2 77LRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds of significance criteria are used in evaluating the effects
of the Amendment/Merger on population and housing.
Population
• Increases in population in excess of that projected in the General Plan
and by SLAG.
• Alteration of the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population in an area.
Sousing
• Development that reduces the ability of the City to meet housing objec-
tives set forth in the City's Housing Element(1989) for all income levels.
Employment
• Displacement of more than 500 employees.
4.2.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Population
The project does not propose any changes in land use or zoning designation,or
policies that would result in any increases in population within the Merged
Project Area of the City. The General Plan EIR concluded that,with implementa-
tion of General Plan Policies ensuring that development is coordinated with
provision of adequate public facilities and services, potential impacts were re-
duced to less than significant. The Amendment/Merger will primarily allow for
increased funding opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial
rehabilitation, and assisted housing projects,which may facilitate development
in the area; however, the scale and type (i.e.,land use)will be consistent with
that projected in the General Plan. The potential number of housing units
assisted would be 610. Using the General Plan figure of 2.7 persons per house-
hold,this would add only 1,647 people to the City's population of 187,200 (less
than one percent). Impacts associated with this level of population will be
minimized to a level of insignificance through implementation of General Plan
policies ensuring that development is coordinated with the provision of ade-
quate public services and facilities. Future development proposals within the
Merged Project Area will require analysis of consistency with the General Plan
and, where proposed development is greater than the planned growth in the
General Plan,additional project specific analysis will be required.
7/19,9&I.WG630�E=ECT4-2.WPD» 4.2-4
Housing
As indicated in the General Plan EIR, implementation of the General Plan will
provide 18,500 new dwelling units by the year 2010. The corresponding annual
increase of 1,156 units will exceed the annual housing growth rate of 1,038 units
per year, identified in the 1988 RHNA. Implementation of the policies and
programs contained in the Housing Element will assist the City in providing
affordable housing to meet the City's identified regional share and will have a
beneficial effect on housing.
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will facilitate implementation of
housing programs in the Merged Project Area,through various financing mecha-
nisms, and will promote the City's housing goals. It is estimated that the
Agency's activities will facilitate 610 dwelling units, which is 0.6 percent of the
General Plan build out.
In addition, the Agency is required to set aside a portion of its tax increment
revenue to provide for additional affordable housing units anywhere within the
City. The City must also replace affordable housing units affected by redevelop-
ment activities. Each of these requirements is outlined below.
Housing Set Aside
A portion of the Agency's tax increment revenue is required by the State to be
set aside into a special fund of the Agency to meet affordable housing needs
within the City. Section 33334.2 of the California Health and Safety Code re-
quires that not less than 20 percent of all tax increment revenues allocated to a
redevelopment agency shall be used for the purposes of increasing, improving
and preserving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing.
Such housing is to be affordable to very low,low,and moderate income house-
holds.
Redevelopment Project Housing Relocation
The Agency adopted a relocation plan in conjunction with the preparation of the
five existing Redevelopment Plans. As an agency formed under the provisions of
State law,the Agency is required to adhere to the State Relocation I:aw(Govern-
ment Code Sections 7260 through 7277) and follow the California Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines as established in the Califor-
nia Code of Regulations,Title 25, Chapter 6. The Agency's existing relocation
plan incorporates the State Relocation law and Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Guidelines. For the Amendment/Merger, the Agency will
reaffirm its relocation plan for the Merged Project.
Replacement Housing
The Agency is required to replace affordable housing destroyed or removed as a
consequence of a redevelopment project. Section 33413 of the California
7/19i96«I.-WG630\E=ECT4-2.WPD» 4.2-5
Health and Safety Code provides that,whenever dwelling units housing persons
and families of low or moderate income are destroyed or removed from the
affordable housing market as a part of a redevelopment project that is subject to
a written agreement with the agency, or where financial assistance has been
provided by the agency, the agency shall provide, or cause to be provided, an
equal number of replacement dwelling units. The replacement dwelling units
must have an equal or greater number of bedrooms as those destroyed or re-
moved and shall be affordable to persons and families of low or moderate in-
come. Further, replacement dwelling units must be available for occupancy
within four years of the destruction or removal of any affordable dwelling units.
By assisting in the achievement of planned housing growth in the General Plan
through tax increment financing, replacement housing and other mechanisms,
implementation of the Amendment/Merger will assist in meeting the City's
housing objectives for all income levels and will have a beneficial effect on hous-
ing within the City,consistent with the findings of the General Plan Update EIR.
Employment
Enhancement of existing employment opportunities and economic develop-
ment within the City is a primary objective of the Amendment/Merger. By estab-
lishing an increased tax increment limit,extending the time frames for incurring
indebtedness and employing eminent domain proceedings, the Amend-
ment/Merger will assist implementation of the planned employment growth
outlined in the City's General Plan. The employment generation identified in
the General Plan Update EIR would not be exceeded with implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. Future development proposals within the Merged Project
Area will require analysis of consistency with the General Plan and where pro-
posed development is greater than the planned growth in the General Plan,
additional project specific analysis will be required. job creation within the
Merged Project will be within the employment projections outlined in the EIR
for the General Plan. The Amendment/Merger will benefit the City of Hunting-
ton Beach, facilitating achievement of General Plan goals by providing funding
opportunities.
4.2.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Increases in population, housing and employment associated with implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger will be consistent with the growth projections
for the Merged Project Area, as identified in the General Plan Update EIR, and
will not result in greater cumulative impacts than identified for implementation
of the General Plan on a citywide basis. Opportunities encouraging planned
development and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will be pro-
vided as part of the Amendment/Merger;however,provision for additional land
use intensity is not permitted.
7/19i9&1.\RSG63aM;SECr4-2.VPD» 4.2-6
4.2.5G M RAT.PLANPOLICLES
Impacts associated with the project are not considered significant,as they will be
offset by implementation of policies of the General Plan,which require develop-
ment to provide for adequate public services and facilities to meet forecast
demands. These policies are provided in the Public Services and Utilities Section
of this EIR. Relevant policies are included below to relate to population, em-
ployment and housing.
• Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as
demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use
Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Ele-
ments of the General Plan) (Policy LU2.1.1).
• Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre-
lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser-
vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele-
ments (Policy LU2.1.2).
• Limit the type, location, and/or timing of development where there is
inadequate public ft&wtructure and/or services to support land use
development(Policy LU2.1.3).
• Limit the total additional new development citywide (above that existing
in 1990) that can be accommodated in the City to the following, or an
equivalent number of trips that can be generated ("trip budget'), pro-
vided that the highway improvements stipulated by the Circulation Ele-
ment are implemented(Policy LU2.1.4):i
Residential Units (single,multifam- 18,500
ily,and mixed use)
Commercial Retail Square Feet 3,165,000
Commercial Office Square Feet 1,570,000
Industrial Square Feet 2,505,000
Overnight Accommodations Rooms 2,500
The permitted development,or"trip budget,"shall be allocated to spe-
cific sub-areas of the City as determined by the City's traffic model used
in the preparation of the General Plan. The mix of uses that are permit-
ted may be varied provided that the total"trip budget"is not exceeded.
1 The trip budget incorporates development projects approved previous
to the adoption of the General Plan.
7/1"64(i.NRSG630\M;i$EM?.WPD)D- 4.2-7
• Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and
densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy
7.1.1, when it can be demonstrated that additional transportation im-
provements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have
been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Pol-
icy LU2.1.5).
• Monitor the capacities of other infrastructure (water,sewer, and other)
and services and establish appropriate limits on development should
their utilization and demands for service exceed acceptable levels of
service(Policy LU2.1.6).
• Accommodate the development of parks,sports facilities,schools,librar-
ies,community meeting facilities,religious facilities,and similar commu-
nity-serving uses in all residential areas,provided that they are compati-
ble with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and approval by
the City and other appropriate agencies(Policy LU9.4.1).
• Require development projects to mitigate off-site traffic impacts and
pedestrian,bicycle,and vehicular conflicts to the maximum extent feasi-
ble(Policy CE 2.3.1).
• Require that new development mitigate its impact on City streets,includ-
ing but not limited to, pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular conflicts, to
maintain adequate levels of service(Policy CE 2.3.4).
• Monitor the demands on the water system,manage the development to
mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water supply and
distribution system,and maintain and expand water supply and distribu-
tion facilities(Policy U 1.1.1).
• Approve and implement development in accordance with the standards
identified in the Growth Management Element(Policy U2.1.1).
• Monitor the demands and manage development to mitigate impacts
and/or facilitate improvements to the storm drainage system (Policy U
3.1.3).
• Limit new development, when necessary, until adequate flood control
facilities are constructed to protect existing development and accommo-
date the new development runoff, or until mitigation is provided in
accordance with the Growth Management Element(Policy U3.1.5).
• Maintain adequate solid waste collection for commercial,industrial,and
residential developments in accordance with State law(Policy U4.1.1).
• Continue to work with service providers to maintain current levels of
service and facilitate improved levels of service(Policy U5.1.1).
7/19/96KI.\sCG630\E=ECT4-2.WPD» 4.2-8
• Enhance and maintain personnel and facilities in the City's Police De-
partment necessary to provide response times at standards determined
by the Growth Management Element(Policy PF 1.1.1).
• Ensure that adequate Police services are maintained through a periodic
conditions and needs assessment of department services, facilities and
personnel(Policy PF 1.1.2).
• Locate fie stations in a manner which will enable emergency fire re-
sponse time to meet a five minute standard, 80 percent of the time(Pol-
icy PF 2.1.1).
• Maintain adequate facilities and personnel by periodically evaluating
population growth,response time and fire hazards (Policy PF2.1.3).
Maintain phasing and funding standards based on population,response
time projections,and build out in accordance with the Growth Manage-
ment Element(Policy PF2.1.4).
• Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the
local school districts to review measures alleviating some school's over-
crowding while other school's have available capacity(Policy PF 4.1.1).
• Ensure adequate government facilities and services are being provided to
meet the needs of the City's population(Policy PF 6.1.1).
• Maintain or improve the governmental facilities and services in order to
meet the adopted levels of service and standards established in the
Growth Management Element(Policy PF 6.1.3).
Housing Element Policy 2
To ensure adequate provision of housing for all economic segments of the
community,the City of Huntington Beach shall:
• Encourage the provision and continued availability of a range of housing
types throughout the community,with variety in the number of rooms
and level of amenities.
• Encourage both the private and public sectors to produce or assist in the
production of housing with particular emphasis on housing affordable to
lower income households,as well as the needs of the handicapped,the
elderly,large family and female-headed households.
• Facilitate the development of mixed use projects containing residential
and non residential uses which can take advantage of shared land costs
to reduce the costs of land for residential uses through General Plan
designation and the Specific Plan process.
7n9Y964(1:WCYGo\E=$cr4-2 WPD» 4.2-9
• Encourage alternative forms of home ownership, such as shared equity
ownership, Shared Living Units, and other housing arrangements to
encourage affordability. Explore the feasibility of implementing a mort-
gage credit certification program (refer to Section 3.6 beginning on page
3-36 for program descriptions).
• Promote adoption of development standards which reduce housing
costs,while ensuring that any adverse impacts are minimized when in-
creasing densities or relaxing standards.
• Continue and expand utilization of federal and State housing assistance
programs.
• Promote the availability of sufficient rental housing to afford maximum
choice of housing type for all economic segments of the community.
• Encourage the retention of adequate numbers of mobile homes and
investigate areas for potential new mobile home zoning.
• Encourage the provision of alternative housing through replacement
housing and/or relocation for low or moderate income households dis-
placed by public or private developments.
Housing Element Policy 3
To assure the adequate provision of sites for housing, the City of Huntington
Beach shall:
• Utilize the following general criteria for identifying and evaluating poten-
tial sites for low and moderate cost housing and sites for the elderly
and/or handicapped. While compliance with the following criteria is
preferable,no site shall be dismissed for failure to meet this criteria and
shall be judged on its own merit. Sites should be:
Located with convenient access to arterial highways and public
transportation, schools, parks and recreational facilities, shop-
ping areas,employment opportunities.
Adequately served by public facilities,services,and utilities.
Minimally impacted by seismic and flood hazards. Where such
hazards cannot be avoided, adequate mitigation measures shall
be incorporated into the design of all proposed development.
Minimally impacted by noise and blighted conditions.
Compatible with surrounding existing and planned land uses-
- located outside areas of predominantly lower income concentra-
tions.
In9/9&i:Vxsc630\EMsEcr4-2 wrn» 4.2-10
• Plan for residential land uses which accommodate anticipated growth
from new employment opportunities.
• Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas
and transportation routes to provide convenient access to employment
centers.
• Permit the development of manufactured housing in single family zones,
and accommodate the development of mobile home parks through the.
City's Manufactured Housing Overlay Zone.
Housing Element Policy 4
In order to preserve housing and neighborhoods,the City of Huntington Beach
shall:
• Encourage the maintenance and repair of existing owner-occupied and
rental housing to prevent deterioration of housing in the City.
• Encourage the rehabilitation of substandard and deteriorating housing
where feasible.
• Where possible,take action to promote the removal and replacement of
those substandard units which cannot be rehabilitated.
• Provide and maintain an adequate level of community facilities and mu-
nicipal services in all community areas.
• Improve and upgrade community facilities and services where necessary.
• Encourage compatible design to minimize the impact of intensified reuse
of residential land on existing residential development.
• Encourage preservation of the existing low density residential character
in established single family neighborhoods.
• Establish incentives for the development of uses to support the needs
and reflect the economic demands of City residents and visitors (Policy
• Permit increases in development capacity consistent with the types and
densities of uses depicted on the Land Use Plan and prescribed by Policy
7.1.1, when it can be demonstrated that additional transportation im-
provements have been implemented or are funded, or demands have
been reduced (based on highway level of service and vehicle trips) (Pol-
icy LU2.1.5).
• Accommodate existing uses and new development in accordance with
the Land Use and Density Schedules (Table LU-4 in the General Plan)
(Policy LU 7.1.1).
7n9A6<<LNxsc,630\X=Ecr4-2.VM* 4.2-11
• Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns
and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map
(Figure LU-5 in the General Plan),and in accordance with the principles
discussed below(Policy LU8.1.1).
a. Enhance a network of interrelated activity centers and corridors
by their distinct functional role,activity,and/or form and scale of
development.
b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial
corridors, such as Beach Boulevard.
C. Increase diversification of community and local commercial
nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods.
d. Intensify residential uses in proximity to key commercial or
mixed-use districts to promote accessibility and reduce vehicular
use.
e. Improve industrial districts to accommodate the changing charac-
teristics and needs of manufacturing and other industrial sectors.
f. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects.
g. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit
improvements.
h. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include
pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other
streetscape elements, open space,transitions in form,scale,and
density of development,and other elements.
• Accommodate the development of single family and multifamily residen-
tial units in areas designated by the Land Use Plan Map,as stipulated by
the Land Use and Density Schedules(Policy LU9.1.1).
• Require that special needs housing is designed to be compatible with
adjacent residential structures and other areas designated for other cate-
gories of use provided that no adverse impacts will occur (Policy LU
9.5.2).
• Accommodate the development of neighborhood,community,regional,
office, and visitor-serving commercial uses in areas designated on the
Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy 7.1.1(Policy LU 10.1.1).
• Accommodate the development of structures and sites that integrate
housing units with retail and office commercial uses in areas designated
for "mixed use" on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy
7.1.1(Policy LU11.1.1).
7n9)96<dAFSc630\t=Ecr4-2.wM» 4.2-12
• Accommodate the continuation of existing and development of new
manufacturing,research and development,professional offices,support-
ing retail commercial(including, but not limited to, sales areas for manu-
facturers and photocopy stores), restaurants, and financial institutions,
and similar uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accor-
dance with Policy 7.1.1 (Policy LU 12.1.1). .
• Maintain and expand economic and business development programs
that encourage and stimulate business opportunities within the City
(Policy ID 1.1.1).
• Create an Economic Development Strategy that: a) is based on the most
recent growth and economic forecasts,b) reflects both the City perspec-
tive and the business community perspective for economic develop-
went, and c) is updated and reviewed tri-annually(Policy ED 1.1.3).
• Seek to capture "new growth" industries such as, but not limited to
(Policy BD 2.5.2):
- "Knowledge"based industries such as research and development
firms (higher technology communications and information in-
dustries);
- Communication industry service providers and equipment manu-
factures which are creating the next series of consumer and util-
ity company equipment and services;
- Biotechnical industries;
- Environmental technology;
- "Shop for value"or"big box"stores;
Entertainment-commercial developments;
High sales tax producing businesses;and
Point of sale industries.
4.2.6 MI HGA770N MEASURES
4.2 A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate
income displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt
and implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through
33411.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan
ensures that no families or single persons of low and moderate income
are displaced by a redevelopment project until there is a suitable hous-
ing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be
available at rents comparable to those at the time of displacement. Fur-
ther,housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the
displaced household,and must be decent,safe, sanitary, and otherwise
standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be relocated
with the minimum of hardship.
7/19196I:WG630%EM5EC14-2.VM* 4.2-13
4.2.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MMGA77ON
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will result in beneficial impacts on
the provision of housing and employment opportunities. Potentially significant
increases in population are reduced with implementation of the policies out-
lined in the General Plan,and are considered less.than significant.
7/19/96(<I:\RSG63a�Em$ECT¢2.WPD» 4.2-14
4.3 EARTH RESOURCES
4.3.1 E USTIIVG ENVMONMF.NTAL SETTING
This section incorporates information from the General Plan. Update EIR by
reference,and analyzes effects of the Amendment/Merger. This section summa-
rizes the geologic and soil conditions within the Merged Project Area and the
City of Huntington Beach that may have an effect on project components.
Geologic Units and Geotecbnical Properties
Geologic conditions within the City of Huntington Beach are characterized as
lacking bedrock exposure,and as including the surface traces of the active New-
port-Inglewood fault zone. Geologic units consist of Quaternary deposits (Pleis-
tocene) and Holocene2) as shown on Figure GS-1 in the General Plan Update
EIR (page 5.6-2). The older Quaternary deposits are exposed on the mesas
(Bolsa Chica and Huntington Beach) and in the perimeter bluffs; these are
termed older alluvium or terrace materials of the Lakewood and San Pedro
Formations.3
The mesas (topographically high flat areas) are surrounded and separated by
younger alluvium, which (from north to south) fills the gaps (topographically
low areas)at Seal Beach,Bolsa Chica and the Santa Ana River. Younger alluvium
is divided into river floodplain deposits (washed in from the northeast as sand,
gravel and silt);tidal flat/lagoonal type deposits lie in the gaps (finer grained silts
and clays). Peat and organic soils are found within the younger alluvium up to
about 25 feet (averaging five to ten feet thick)4 These fine grained deposits are
expansive,3 compressible,and generally have fair to poor geotechnical engineer-
ing properties. Floodplain sands and silts are largely unconsolidated, and con-
tain the peat layers. On the whole, these deposits are subject to liquefaction
(fine sand and peat),settlement,and expansion,and have good to fair engineer-
ing properties,except for peat,which has poor to very poor engineering proper-
ties.3
The oldest terrace deposits consist of sand with interbeds of silty clay and clay,
overlain by interlayered sand-gravel and silt-clay beds. All older alluvium is
unconsolidated to semi-consolidated, contains "aquifers" in the thicker sand
1 11,000-1,700,000 years before present.
2 0-11,000 years before present.
3 City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element,1974.
4 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs,1974.
5 Loosely arranged or unstratified;not cemented together.
7/18/96«I.WG630\E=ECT4 3.WPD» 4.3-1
units, has low-moderate expansive soil qualities,has a moderate to high erosion
potential,'and is susceptible to landslide/slope instability/erosion at the edge of
the bluffs and in canyons. Within the Merged Project Area, the Huntington
Beach mesas in Main-Pier and Yorktown-Lake and along drainages where slopes
are oversteepened are areas of unstable slopes.
Near Surface Water Depth
The City is underlain by shallow near surface water,' which is of interest with
regard to liquefaction potential (within depths of 0-50 feet) and as a hazard for
construction (within depths of 0-30 feet). Figure GS-3 in the General Plan
Update EIR(page 5.6-4) identifies near surface water depths for the City. Near
surface water is found in the alluvial valley and mesa areas as perched water, and
in shallow aquifers. In the gap areas between the mesas,the City appears to be
entirely underlain by water at less than 50 feet deep. These alluvial floodplain
(gap) areas have the greatest concentration of shallow water,with depths less
than 30 feet and most often less than 5 feet deep. The mesa areas (because of
their higher elevations) have water depths of 10 feet to greater than 30 feet
within the older alluvium. In the northeastern and eastern City areas, water
depths are 5-30 feet beneath the floodplain deposits. Narrow strips along the
immediate coastline have water depths of less than 10 feet.
The Huntington Center has a near surface water depth of 10-30 feet. A portion
of Oakview has a near surface water depth of 10-30 feet; however the remainder
of the area has a depth of greater than 30 feet. Talbert Beach and Yorktown-Lake
have near surface water depths of greater than 30 feet. A portion of Main-Pier
has a near surface water depth of greater than 30 feet. However,the areas along
PCH in Main-Pier have a near surface water depth of less than 3 feet.
Faults
All of Southern California geology and seismicity is affected by plate tectonics 3
Faults are formed at the plate boundaries and within the plates. Faults that
cause the plates to slip horizontally past one another are strike slip faults;verti-
cal movement is mainly along normal, reverse or thruse faults. These fault
1 City of Huntington Beach,Seismic Safety Element, 1974.
= Sprotte and others, 1980.
3 A theory of global tectonics in which the earth is divided into a number of plates
that interact with one another at their boundaries,causing seismic activity along
these boundaries.
4 A fault with a dip of 45 degrees or less with horizontal compression rather verti-
cal displacement.
7/18/96<<I.\RSG63a�E=ECT4-3.WPD)> 4.3-2
movements cause earthquakes deep in the crust, and may cause surface fault
rupture or deformation along buried (blind) thrust faults. This seismotectonic
setting has been a part of the evolution of the Los Angeles/Orange County land-
scape for the past five million years or so. The most important fault to the City is
the Newport—Inglewood Fault.
Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone
The Newport—Inglewood Fault Zone is an Active Right-lateral Fault System
consisting of a series of echelon'fault segments and anticlinal folds ' that are
believed to be the expression of a deep seated fault within the basement rock'
The fault zone is visible on the surface as a series of northwest trending elon-
gated hills,including Signal Hill and the Dominguez Hills,extending from New-
port Beach to Beverly Hills. The total fault length is about 44 miles. The surface
and subsurface segments of the fault in the City, and the relationships of the
fault segments to the Merged Project Area,are shown on Figure 4.3.1.
The estimated maximum earthquake assigned to the fault zone is magnitude (M)
7, based on its estimated rupture length versus magnitude relationship, by
Slemmons (1982), and its slip rate. The expected (average) amount of surface
fault rupture on any given fault trace for the maximum probable or maximum
credible earthquake ranges from zero to approximately one foot for magnitudes
under M6.0, and from one foot to ten feet or more for magnitudes between
M6.0 to 7.5.
Otber Fault Segments, Activity Criteria, and Zoning
Faults adjacent to,within,and beneath the Merged Project Area may be classified
as inactive,potentially active, or active. Faults classified as inactive (no demon-
strated movement in the past two million years) are of no present concern as
earthquake sources,and are not discussed further. Potentially active faults show
evidence of movement and may be possible earthquake sources,but no data are
known to conclusively demonstrate Holocene fault movement(within the past
10,000-12,000 years). Active faults are the most concern for earthquake genera-
tion and fault rupture potential, since they have documented Holocene fault
movement or are clearly associated with historic seismicity. Alquist-Priolo Earth-
quake Fault (formerly Special Studies) Zone Maps delineate active faults and
potentially active faults considered by the State to be"sufficiently active"and
' Faults that are in an overlapping or staggered arrangement.
= Convex upward folds with cores containing the stratigraphically older rocks.
' . Bryant, 1988; Barrows, 1974.
7n8N6<<L\xsG630\E WEcr4-3.WD)o 4.3-3
U \W ¢0
i O
co
m Oj a u W
O
SEAL WESTMINSTER
BEACH BOLSAi _. c
U
}} c Q
Y Z � S •;• mW
gO t Mc C
0 FADDEN 3
EDINGER
-� HEIL
2 - WARNER FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
I
' ��? �, ♦ •SLATEA 405
Cow'`''Y •1 TALBERT
A�t�
is
♦ €� ca ¢ 3
`" ;ts \ ♦r ♦ �� GARFIELD
♦ l
Legend w:µ; ,- � � YORKTOWN
City Boundary ``'< s ♦♦
FinCategory A v > ? `• 1
9 :£M
AlquistPriolo Special Studies Zoni�l¢—�M:� :�.<A>"{:�H .::_ `• ♦� •WpaNAPOLLs
Category Btw4 :.:`: :>:;v << ♦� ,�`.� i
Special Studies,including subsurface investigation,)>?''='"w`M `' `
for critical and importart land uses and special"'ww:f'M..hvn A::. S ATLANTA
evaluation of faults for all habitable structures
•• Category C :><; > ;.;..;:r:: i ,l .�: • ` 1 HAAt1LTON
Special Studies,including subsurface investigation, }';` ?" < < •;;-:<: .. 9yy
for critical and important land uses
Category D BANNING
<w 'ram "` :<
">t �u'_
Inactive ornon-e)dstarrt;subsurface investigation COSTA
may be required by City `}`: '>" =`'•"� _ MESA
Fault Uncertain }<?:S>:9:tw}w i,%•Y.(850}}„(+;�„}, ` ,
® Redevelopment Project Areas
x.
Source:Ca ofHuntine Beach, s `�;
City on h,1974 Seismic Safety Element,Figure 3-1• -:.>�}>�::::•}..•:,.Yt:�'V::-:w:
modified using Leighton&Associates,1986,Figures 2 and 3.
113/96(RSG63o) Figure 4.3.1
S—Al.
Scale in Miles
L 0 o.s 1 4. -4 Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone
3
"well-defined." The City Seismic Safety Element(1974) delineates fault zones of
concern in the City; these are fault segments within the Newport-Inglewood
Fault Zone (NIFZ) that were deemed active or potentially active at the time the
City of Huntington Beach Seismic Safety Element was adopted. The California
Division of Mines and Geology (1992) has delineated Alquist-Priolo study zones
along the Newport-Inglewood fault zone. These zones are shown as Category A,
B and C on Figure 4.3.1.
Yorktown-Lake and ?Main-Pier lie within the NIFZ, with Talbert-Beach located
just to the north of the NIFZ. Oakview and Huntington Center are located
approximately one mile or more to the north of the NIFZ.
Buried(Blind) Tbrusts
The aforementioned strike-slip fault types have surface expressions (fault traces)
that allow zoning in order to reduce the potential effects of fault rupture on
structures. The blind or buried thrusts have been the focus of more study since
the 1987 Whittier Narrows magnitude (M) 5.9 earthquake and the 1994 M 6.7
Northridge earthquake.
Table 4.3A lists the following: 1) active or potentially active faults that may
affect the Merged Project Area, including segments of the Newport-Inglewood
fault zone that are deemed capable of producing fault rupture;and 2)the blind
thrusts that are discussed below as earthquake sources.
Earthquake Ground Shaking
Table 4.3A also identifies other active and potentially active faults that may affect
the Merged Project Area. The General Plan Update EIR(pages 5.6-8 and 5.6-10)
includes a discussion on the frequency of occurrence and magnitude and the
intensity and acceleration of earthquake ground shaking. In addition,a listing of
near City significant earthquakes is also identified in the General Plan Update
EIR.
Liquefaction
The liquefaction susceptibility for the Merged Project Area is shown on Table
4.3.B. The rating ranges from very high,high, medium to low,primarily depend-
ing on two factors: 1) depth to groundwater,and 2) competency of soils.
Liquefaction is the condition in relatively loose, saturated sandy sediments
where support strength' is lost due to repeated vibrations from earthquake
shaking. Settlement during and after an earthquake can occur where sediments
are only partially saturated.
' The internal resistance of a body to shear stress, typically including a
frictional part and a part independent of friction called cohesion.
7/18/9&L-\RSG630\EIR�SECT4-3.WPUI* 4.3-5
Table 4.3A-Active/Potentially Active Faults That May Affect the
Merged Project
Maximum Earthquake
Project Comments
Fault Name Impacted Orientation (Acceleration
(Distance to City)' By Offset (Compass) Probable Credible in"g")
Faults with Mapped Surface Traces
Elsinore (28) No NW-SE 6.75 7.5 0.11-0.18g
Newport-Inglewood Yes NW-SE 5.75 7.0 0.55-1.Og
(<2)
Palos Verdes- No NW-SE 6.75 7.5 0.34-0.53g
Coronado Bank
(10)
Raymond (30) No E-W 4.0 7.5 0.02-0.219
San Andreas (51) No NW-SE 8.0 8.3 0.11-0.14g
(long period
motions impt.)
Sierra Madre-San No E-W 6.0 7.5 0.07-0.30g
Fernando (32)
Whittier-North No NW-SE 6.0 7.5 0.11-0.30g
Elsinore (19)
Blind or Buried Thrust Faults
Elysian Park(25) No E-W,WNW 5.75 7.0+ Whittier 5.9
ESE
Compton-Los An- No NW-SE 5.6?? 7.0+ Little known;
glen (<10) possible asso-
ciation w/
NIFZ
Torrance- No NW-SE 5.6?? 7.0+ Little known;
Wilmington (<10) apparent asso-
ciation with
PVFZ
Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update E1R,July, 1995.
NIFZ = Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone
PVFZ = Palo Verde Fault Zone
' Distance to City Center in miles is shown in parentheses.
7/I"&d\RSG639Z1R\sECT4-3 WPD» 4.3-6
r
Table 4.3.B -Liquefaction Susceptibility in Merged Project Area
Location Liquefaction Susceptibility
Huntington Center High-Very High
Oakview High-Medium;Low
Talbert-Beach Low
Yorktown-Lake Low
Main-Pier Very High, High-Very High,High-Me-
dium,Low
Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995.
Subsidence
The oil fields in Huntington Beach are areas with subsidence potential; the
pattern and rate of subsidence (one to ten inches during 1976-1986) has been
documented in an area corresponding roughly to the limits of the Huntington
Beach Oil Field (Figure GS-8 in the General Plan Update EM page 5.6-15)with
the maximum of approximately five feet located roughly at the corner of Golden
West Street and Pacific Coast Highway(Morton and others, 1976). Water flood-
ing injection has been used to stabilize this subsidence.
As identified earlier, the rate of subsidence was documented in an area corre-
sponding to the limits of the Huntington Beach Oil Field. Within the Merged
Project Area,Huntington Center and Oakview are not within the Oil Field limits.
Subsidence of one to two inches has been documented in Talbert-Beach, three
to four inches in Yorktown-Lake and zero to three inches in Main-Pier.
Methane
As indicated in the General Plan Update EIR, Figure GS-9 (page 5.6-16),
Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier are within an area designated as a Methane Overlay
District.' All oil fields are considered high risk areas for methane seepage;there-
fore,all areas that lie above or in the immediate vicinity of one of the identified
major oil field areas or drilling areas in the City are potentially areas of con-
cern. Methane may also be trapped beneath impervious surfaces (e.g., parking
lots) or in enclosed underground areas (e.g., basements,subterranean garages,
tunnels),where concentrations may cause an explosion or hazardous breathing
conditions.
' City of Huntington Beach, General Plan, Environmental Hazards Ele-
ment, 1996.
7/I8N6«I.\,RSC,63aXn;R SECT4-3.WPD» 4.3-7
Other Geologic and Soils Engineering Hazards
Expansive Soils/Peat
As identified in Figure GS-10 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.6-17),
expansive soils exist throughout the City. The Merged Project Area is within the
low to moderate (6 percent-27 percent) and moderate to high (20 percent42
percent) and variable expansive areas.
Landslides
As identified in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.6-14), potential landslide
areas are limited to those areas near the mesa bluffs. None of the Merged Project
Area is located in proximity to the mesa bluffs.
Erosion
Soil erosion in Huntington Beach ranges from a slight to a high hazard. With
proper ground cover and drainage controls, the erosion is minimized. The
seaward facing bluffs of Huntington Beach are subject to erosion during periods
of extremely high tides. If beach sand replenishment has not maintained an
adequately wide beach and the beach has narrowed due to the net loss of sand,
the bluffs would be susceptible to ocean flooding and wave erosion.
The potential for soil erosion in the Merged Project Area varies because the
perched (shallow) water table is high throughout the entire City. In addition,
most of the soils also cause water to percolate slowly downward into deeper
layers so any water entering the soil tends to remain fairly near the surface,or in
local ponds.
Overall, each of these other geologic and soils engineering hazards represents a
potential hazard that is routinely evaluated by standard soils and foundation
engineering and testing required by City of Huntington Beach grading and
building codes. These hazards are to be considered on a site specific basis as
projects within the various areas of the City are initiated.
4.3.2 TBRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The General Plan Update EIR(page 5.6-19)identified the following threshold of
significance to determine the potential impacts to earth resources that will be
used in this EIR as well. This threshold limit has been exceeded when:
• Proposed land uses and development occur within areas directly associ-
ated with one or more major hazards identified in the General Plan.
These major hazards are identified above,are summarized from the General Plan
Update EIR,and are herein incorporated by reference.
7/1"&<I.\RSG630VMt\$ECT4-3.WPD- 4.3-8
4.3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Direct Impacts
Direct impacts are discussed for geotechnical properties of geologic units, near
surface water depthiliquefaction,faults/groundshaking,subsidence and methane
gas-
Geotecbnica4 Properties of Geologic Units
Expansive clays,weak and compressible peat and organic soils,and minor slope
instability are the main geotechnical issues relating to natural deposits within the
City. landslides (including mudslides) in natural alluvial deposits occur on
slopes; these areas are subject to lateral and vertical ground displacement with,
or without, future development or disturbance. Such displacements may be a
few inches to several feet; any structure overlying or in the path of such a dis-
placement would be severely damaged or destroyed,with resultant loss of prop-
erry or of personal injury. Future construction of cut and fill slope,and place-
went of structures, must be particularly careful of potential problems in these
areas. Within the Merged Project Area, this is a prime hazard of concern only
along the edges of the Huntington Beach mesas in the Main-Pier and Yorktown-
Lake and along drainages where slopes are oversteepened.
Due to the distance of the Merged Project Area from the Bolsa Chica and Hun-
tington Beach mesas and lack of proximity to drainages where slopes are
oversteepened, the Merged Project Area is identified as not being in an area of
concern. Only a small part of the northern tip of Main-Pier is in an area of high
slope instability. However, building codes, grading codes, and engineering
investigation report requirements are in place as safeguards to prevent unsafe
design and construction practices related to slope stability, and unsatisfactory
foundation conditions.
Near Surface Water Depth/Liquefaction
Within the Merged Project Area, only Huntington Center and Main-Pier are
within potential liquefaction zones.
Near surface water can be a liquefaction and a construction hazard. Excavations .
from the surface (open cuts and pits) or underground (tunnels,vertical large
diameter borings) can experience inflows of near surface water that may be
perched, and local or widespread in extent. The presence of this water can
affect excavation stability and, therefore, short-term and long-term safety for
workers,and post-construction stability of structures associated with the excava-
tion areas.
Liquefaction can lead to severe settlement, lateral dislocation,uplift(heaving)of
buried structures and possible overturning of buildings. Although liquefaction
is one of the more widespread hazards affecting the City and the Merged Project
7/18i96«I:NRSG63"MSECT4-3 VPD» 4.3-9
Area,methods exist for safely designing and constructing facilities in liquefaction
prone areas.
Existing building codes, engineering investigation report requirements, and
generally accepted building and foundation engineering criteria for building in
liquefaction areas are in place to allow proper design and construction practices.
Although Huntington Center and Main-Pier are located in areas of high liquefac-
tion susceptibility, implementation of the mitigation measures outlined in the
General Plan Update EIR and incorporated in the Environmental Hazardous
Element of the General Plan will reduce the effects of near surface wa-
ter/liquefaction to a level below significance.
Fault Rupture/Ground Shaking
The General Plan Update EIR reports that the Newport-Inglewood fault zone
may have the capability to break the ground surface during a major earthquake
associated with the zone. Other faults not exposed at the surface or not yet
propagated through the shallowest earth materials are at a lower risk for fault
rupture; however, localized uplift may still occur. The fault segment with
ground rupture potential maybe expected to generate movements at the surface
ranging from a few inches to about six feet,most of which should be horizontal
offset; however, the vertical component may be several feet. More than several
inches of differential lateral or horizontal movement could cause severe,some-
times irreparable,damage to most structures (e.g.,buildings,pipelines,bridges,
cables). The likely areas for fault rupture lie within about one-eighth mile of the
mapped fault segments; the most likely are within the more restricted Alquist-
Priolo zones. Although the Newport-Inglewood fault underlies the City of Hun-
tington Beach,the General Plan Update EIR reports that the fault rupture zones
recommended by Leighton & Associates (1986) should be used as the best
available basis for evaluating potential rupture hazard. Yorktown-Lake is suscep-
tible to ground rupture impacts since a Fault Hazard Zone passes through the
project boundaries. The remainder of the Merged Project Area is not within
Fault Hazard Zones, but all of the Merged Project Area will be susceptible to
potential ground shaking effects associated with an earthquake.
Engineering geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation report require-
ments are in place to mandate special site specific studies as a means of mitigat-
ing for construction (usually avoidance). Implementation of policies incorpo-
rated into the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan policies will
reduce effects of fault rupture/ground shaking to a level below significance.
Subsidence
Subsidence can cause settlement of engineered structures built above oil fields,
potentially leading to distress to foundations and other structural elements.Also,
in these oil field areas the deeper materials may be conduits for methane gas (or
other gas) to seep into shallow deposits leading to accumulation of layers or
pockets within the construction zone, and potentially underground structures
(e.g., transit stations, basements, parking garages). The greatest concern for
711sN64(I:\RSG639TMEcr4-3.WPD» 4.3-10
subsidence is in the area of active oil fields. Although Yorktown-Lake and Main-
Pier contain oil fields, the State Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources
requirements,municipal and building codes,grading standards,and engineering
investigation report requirements are in place to mitigate against unsafe condi-
tions and promote sound construction practices. In addition, policies in the
Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan will reduce effects of subsi-
dence to a level below significance.
Methane Gas
Earth materials may become conduits for methane gas (or other gas) seeping
upward from these deep, petroleum rich formations or from shallow, organic
rich alluvial deposits. Methane may accumulate in layers or pockets within the
construction zone. Due to the location of Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier within
a Methane Overlay district, the likelihood of methane gas exposure during con-
struction is prominent. The General Plan Update EIR reports that City, State,
and federal regulations are in place to provide for safety in the presence of
methane and gas related gases during construction. Current City standards,
criteria,codes and policies provide a framework within which such assessments
can take place; however, they are not specified in the General Plan. These
policies provide for avoidance of the defined hazard areas. In addition, policies
in the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan will reduce effects of
methane gas exposure to a level below significance.
4.3.4 CUMULATIVEIMPACTS
The cumulative study area for this issue is the entire City and all foreseeable
projects contemplated by the City's recently adopted General Plan. As the
Merged Project Area is developed, the cumulative increase in the number of
persons exposed to geologic hazards increases. However,the increase in popu-
lation within the Merged Project Area and within the City as a whole does not
necessarily add people to a situation with any more risk than any other area in
Southern California.
The Amendment/Merger will not directly result in increased development in the
Merged Project Area (as addressed in the General Plan.) Future development in
Main-Pier and Yorktown-Lake is the most sensitive in terms of geologic impacts,
and thus contributes to cumulative impacts. Although there is geologic hazards
exposure to the existing population and any future development occurring in
the Merged Project Area (as addressed in the General Plan),and the incorpora-
tion implementation of the policies in the General Plan will mitigate the cumula-
tive impacts resulting from geologic hazards to a level below significance.
With implementation of the policies contained in the Hazards Element and the
Land Use Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from geologic hazards
will be substantially reduced. The following General Plan policies are relevant to
the project.
7/1"&<L%RS"30VmLSEcr43.WPD- 4.3-11
4.3.5 GOO RAL PLAN POLICIES
With implementation of the policies contained in the Hazards Element and the
Land Use Element of the General Plan, effects resulting from geologic hazards
will be substantially reduced. The following General Plan policies are relevant to
the project:
• Maintain a complete database of the location and distribution of seismic
and geologic hazards related to ground shaking, liquefaction, subsi-
dence, soil stability, slope stability and water table levels (Policy EH
1.1.1).
• Require seismic/geologic assessment prior to construction in Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Policy EH 1.1.3).
• Require appropriate engineering and building practices for all new struc-
tures to withstand groundshaking and liquefaction,as stated in the Uni-
form Building Code (UBC) (Policy EH 12.1).
• During major redevelopment or initial construction, require specific
measures to be taken by developers, builders or property owners in
flood prone areas to prevent or reduce damage from flood hazards and
the risks upon human safety(Policy EH 4.1.1).
• Identify tsunami and seiche susceptible areas, and require that specific
measures be taken by the developer,builder or property owner,during
major redevelopment or initial construction, to prevent or reduce dam-
age from these hazards and the risks upon human safety (Policy EH
5.1.1).
• Support land use patterns,zoning ordinances,and locational criteria that
prohibit development in hazard areas,or which significantly reduce risk
from seismic hazards (Policy EFi 1.12).
• Evaluate the levels of risk based on the nature of the hazards and assess
acceptable risk based on the human,property,and social structure dam-
age compared to the cost of corrective measures to mitigate or prevent
damage (Policy EH 1.1.4).
• Establish specific priorities for improvement of existing structures based
on hazard to life, type of occupancy, method of construction, physical
condition,and location (Policy EH 122).
• Require that earthquake survival and efficient post disaster functioning
be a primary concern in the siting,design,construction,operations,and
retrofitting standards for critical,essential,and high occupancy facilities,
including public safety facilities. Define critical essential,high occupancy
facilities,and public safety facilities elsewhere in the Draft General Plan
(Policy EH 1.3.4).
7/18i9&1\RSG63MJMSECT4.3 VM* 4.3-12
• Encourage property owners to take adequate steps to protect their prop-
erty against economic risks of seismic and geologic hazards (Policy.EH
1.3.5).
• Minimize bluff and mesa edge erosion (Policy EH 2.1.1).
• Maintain and revise as necessary standards of construction within identi-
fied Methane Zones (Policy EH3.2.1).
• Establish,enforce,and periodically update testing requirements for sites
proposed for new construction within the identified Methane Overlay
District(Policy EH3.2.2).
• Provide mitigation measures and other assistance intended to reduce the
potential for the buildup of methane with existing buildings (residences
and businesses) (Policy ES3.2.3)•
• Remain current on new technologies, policies and procedures to further
protect against a major methane-related catastrophe (Policy EH3.2.4).
• Conduct periodic,training of Fire Department and other appropriate
emergency personnel on procedures in the Methane Hazards Mitigation
Plan (Policy EH3.3.3)•
• Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate
school facilities. Require that development impacts be reviewed by the
City with the developer and with the School Districts prior to project
review for determination of necessary mitigations to school impacts.
Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the
intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project ap-
proval by the permitting City authority. Appropriate mitigation may
include,but not be limited to, use of existing facilities or surplus sites,
expansion of capacity at existing sites, construction of new facilities,
payment of fees,and reduction of densities(Policy LU2.1.7).
General Plan Implementation Programs
• Implement the fault classification system suggested by Leighton&Associ-
ates (April 17, 1986)with regard to faults in the City susceptible to fault
rupture, and establish a study requirement based on risk and structure
importance (Program I-EH3,B).
• Use the EHE and the data from items a) and b) above to prepare and
submit a formal update of the seismic safety components of the Safety
Element requirement(Program I-BHI,C).
• That proposed critical, essential,and high occupancy facilities be subject
to seismic review,including detailed site investigations for faulting,lique-
faction, ground motion characteristics, and slope stability, and applica-
7118i96«I:\RSG630ZM SECT4-3-WPD» 4.3-13
tion of the most current professional standards for seismic design (Pro-
grain I-EH4).
Conduct,prepare,and/or update the following as funding permits:
• A Methane Hazards Guidance manual, which will be available to emer-
gency personnel, developers and consultants in order to ensure the
minimum proper guidance for all occurrences. Topics shall include,but
not necessarily be limited to, methane overlay districts, standards of
construction, definition of additional hazards areas, and hazard mitiga-
tion. This manual shall be available at the permit stage prior to initial
feasibility and design studies in order to enhance (streamline) the devel-
opment review and environmental review processes (Program I-EHI,A).
• Request that the Orange County Surveyor update its Subsidence Book
report through 1993 for the Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach
Pump station,and Huntington Beach. The City shall perform an evalua-
tion of the data to assess possible subsidence at the oil field and drilling
areas underlying the City. Based on the results of this evaluation, a miti-
gation program for reducing the potential hazards shall be prepared for
use by the City(Program I-EHI,A).
4.3.6MITIGATTON MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not required.
4.3.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MTITGATTON
With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above,the effects of
geologic hazards within the Merged Project Area are reduced to the greatest
extent feasible and impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant.
7/18i96KI.\RsG630�E=ECI43 VPD» 4.3-14
4.4 WATER QUALITY
This section provides an overview of the water resources identified within the
City of Huntington Beach in general, and as conditions apply to the Merged
Project Area. This section discusses potential impacts to those resources result-
ing from the Amendment/Merger. The information presented here is taken
primarily from the General Plan Update EIR and from reference documents
provided by LSA.
4.4.1 ZUSYING F-NVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Water resources relevant to the Merged Project Area include flood control chan-
nels, wetlands and the Pacific Ocean. These water resources serve a variety of
functions, including navigation, recreation, commercial and sport fishing, shell-
fish harvesting, and habitat for fish and wildlife. There are no water resources
within the Merged Project Area that are subject to any change resulting from the
Amendment/Merger,with the exception of flood control channels. The Pacific
Ocean and the Newland Street wetlands adjacent to Main-Pier will not be af-
fected.
The greatest threat of impact to water resources and of primary concern to water
quality within the City is pollution from urban areas,. These substances enter
water bodies primarily through storm drains as a result of runoff and illegal
dumping. Because the Merged Project Area is nearly built out,and is of the same
urban character as the balance of the City, it already contributes to the urban
runoff pollution in the City of Huntington Beach, as reported in the General
Plan Update EIR.
Criteria for the protection of water quality of the various waters within the City
are established by the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and the California Ocean Plan,
both of which are administered by the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). These plans provide both qualitative and quantitative objectives and
standards for protection of water quality throughout the region. In addition to
these water quality plans, the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)program,implemented pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, estab-
lishes strict limitations on point discharges of pollutants into the nations'waters.
The NPDES permit focuses on the elimination of illegal municipal and industrial
stormwater discharges into the County's stormwater drainage system and the
implementation of Best Management Practices(BMPs).
The SWRCB adopted a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit (Gen-
eral Permit) pursuant to NPDES requirements. This permit applies to all con-
struction activities resulting in a land disturbance of five acres or more. The
General Permit does not apply to those areas of land disturbance of less than five
acres. The general permit establishes criteria for protection of receiving waters
during project construction.
The General Permit requires all owners of land where construction activity
occurs (dischargers) to:
7l19/96C[.\RSG630\Eat,,SECr44.VM) 4.4-1
1. Eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems
and other waters of the nation (as identified on U.S.Army Corps of Engi-
neers maps),
2. Develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP),and
3. Perform inspections of stormwater pollution prevention measures (con-
trol practices).
The General Permit authorizes the discharge of stormwater associated with
construction activity from construction sites. However,it prohibits the discharge
of materials other than stormwater.
Within the Merged Project Area,NPDES permits are administered by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The RWQCB relies on water quality
testing information from a number of County agencies that monitor water and
impacts of various water quality conditions. These permits and testing results
are required and are reviewed for all relevant projects in the Merged Project
Area.
4.4.2 TBRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger would result in a significant impact
to water quality if development results in either or both of the following:
• Non-conformance with NPDES permitting regulations.
• Production of significant sedimentation and siltation pollutant discharge
from construction projects.
• Substantially degrade water quality.
4.4.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
There are a number of water quality issues that are concerns within the City of
Huntington Beach. The most significant of these concerns affects the coastal
waters, bays, estuaries and wetlands, as well as the man-made lake features
located in the City's Central Park. The Merged Project Area is not expected to
have land uses or activities that will contribute to the decline in water quality of
these resources. There are no plans to change land uses on the beach area,
which is the primary resource in the Merged Project Area.
Because the Merged Project Area is primarily built out and there is no new devel-
opment proposed with the Amendment/Merger, the Amendment/Merger is not
expected to significantly impact water quality. Future redevelopment within the
Merged Project Area will be subject to project specific water quality mitigation,
including compliance with the Drainage Area Master Plan prepared by the
County of Orange for compliance with municipal stormwater NPDES require-
7/1"6(I:%RSG63o\Ent,,SECT4-4.VM) 4.4-2
ments. In addition, compliance with General Plan policies enumerated in Sec-
tion 4.4.5, below, will ensure that there will be no significant impact on the
environment. General Plan policies and current City practices ensure compli-
ance with NPDES permitting regulations. Sedimentation and siltation pollution
discharge from construction impacts are controlled through the NPDES permit-
ting process. In conclusion, there are no significant impacts to water quality
from the Amendment/Merger.
4.4.4 CUJHHA77VE IMPACTS
Because of the citywide nature of these resources and the urban nature of the
City and the Merged Project Area, the cumulative study area is considered to be
the City itself. As stated above, the Merged Project Area is primarily built out
with urban uses. The relatively small amount of infill projected for the Merged
Project Area (see Section 4.1, Land Use) and required compliance with NPDES
and other existing mitigation (see Section 4.4.5, below) reduces impacts to a
level that is less than significant. No cumulative impacts to water resources
within the City of Huntington Beach or surrounding areas are expected to occur
as a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Several policies included in the General Plan will assist in minimizing the poten-
tial impact on water resources.
4.4.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan includes several policies contained in the Environmental
Resources/Conservation Element and Utilities Element of the General Plan to
reduce water quality impacts that are relevant to the Amendment/Merger. The
applicable policies are as follows:
• Improve infrastructure that would prevent sewage system failures that
may result in the discharge of untreated sewage and, consequently, in
the closure of beaches and Huntington Harbour(Policy ERC 2.124).
• Require that permits for mineral/oil reclamation projects specify compli-
ance with State, federal and local standards and attainment programs
with respect to air quality,protection of rare,threatened or endangered
species, conservation of water quality,watersheds and basins, and ero-
sion protection(PolicyERC3.22).
•. Continually monitor the implementation and enforcement of water
quality regulations by appropriate County, State and federal agencies to
prevent additional pollution of the City's aquatic and intertidal environ-
ments (Policy ERC 5.1.1).
• Continue to evaluate and mitigate the effects of domestic and industrial
wastes on living marine resources, through the conduct of objective
biological studies performed by appropriate regulatory agencies and
implementation of recommended mitigation measures by property own-
7/i9/96(1.\RSG6301E=ECT4-4.VM) 4.4-3
ers or facility operators, to ensure the protection and viability of these
biological communities (Policy ERC5.1.2).
• Continue to work with the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency on the draft countywide ordinance,which will require (Policy U
2.3.2):
a. All applicable industries and businesses to obtain sewer discharge
permits;
b. Elimination of illegal and illicit stormwater discharges;
C. A reduction of point source pollutants;
d. The use of Best Management Practices by businesses in the City;
and
e. The implementation of all NPDES and SCAQMD regulations.
Until such ordinance is adopted, the City will ensure appropriate en-
forcement procedures are taken against pollution as set forth in the draft
countywide ordinance.
• Require efforts which reduce urban storm water, including the (Policy
ERC 2.1.18):
a. Use of the best available runoff control management techniques
in new development,including the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System Standards (NPDES);
b. Adoption of guidelines to reduce runoff from construction sites;
these implementation guidelines will be developed with the
guidance and approval of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the State Water Resources Control Board;
C. Establishment of runoff controls for soils removed in restoration
and/or remediation of oil sites;and
d. Development of plans to modify flood control channels that
empty into the Bolsa Chica, Huntington Beach Wetlands and
beach areas; these modifications should enhance the upstream
ability to remove harmful constituents from runoff before enter-
ing the wetlands,while not altering their flood control ability.
Implementation Programs
Continue to expand the following programs (Program I-UI,B):
• The NPDES,as appropriate,which includes:
7/19196(I:\R4G63TE RISECT4-4.VM) 4.4-4
Adopting an ordinance patterned after the countywide ordinance
requiring industries and businesses, and construction activities
larger than five acres to obtain regulatory permits for pollution
runoff control;
Adopting a drainage area management plan for the City to con-
trol pollution runoff;and
Performing a reconnaissance survey of the discharges to elimi-
nate illegal and illicit surface water and groundwater discharges;
• Public education promoting water conservation;
• Water use audits for all City owned buildings. The audit program shall
identify levels of existing water use and potential conservation measures;
• The Green Acres and other reclaimed water programs;and
• Local, State,and federal requirements mandated by SCAQMD. Consider
assessing fees,where appropriate,to offset implementation costs.
4.4.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
None required.
4.4.7 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Implementation of applicable General Plan policies will minimize Amendment/
Merger impacts on water quality, resulting in impacts that are less than signifi-
cant.
7/19i96a\RSG630TZR\,5EC r4-4 VM) 4.4-5
4.5 AIR QUALITY
4.5•Z EXISTING ENURON.MENTAL SE7TIIVG
Meteorology/Climate
The Merged Project Area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, which is
within the South Coast Air Basin. The local climate is dominated by the strength
and position of the semi-permanent high pressure center over the Pacific Ocean
near Hawaii. This high pressure center results in cool summers, mild winters,
and infrequent rainfall. It also drives the cool, daytime breezes, maintaining
comfortable humidities and ample sunshine. These same atmospheric processes
that create a desirable living climate restrict the dispersion of air pollution.
Coastal areas (such as Huntington Beach), however, typically experience very
little unhealthy air quality often found in other parts of the air basin.
Based on data obtained through the South Coast Air Quality Management Dis-
trict (SCAQMD) (1980), temperatures in the coastal portions of Orange County
average 61°F,with average summer temperatures of approximately 68 to 71'F
and average winter temperatures of approximately 51 to 53'F. Rainfall averages
around 12 inches per year in the coastal areas. In contrast to a very steady pat-
tem of temperature,rainfall is seasonally and annually highly variable,with most
rain falling from November through April.
On-shore winds across the south coastal region are from a westerly and south-
westerly direction during the day; easterly or northeasterly breezes predominate
at night. Wind speed tends to be somewhat greater during the dry summer
months than during the rainy winter season.
Periods of air stagnation may occur, both in the morning and evening hours
between the periods of dominant air flow. These periods of stagnation are one
of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. Surface
high pressure systems over the Great Basin, combined with other meteorological
conditions, can result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds during the
winter and fall months. These winds normally last for a few days before predom-
inant meteorological conditions are reestablished.
Within the South Coast Air Basin, two types of inversions occur. Radiational
inversions are produced by offshore descending air flows and nighttime
radiational cooling. For the most part, these inversions are dry because of the
continental origin of the air masses involved. However,with high surface hu-
midity, there can be patchy late night and early morning fog or widespread
dense fog lasting several days. Marine/subsidence inversions serve to cap the
surface marine layer and serve as a barrier to vertical mixing because air that
pushes through the inversion base is heavier than the air in the inversion and
returns to equilibrium by sinking below the base. The combination of winds and
inversions, coupled with their seasonality, lead to the degraded air quality in
summer and the generally good air quality in the winter in the air basin.
7/19,96KI.\RSG630\EMt$ECT4-5 WM)* 4.5-1
Regulatory Background
Federal Regulations/Standards
The passage of the Federal Air Quality Act of 1967, subsequently known as the
Clean Air Act (or CAA), provided the fast national program to control pollution
from automobiles and stationary sources. National Ambient Air Quality Stan-
dards (NAAQS) were subsequently established under the Clean Air Act Amend-
ment(CAAA)of 1971. These air quality standards are classified as either primary,
which seek to protect human health, or secondary,which are designed to pro-
tect not only human health but property, the appearance of the air, and re-
sources such as crops,wildlife,and vegetation.
States could adopt the federal standards as promulgated,but retained the option
to adopt more stringent standards and/or include other pollutants. California
began setting air quality standards in 1969 with the passage of the Mulford-
Carrell Act,before NAAQS were established; California standards are more strin-
gent than federal standards. The State and federal standards are listed in Table
4.5 A. Note that,in addition to its more stringent ambient air quality standards,
California uses more stringent regulations than the federal government for
vehicle emissions, under a program administered by the CARB. In addition to
the six criteria pollutants covered by the NAAQS,there are California Ambient Air
Quality Standards (CAAQS) for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, and
visibility reducing particles. These standards are shown in Table 4.5A.
These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe,with an adequate
margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are.designed to
protect those "sensitive receptors"most susceptible to respiratory distress,such
as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by
other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. A
description of each pollutant type and its effects is included in Table 4.5.B.
Congress amended the CAA in 1977 to require the identification of areas that did
not meet the NAAQS. A"nonattainment"plan showing how the standards would
be met by 1982 was required for each area failing to meet the standard. Because
some areas in California could not attain the standards by 1982, the State was
granted an extension to 1987. In November, 1990, Congress again enacted a
series of amendments to the CAA intended to intensify air pollution control
efforts across the nation. One of the primary goals of the 1990 amendments was
to overhaul the planning provisions for those areas that did not meet NAAQS.
Not satisfied with the progress of the local actions, public interest groups suc-
cessfully challenged EPA's decision not to disapprove respective 1982 State
plans, and sought orders requiring EPA to promulgate Federal Implementation
Plans(Fills). Pursuant to the amendments of 1990, EPA argued that it no longer
bad an obligation to issue FIPs because Congress had established comprehensive
new State planning requirements and attainment deadlines. Subsequently,the
U.S.District Court for the Central District of California agreed with the EPA,and
effectively vacated the orders for both the South Coast and Ventura FIPs. How-
ever,the District Court for the Eastern District concluded that the FIP obligation
remained,as did the U.S. Court of Appeals.
7n9y96<(1:Nxsc,63o�Y=Ecr4-s VM>> 4.5-2
Table 4.5.A-Ambient Air Quality Standards
California Standards) Federal Standards
_ Pollutant Averaging TIme Concentration3 Method' Primary3'5 Secondary3'6 Method'.7
0.09 pm (180 Ultraviolet Pho- 0.12 pm (235 Same as Primary Ethylene Chemilumines-
Ozone 1 Hour P&/m�) tometry pgw) Std. cence
8 Hour 9.1 ppm(10 mg/- Non-dis ersive 9.1 ppm (10 mg/-
Carbon Mon- m ) Infraredperpsive os- m ) Same as Primary Non-dispersive Infrared
oxide 1 Hour 2Q ppm (23 mg/- copy(NDIR) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) Stds. Spectroscopy(NDIR)
Annual Average --- Gas Phase 0.05334 ppm (100
Nitrogen DI- Chemiluminescen ug/m ) Same as Primary Gas Phase Chemilumi-
oxide 1 Hour u� $)pm (470 Ce _-_ Std. nescence
m
Annual Average --. 0.1,j ppm (80 mg/- ___
Sulfur Diox- Ultraviolet Fluo- m
ide
0.05 ppm8 (131 rescence 0.1 ppm (365 Pararosaniline
24 Hour m ---
Annual Geomet- 30 ug/m3 Size Selective Inlet
ric Mean High Volume ••" '"" '""
Suspended Sampler and
Particulate ulate 24 Hour 50,cg/m3 G,ravimetric Anal- 150 pg/m3
Matter(PM10) ysis Same as Primary Inertial Separation and
Annual Arithme- 3 Stds. GravImetric Analysis
tic Mean 50/�g/m
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 Turbldimetric Bar- _"- ___ ___
ium Sulfate
30 Day Average 1.5 pg/m3 Atomic Absorp- -
Lead tion 3 Same as Primary Atomic Absorption
Calendar Quarter 1.5�cg/m Std.
Visibility Re- In sufficient ampunt to reduce the pre-
ducing Parti- 1 Observation vailing visibility'to less than 10 miles _•. _
cles when the relative humidity is less than
70 percent
Source; California Air Resources Board, California Air Quality Data for 1994.
7/19/96 I:VlSG630\PM\SECT4-5.WPD0 4.5-3
California Standards) Federal Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Method4 Primary3'5 Secondary3'6 Method4'7
Note: Table prepared In accordance with CARB Fact Sheet 38 (revised 7/88).
1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 hour and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and PM10 suspended
particulate matter are values that are not to be exceeded.
2 National standards, other than ozone and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means,are not to be exceeded more than once a year.
The ozone standard is attained when.the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard
is equal to or less than one.
3 Concentration expressed first In units In which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given In parentheses arc based on a reference temperature of 25°
C and a reference concentration of 760 mm of mercury (1,013.2 millibar); ppm in this table refers to parts per million by volume, or micromoles of
pollutant per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent procedure that can be shown to the satisfaction of the Air Resources Board to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality
standard may be used.
5 National Primary Standards:The levels of air quality necessary,with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Each state must attain the
primary standards no later than three years after that state's implementation plan is approved by the EPA.
6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a
pollutant. Each state must attain the secondary standards within a"reasonable time"after the implementation plan Is approved by the EPA.
7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "conslstent relationship to the
reference method"and must be approved by the EPA.
8 At locations where the State standards for ozone and/or suspended particulate matter are violated. National standards apply elsewhere.
9 Prevailing visibility Is defined as the greatest visibility attained or surpassed around at least half of the horizon circle,but not necessarily in continuous
sectors.
7/19N6«I:�RSG630\EMECT4-5.WPD» 4.5-4
Table 4.5.13 -Air Pollutant Descriptions and Effects
Pollutant Definition Source Associated Damage
Suspended Particu- Solid and liquid particulates of Combustion sources, cars, Industry Aggravates chronic lung disease,
lates soot,dust, aerosols,and fumes process losses,fugitive dust,field heart and lung disease symptoms
ranging from 0.01 to 100 microns and slash burning,and natural (especially PMia;the portion less
and averaging about 2 microns In sources,such as ocean spray and than 10 microns or 0.0004 inches
size (1 micron = 1/2,540 inch) wind-raised dust in diameter);causes material dam-
age and visibility reduction
Sulfur Dioxide A colorless,pungent,irritating Oil and coal combustion and indus- Aggravates asthma, heart, and lung
(SO2) gas try process losses disease in the elderly; irritates
lungs,corrosive to metals and mar-
ble;causes plant damage
Carbon Monoxide A colorless,odorless gas that is Incomplete combustion sources, Interfere with the blood's ability to
(CO) highly toxic mostly cars carry oxygen,causing heart diffi-
culties in those with chronic dis-
eases; reduces lung capacity; im-
pairs mental abilities
Photochemical Oxi- Mostly consists of ozone,which is Photochemical processes in the Irritates eyes,causes damage to
dants (ozone) a toxic gas atmosphere by reaction between lung tissue,and impairs lung func-
oxides of nitrogen and hydrocar- tions; causes material and plant
bons in the presence of sunlight damage
Nitrogen Dioxide A reddish-brown gas, toxic in Conversion of nitric oxide (from Increases chronic bronchitis and
(NO2) high concentrations autos and combustion sources) and irritates lungs
industrial sources
Nonmethane Hy. A large family of compounds con- Autos,evaporative fuel and solvent Participates in oxidant formation
drocarbons sisting of hydrogen and carbon losses,and industry and combus- and causes plant damage (methane
tion processes is produced naturally by decay or
organic matter and Is not signifi-
cant in oxidant formation)
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)Air Quality Handbook.
Note: In this document,the terms nonmethane hydrocarbons (HC),volatile organic compounds (VOCs),reactive organic com-
pounds (ROC),and reactive organic gases (ROG) are used synonymously.
7/19/96«1,\RSG630\j!=ECT4-5.wPD» 4.5-5
Neither the proposed nor the final FIN relieve the State and local agencies of
their continuing responsibilities to comply with the requirements of the 1990
CAAA, and these agencies were still required to submit their own ozone attain-
ment plans in the form of State Implementation Plans (or SIPs) by November,
1994.
State Regulations/Standards
The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was most recently revised in 1994.
This revision of the AQMP is designed to satisfy the planning requirements of
both the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act. Requirements to
meet the federal CAA required the inclusion of the following demonstrations or
plans:
• An ozone attainment demonstration,
• A post-1996 rate of progress demonstration,and
• A PMlo State Implementation Plan that incorporates best available con-
trol measures for fugitive sources.
The 1994 revision is also designed to comply with State requirements. Accord-
ing to the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), districts must design their air quality
attainment plan to achieve a reduction in basinwide emissions of five percent or
more per year (or 15 percent or more in a three year period) for each
nonattainment pollutant (i.e.,a criteria pollutant that is out of compliance with
federal or State standards), or its precursors (i.e.,those pollutants that undergo
reaction to become criteria pollutants). For emission reduction accounting
purposes, the CARB has established a seven year initial reporting period from
1988 to 1994,with reporting.intervals every three years thereafter. Therefore,
the 1994 AQMP must seek to achieve a 35 percent reduction for the initial pe-
riod and a 15 percent reduction for every subsequent interval.
The CCAA also requires that the 1994 AQMP control measures reduce overall
population exposure to criteria pollutants,with a 40 percent reduction due by
the end of 1997 and a 50 percent reduction in 2000. This provision is applicable
to ozone, CO,and NO2 in the Basin.
Baseline Air Quality
Existing levels of air quality near the Merged Project Area are best characterized
from ambient air quality measurements conducted by the SCAQMD at its Los
Alamitos and Costa Mesa monitoring stations. Although there are no known
data resources currently available through which differences can be demon-
strated, those portions of the Merged Project Area located in proximity to the
ocean would be expected to have better air quality than reported. Table 4.5.0
summarizes the SCAQMD data obtained at these two stations from 1990 through
1994.
7n9/96-LWG-eO3 E1MEcr4-s VPD► 4.5-6
Table 4.5.0-Air Quality Monitoring Summary for the Los Alamitos and
Costa Mesa Air Monitoring Stationsl
(Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded and Maximum Levels During
Such Violations)
Pollutant/Standard 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Ozone 29 37 30 22 24
1 hour> 0.09 ppm
12 23 21 10 3
Ozone 7 10 9 4 5
1 hour> 0.12 ppm
3 5 3 1 0
Ozone 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.15 0.21
Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm)
0.15 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12
Carbon Monoxide NM2 NM NM NM 0
8 hour> 9.5 ppm
4 0 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 0
1 hour> 35 ppm
0 0 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 0
8 hour>9.1 ppm
5 0 1 0 0
Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 0
1 hour> 20 ppm
0 0 0 0 0
Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 12
Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm)
13 10 13 10 10
Carbon Monoxide NM NM NM NM 8.6
Max.8 hour conc. (ppm)
10.7 8.1 9.1 7.3 7.9
Nitrogen Dioxide NM NM NM NM NM
1 hour> 0.25 ppm. 0 0 0 0 03
The upper value represents the Los Alamitos station and the lower value
represents the Costa Mesa station. (Note that in 1994 the Los Alamitos
and Anaheim Stations were combined into the Central Orange County
Station.)
2 NM-Not monitored.
3 Does not include the entire 12 months and may not be representative.
7n9/96<<I.NRSG43UXMSECT4-5 VPn» 4.5-7
r
Pollutant/Standard 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994
Nitrogen Dioxide NM NM NM NM 0.19
Max. 1 hour conc. (ppm)
0.22 0.16 0.23 0.14 0.161
Total Suspended Particulates 103.4 79.6 63.8 56.8 63.5
Annual geometric mean
NM NM NM NM NM
Total Suspended Particulates 834 176 122 168 131
Max. 24 hour conc. (gg/ml)
NM NM NM NM NM
Particulate Sulfate 0 0 0 0 0
24 hour > 25 kcg/ml
NM NM NM NM NM
Particulate Sulfate 16.8 16.9 16.0 14.7 14.5
Max.24 hour conc. (ug/ml)
NM NM NM NM NM
Particulate Lead NM NM NM 0 0
1 Month > 1.5 Ag/ml
NM NM NM NM NM
Particulate Lead NM NM NM 0.07 0.06
--� Max.Monthly(ug/mi)
NM NM NM NM NM
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) NM NM NM NM 11161
(exceedances/#samples)
24 hour > 50 kig/ml NM NM NM NM NM
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) NM NM NM NM 0/61
(exceedances/#samples)
24 hour > 150 9 /ml NM NM NM NM NM
Inhalable Particulates (PM10) NM NM NM NM 106
Max.24 hour conc. (gg/m})
NM NM NM NM NM
Source:South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Data Monitor-
ing Summary Cards, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1994.
The upper value represents the Los Alamitos station and the lower value
represents the Costa Mesa station. (Note that in 1994 the Los Alamitos
and Anaheim Stations were combined into the Central Orange County
Station)
2 NM-Not monitored.
3 Does not include the entire 12 months and may not be representative.
7/19i96«I:WG630\EIIZtSECT4-5 VM* 4.5-8
As shown in Table 4.5.C, most pollutant species showed a marked reduction in
1993. Ozone levels continue to exceed both the State and federal air quality
standards during portions of the year. Note that the two stations show consider-
able differences for ozone with the more coastal Costa Mesa station exhibiting far
fewer exceedances of both the State and federal standards. Both carbon monox-
ide and nitrogen dioxide exhibit this trend, with the coastal location showing
reduced concentrations. The standard for nitrogen dioxide has not been ex-
ceeded over the last five years. The eight hour State standard for carbon mon.
oxide was violated in both 1990 and 1992; the federal standards was violated
only in 1990. The State PM10 particulate standard was violated approximately 18
percent of the time in 1994, the only year monitored at the Central_Orange
County Station, but no violations of the federal standard were reported. Al-
though no monitoring for PM10 was conducted between 1990 and 1993, it is
reasonable to believe that the State standard was exceeded during this time.
4.5.2 TMESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In accordance with the methodology presented in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (Handbook) (1993),both quantitative and qualitative stan-
dards are used to determine the significance of a project's air quality impacts.
These impacts are considered significant if they:
• Result in emissions that exceed daily emission criteria established by the
SCAQMD and contained in the SCAQMD Handbook and presented be-
low.
Construction
Pollutant Daily Criteria Quarterly Criteria
CO 550 lbs/day 24.75 ton/qtr
NO, 100 lbs/dap 2.5 tons/qtr
ROG 75 lbs/day 2.5 tons/qtr
SO, 150 lbs/day 6.75 tons/qtr
PM10 150 lbs/day 6.75 tons/qtr
Operations
Pollutant Daily Criteria
CO 550 lbs/day
NO, 55 ibs/day
ROG 55 lbs/day
sox 150 lbs/day
PM10 150 lbs/day
7/19i96«I:\RSG630\E=ECT4-5 VM* 4.5-9
• Result in emissions that exceed State or federal air quality standards
(including CO hotspots),
• Violate SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) or Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust), or
• Emission levels not in conformance with the Air Quality Management
Plan or other regional or local attainment plans.
4.5.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Air quality impacts can be divided into both short term and long term. Short-
term impacts are usually associated with construction and grading activities.
Long-term impacts are typically associated with build out conditions. Although
most long-term emissions are due to increased automotive use, nominal emis-
sions are also associated with on-site combustion involved in both space and
water heating,and the off-site generation of electrical power used on site. Reac-
tive organic emissions are also associated with the storage and dispensing of fuel.
Construction
Exhaust Emissions
Heavy equipment and materials deliveries would produce combustion pollut-
ants and fugitive dust at construction locations slated for redevelopment. ROG
emissions are also generated from the construction and refurbishment of asphalt
roads and from the application of paints and architectural coatings. These are
highlyvariable and dependant on the type of asphalt/coating used,its thickness,
and method of application. Because the level of construction to be performed at
any one time is unknown, the potential for construction impacts,is based on a
qualitative analysis. However,to aid the regulatory agencies in the determina-
tion of the potential for significant impacts, quantitative values are provided for
the construction of various types of land uses.
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new
development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment
Plans or the City's General Plan. The following information on construction
emissions is provided to address potential construction emissions of the Merged
Plan that are addressed in this EIR. These potential impacts have been previ-
ously addressed in the General Plan Update EIR.
Because the Merged Project Area is to have a small amount of square footage and
number of homes constructed as part of the Amendment/Merger, and it is un-
known what level of construction could occur at any one time,this analysis fo-
cuses on the various emissions associated with the construction of the various
types of land uses. The quantities of emissions released can be estimated from
screening data presented by the SCAQMD in the Handbook and reproduced
here as Table 4.5.D. The daily emissions rate is then calculated as follows:
7/19,96«I:WG.6307-n;�5ECT4-5 VM>» 4.5-10
I
Table 4.5.1)-Screening Table for Estimating Total Construction
Emissions)
Emission Factors
Unit of
(Lbs/Construction Period)
Land Use Measure CO NO,, ROG PM,0
Residential
Single Family Housing 1,000 sq.ft GFAZ 75.62 347.74 23.66 24.69
Apartments 1,000 sq.ft GFA 70.22 322.9 21.97 22.93
Condominiums 1,000 sq.ft GFA 68.06 312.97 21.3 22.22
Mobile Homes 1,000 sq.ft GFA 68.06 312.97 21.3 22.22
Education
Schools 1,000 sq.ft GFA 150.16 690.52 46.99 49.03
Commercial
Business Park 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85
Day Care Center 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Discount Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Fast Food 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Government Office Complex 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85
Hardware Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 132.87 611.04 41.58 43.39
Medical Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 .814.72 55.44 57.85
Motel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 132.87 611.04 41.58 43.39
Movie Theater 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 177.17 814.72 55.44 57.85
Resort Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 132.87 611.04 41.58 43.39
Restaurant 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Shopping Center 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Supermarket 1,000 sq.ft GFA 101.55 466.97 31.78 33.16
Industrial
All Major Uses 1,000 sq.ft GFA 104.79 481.88 32.79 34.22
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Air Quality Handbook.
1 Construction emissions included on-site construction equipment and worker's travel.
2 GFA-Gross floor area.
7/19)96KI:\RSG630\EII;SECT4-5 VM* 4.5-11
r
1. The project's square footage is determined.
2. This area is then divided by 1,000.
3. This resultant value is multiplied by the emissions factors presented in
Table 4.5.D.
4. This value is then divided by the number of days necessary to construct
the project.
If this resultant value exceeds the daily emissions criteria,the project is deemed
to have a significant impact for daily emissions. This analysis is based on several
factors for the additional development in the Merged Project Area.
With most construction utilizing diesel equipment, NO, is the limiting factor
because it has among the strictest criterion and is produced in the greatest qua-
ntities. Table 4.5.E lists the minimum construction period per 1,000 square feet
for those land uses identified in Table 4.5.D that are projected to remain within
the criteria levels.
Another way to gauge the potential daily impact from construction equipment is
to examine the maximum amount of equipment that can operate on a daily basis
before the daily threshold levels are exceeded. The Handbook presents these
data for screening purposes to determine whether a project is potentially signifi-
cant. These data are presented by equipment type in Table 4.5.F. Again, these
data are for screening purposes,and individual projects should undergo analysis
to determine their emissions' contributions. Additionally, these data do not
include other emissions,such as worker commutes and haul trips,that must also
be considered in the daily threshold levels.
Based on these screening tables,it is noted that construction has the potential to
create short-term significant impacts, especially if more than one area is to un-
dergo construction simultaneously.
Fugitive Dust
Site clearing,grading,equipment travel on unpaved surfaces,and demolition of
existing improvements will generate considerable quantities of fugitive dust,and
potentially asbestos, during the development of most projects. As with exhaust
emissions, the level of construction to be performed at any one time is un-
known.
AP-42 (EPA 1985) estimates that each acre of land disturbed generates 1.2 tons
per month(110 pounds per day) of total suspended solids (or PM30)particulate
matter from dust lofting into the air. This value will vary with soil moisture,silt
content,wind speed,and several other factors. The unhealthful,regulated PMio
fraction typically consists of about 45 percent of the PM30 or about 50 pounds
per acre disturbed per day. Based on these values, the grading of an area of
three acres would produce about 150 pounds of PM10 per day. Typical dust
7119/96(<I.WG630TMC�sEcr4-5 vPD)o 4.5-12
Table 4.5.E-Screening Table for Estimating the Construction Period for
Various Land Uses That Will Remain Within the Significance Criteria'
Pounds of
NOx per Unit Days of
Land Use Unit of Measure of Measure Construction
Residential
Single Family Housing 1,000 sq.ft GFA3 347.74 3.5
Apartments 1,000 sq.ft GFA 322.90 3.2
Condominiums 1,000 sq.ft GFA 312.97 3.1
Mobile Homes 1,000 sq.ft GFA 312.97 3.1
Education
Schools 1,000 sq.ft GFA 690.52 6.9
Commercial
Business Park 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1
Day Care 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Center
Discount Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Fast Food 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Government Office Complex 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1
Hardware Store 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 611.04 6.1
Medical Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1
Motel 1,000 sq.It GFA 611.04 6.1
Movie Theater 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Office 1,000 sq.ft GFA 814.72 8.1
Resort Hotel 1,000 sq.ft GFA 611.04 6.1
Restaurant 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Shopping Center 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Supermarket 1,000 sq.ft GFA 466.97 4.7
Industrial
All Major Uses 1,000 sq.ft GFA 481.88 4.8
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Air Quality Handbook.
1 Construction emissions include on-site construction equipment and workers travel.
2 Days of construction per unit of measure that will remain below the 100 pound per
day NOx criterion.
3 GFA-Gross floor area.
7n9/9&IAxs"3aXM\,$Ecr4-5 WPC► 4.5-13
Table 4.5.F-Number of Pieces of Construction Equipment That Can Be
Operated on a Daily Basis And Will Not Exceed the SCAQMD Daily
Significance Threshold by Type'
Gasoline Diesel
Equipment Type Powered Powered
Determining Factor Carbon Nitrogen
Monoxide Oxides Threshold
Threshold (100 Lb/day)
(550 Lb/day)
Wheeled Loader 4 6
Wheeled Tractor 7 9
Roller 5 14
Fork Lift-50 Hp 4 28
Fork Lift- 175 Hp 4+ 8
Trucks (Off-highway) _ 3
Tracked Loader _ 15
Tracked Tractor _ 9
Scraper _ 3
Motor Grader 5+ 17
Miscellaneous 4 7
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality
Handbook.
(+ -An additional piece of equipment in this category may be operated for four
hours or less per day and remain below the threshold levels for this equipment
category.)
1 Based on 8 hours of operation per day at 100 percent load factor.
7/1"64<1:\RSG630\EIMECT4-5.WPD» 4.5-14
r
control measures, as required under SCAQMD Rule 403 (Dust), will reduce
these values by about 50 percent,allowing the grading of an area of up to about
six acres per day. However, PMio associated with equipment and vehicle travel
must also be considered, and the area that may be worked is reduced to about
five acres per day. Grading on a larger area would be expected to produce a
significant impact.
In addition to degradation of the air quality,this dust creates a soiling nuisance
as it settles out on parked cars, landscaping, and other horizontal surfaces.
Regular watering and adherence to SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance) and other
dust abatement procedures,typically implemented as a normal part of construc-
tion activity,will aide in the control of this nuisance; and any dust settlement
will result in an adverse,but not significant,air quality impact.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
Another area of potential concern relates to the material contained within any
dust raised during construction activities. Although most dust created through
construction is inert, some of the Main-Pier and Yorktown areas has been used
to extract crude oil. Petroleum residue,if present in the soil,could be stirred up
during grading operations. This residue acts as a binder to trap fine soil particles
that might otherwise escape into the air during handling. These larger particles
settle out of the air much more rapidly than unagglomerated particles,creating
a potentially significant,localized health impact.
Along with contaminated soils,there is the potential to raise dust contaminated
with asbestos from any structures to be razed. This asbestos may occur in pipe
and wall insulation, roofing and floor tiles, and acoustic ceiling treatment.
Uncontrolled demolition of such a structure could release friable asbestos and
produce a localized health impact.
Operations
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new
development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment
Plans or the City's General Plan. The following information on construction
emissions is provided to address potential construction emissions of the Merged
Project. These potential impacts have been previously addressed in the General
Plan Update EIR. The Agency has not established firm development plans for the
Merged Project Area at this time; thus, this analysis is founded on projections
included in the General Plan. This analysis is based on the following additional
development in the Merged Project Area: 530 single family residential units,80
multifimilyunits,600 timeshare/hotel rooms,260,000 square feet of commercial
space,and 3,000 square feet of industrial uses.
7/i9i96KI:\RSG63OWM$ECT4-5 WPD» 4.5-15
Project Vehicle Trips
Operational emissions impacts stem mainly from the use of motor vehicles;
nominal emissions are also associated with on-site combustion involved in both
space and water heating, and the off-site generation of electrical power used on-
site. Reactive organic emissions are also associated with the storage and dispen-
sation of fuel used in the operation of project related vehicles.
The Merged Project Area totals 619 acres, or approximately 3.5 percent of the
City's acreage. As with the City in general,proposed redevelopment will include
low, medium, and high density residential, commercial, and general industrial
land uses. The analysis is based on general factors for the various land uses;no
design details are available. Projected vehicle trips and associated mileage for
the project areas are included in Table 4.5.G.
Exbaust Emissions
Using vehicle trips and mileage predicted in Table 4.5.G,vehicle emissions were
developed using data included in the Handbook. This analysis considers emis-
sions produced from vehicle travel, cold and hot starts and,for residential land
uses, diurnal emissions. Trucks are proportioned in accordance with ratios
projected in the Handbook_ Emissions projected for vehicle use are included in
Table 4.5.H.
Secondary Impacts
Other air quality impacts will also occur indirectly because of Merged Project
implementation. These indirect impacts,although individually small, can make
a substantial contribution to regional air quality when totaled for the County
overall. These secondary impacts include:
• Increased fossil fuel combustion in County power plants to produce
electrical energy used at the project site,
• On-site combustion of natural gas used for heating, hot water,and cook-
ing,and
• Increased evaporative emissions from storage and dispensation of fuel
for project related vehicles.
Each of these emissions sources is addressed below,and their daily contributions
are contained in Table 4.5.H.
7/19,96«I:\tsr630\Em\,5ECT4-5 WPDN 4.5-16
Table 4.5.G-Approximate Land Uses, Densities,and Daily Trips
from Estimated Projects Within the Amendment/Mergerl
Trips per Miles per Total Miles
Land Use Number Trips Day Trip per Day
Single Family 530 units 12.0/unit 6,360 8.6 54,696
Residential
Multifamily 80 units 8.6/unit 688 8.6 5,917
Residential
Timeshare/Hotel 600 rooms 3.16/unit 1,896 6.5 12,324
Commercial 260 ksg2 70/ksq 18,200 6.8 123,760
Industrial 3 ksq 13/ksq 39 11.3 441
Totals — — 27,183 197,138
Source: LSA Associates,Inc., 1996.
1 Based on best available information on potential projects that may be
related to or assisted by Agency activities.
2 ksq-1,000 square feet.
7/i9i964(I:vRSG630\EM�SECT4-5.tiVPD» 4.5-17
Table 4.5.H-Operational Emissions from Estimated Projects
Within the Amendment/Merger
On-Site
Passenger Electrical Combustion of Fuel Total
Emission Vehicles Tracks Generation Natural Gas Dispensation Emissions
Source (Lb/day)' (Lb/dav)2 (Lb/dav)3 (Lb/daV)4 (Lb/day) (Lb/day)
Carbon 2,311.3 410.3 7.0 4.6 NA5 2,733.2
Monoxide
Nitrogen 149.9 188.6 40.2 22.2 NA 400.9
Oxides(NOx
as NO,
Reactive 60.2 50.0 0.3 1.2 14.7 126.4
Organics
Sulfur 19.3 13.4 4.2 NEG6 NA 36.9
Oxides(SOx
as SO2)
PMro 40.6 17.0 1.4 NEG NA 71.6
Particulate
Matter
Source:LSAAssociates,Inc., 1996.
1 Based upon 2009 emissions data. Emissions are based on the SCAQMD run of EMFAC7EP. Passenger
Vehicles include 24,549 nips generating 175,453 miles per day with 53.00 percent cold and 47.00 percent
hot starts and 100 percent hot soaks. Passenger vehicle emissions also include diurnal emissions for two
vehicles for each of the 610 residential units.
2 Based upon 2009 emissions data. Emissions are based on the SCAQMD run of EMFAC7EP.Truck
emissions include 3,034 trips generating 21,685 miles per daywith 51.73 percent cold and 48.27 percent
hot starts and 100 percent hot soaks. All vehicles are assumed to travel at an avenge speed of 25 mph.
3 Includes the generation of 34,984 kilowatt-hours per day and emission factors presented in Table A9-11-B
of the Handbook
4 Includes the combustion of 227,994 cubic feet of natural gas per day and emission factors presented in
Table A9-12-B of the Handbook
5 NA-Not applicable.
6 NEG-Negligible,value is less than 0.05 pound per day.
7/19/96+cLWG630\,EIK\SECT4-5 WPDN 4.5-18
Q,ff Site Electricity Gmeration Emissions
Each dwelling unit (including timeshare units) is anticipated to use
5,626.5 kilowatt-hours (kwh)per unit per year(SCAQMD, 1993)• Based on the
occupancy of 610 units,annual electrical consumption is calculated at 3,432,165
kwh per year or 9,403 kwh per day.
The Handbook indicates that hotels consume 9.95 kwh per square foot per year.
This analysis assumes that each of the 600 timeshare/hotel rooms is 750 square
feet. The electrical use is then calculated at 4,477,500 kwh per year or 12,228
kvvh per day.
Commercial and industrial land uses are more difficult to determine, as use
factors are dependent on the actual proposed land use as well as the square
footage developed. However,in accordance with current land uses described in
the General Plan,for the purposes of this analysis,commercial was divided into
the following:
Office - 10.6 percent @ 12.95 kwb/sq ft year
Retail - 67.4 percent @ 13.55 kwh/sq ft/year
Dining - 4.8 percent @ 47.45 kwh/sq ft/year
Food Sales - 9.3 percent @ 53.30 kwb/sq ft/year
Misc. - 7.9 percent @ 10.50 kwh/sq ft/year
Based on the above,the average electrical consumption for commercial applica-
tions is 18.57 kwh per square foot per year. Using SCAQMD electrical use rates
presented in the Handbook, the approximately 260,000 square feet of new
commercial land uses are estimated to use 4,828,200 kwh per year or 13,228
kwh per day.
New industrial land uses are estimated to occupy approximately 3,000 square
feet. While the Handbook does not give electrical use factors for industrial land
uses, it does present factors for both warehousing and miscellaneous land uses.
Because warehousing makes up less than one percent of the total land use in the
City of Huntington Beach,all industrial uses are assigned the higher use rate for.
miscellaneous land uses(Le., 10.5 kwh per square foot per year). Industrial land
uses are projected to use 34,984 kwh per year or 86 kwh per day.
Total daily electrical consumption is estimated at 34,984 kwh per day. Emissions
produced in the generation of electrical energy are included in Table 4.5.H.
Or-Site Gas Combustion Emissions
Per the SCAQMD, the consumption of natural gas is dependent on the type of
structure. According to the Handbook, each of the 530 projected single family
and 80 multifamily dwellings will use 6,665 and 4,011.5 cubic feet per month
per unit, respectively. If the 250 timeshare units are considered as multifamily
dwellings and the hotel units are also included,total residential natural gas use
is calculated at 6,013,370 cubic feet per month. Commercial applications are
estimated to use 2.9 cubic feet of natural gas per square foot of structure per
7/19/96<<L•\tSG630XHZfi$ECT4-5.VM* 4.5-19
month for an additional 754,000 cubic feet per month or 25,133 cubic feet per
day. The Handbook estimates that industrial operations use 241,611 cubic feet
of natural gas per customer. No explanation is given as to the size or type of
customer. Assuming an average industrial customer at 10,000 square feet, the
3,000 square feet of projected industrial use would then use 72,483 cubic feet
per month or 2,416 cubic feet per day. Total natural gas consumption is esti-
mated at 227,994 cubic feet per day. Emissions for the combustion of this gas
are included in Table 4.5.H.
Increased Evaporative Emissions from the Storage and Dispensing of
Gasoline for Project Related Vehicles
As previously demonstrated, vehicle trips from the Merged Project are antici-
pated to generate 197,138 miles per day. Of this travel, approximately 89 per-
cent(i.e., 175,453 miles) is projected to be passenger vehicles while the remain-
ing 11 percent (i.e., 21,685 miles)would be from trucks. Based on a projected
fuel consumption of 30 miles per gallon for passenger vehicles, 5,848 gallons of
gasoline would be consumed daily. Per AP-42, Section 4.4-14, the combined
vapor loss for underground tank filling, breathing, and fuel dispensing (includ-
ing spillage)is presented as 3.1 pounds per 1,000 gallons throughput. Using the
value of 5,848 gallons per day,volatile losses due to service station operations
are then calculated to be 14.6 pounds per day. This loss is shown in Table
4.5.H.
Heavy trucks typically require diesel fuel. These trucks are estimated at 6.7 miles
per gallon. Based on a total distance of 21,685 miles, 3,237 gallons of diesel
would be consumed on a daily basis. The storage and transfer of diesel are not
expected to add substantially to air emissions. AP-42 lists transfer operations for
diesel loading from tank trucks as 0.03 pound per 1,000 gallons transferred.
Due to the low Reid vapor pressure of diesel,evaporative losses from on-site and
off-site diesel storage are even lower. However, the transfer of this fuel into
storage tanks will produce an additional 0.014 pound of ROG per 1,000 gallons.
Total daily diesel emissions are estimated at 0.1 pounds per day. These emis-
sions are also included in Table 4.5.H.
Total Emissions for Project Occupancy
Table 4.5.H presents the totaled emissions for vehicle travel, off-site electrical
power generation, natural gas combustion, and fuel evaporation. Note that
these emissions do not include any augmented vehicle trips associated with the
refurbishment of Huntington Beach Mall As presented in the table, the project
will produce amounts of CO, NO2, and ROG in excess of the SCAQMD signifi-
cance criteria. (When Huntington Center is considered,all emissions would be
greater than presented, but SO, and PMto are still projected to remain below
their criteria values) This constitutes a significant adverse impact on air quality.
It is important to note that the Amendment/Merger will not result in any new
development that has not been analyzed as part of the previous redevelopment
plans or the City's General Plan. According to the General Plan Update EIR,
7/19,96(<I-WG630\EM\SECT4-5.VM)o 4.5-20
future development allowed under the General Plan would generate an addi-
tional 151,775 pounds of carbon monoxide, 8,612 pounds of reactive organic
gases, 12,221 pounds of nitrogen oxides,933 pounds of sulfur oxides and 2,200
pounds of fine particulate matter per day over current emission rates in the City.
These General Plan emission increases at General Plan build out exceed
SCAQMD's quantitative thresholds and therefore are considered to be significant.
Carbon Monoxide Microscale Analyse
As mentioned in Section 4.5.2, air quality impacts are significant if generated
emissions cause an exceedance of any ambient air quality standards promulgated
at the State and the federal levels. This is demonstrated through a CO analysis.
Because CO does not readily dissipate into the air, it has the potential to stag-
nate,especially at congested intersections. Areas of localized CO concentrations
in excess of State or federal ambient air quality levels are called hotspots.
The General Plan Update predicts hotspots at the five intersections reviewed.
These include Beach Boulevard at Ellis Avenue, Bolsa Avenue at Golden West
Street, Brookhurst Street at Hamilton Avenue, Golden West Street at Garfield
Avenue,and Warner Avenue at Bolsa Chica Street. Each of these intersections is
projected to operate at LOS E at build out, in the year 2010. Because traffic
originating from the Merged Project Areas is distributed throughout the City
circulation network, all intersections are relevant to the Merged Project Area.
Based on this premise, it is projected that any intersection operating at LOS E or
worse (and perhaps some major intersections that are projected to operate at
LOS D) would have the potential to create CO hotspots. These hotspots are
significant if they expose local receptors to concentrations in excess of either
State or federal ambient air quality standard levels. This potential for exposure is
ultimately dependant on the locations of proximate sensitive receptor locations.
Without accurate data as to the placement of redevelopment structures,it is not
possible to determine whether relocated residents would be exposed to
exceedances of the CO standards. Therefore,at this time the potential to expose
receptors to CO concentrations in excess of criteria levels is considered as a
potentially significant impact. Further analysis will be required as individual
projects undergo CEQA review prior to their construction. Those intersections
containing volumes of traffic sufficient to create significant hotspots in the
Merged Project Area will be mitigated on a project by project basis,potentially
reducing these impacts to a level that is less than significant.
Consistency with the AQMP
CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the AQMP. A consistency deter-
mination plays an essential role in local agency project review.by linking local
planning and unique individual projects to the AQMP in the following ways. It
fulfills the CEQA goal of fully informing local agency decision makers of the
environmental costs of the project under consideration at a stage early enough
to-ensure that air quality concerns are fully addressed. It provides the local
agency with ongoing information assuring local decision makers that they are
making real contributions to clean air goals contained in the 1994 AQMP and
7n9y964<I.\TSG630\E=Ecr4-5 VM)o 4.5-21
PMlo Plan. Only new or amended General Plan Elements, Specific Plans, and
significantly unique projects need to undergo a consistency review. The reason
is that the AQMP strategy is based on projections from local General Plans.
Therefore,projects that are consistent with the local General Plan are considered
consistent with the air quality related regional plan.
The Amendment/Mergerwill not require a General Plan update. Such an update
was recently completed (Envicom, 1995) and the updated General Plan was
found to be consistent with the AQMP. Because the recent update of the Gen-
eral Plan included the build out of the City, the build out of the Merged Project
Area was included in the analysis and is also consistent with the AQMP.
4.5.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The City's General Plan Update EIR, which assesses the build out of the City, of
which the Merged Project Area is a part, made the finding (page 5.4-16) that
future growth in the Northwest Orange County Subregion would result in fur-
ther increases in short-term construction, as well as long-term stationary and
non-stationary emissions. The General Plan Update EIR further stated that if this
growth is not accommodated within SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan or
adequately addressed by other jurisdictions' General Plans, attainment of State
and federal standards could be delayed and could result in a cumulatively signifi-
cant impact.
The City's General Plan Update EIR made the following finding, which is re-
peated for this Amendment/Merger since the development is within the overall
General Plan build out:
The level of development permitted under the Draft General Plan would
inevitably result in an increase in emissions concentrations that already
exceed State and federal standards. Although implementation of the
Draft General Plan's air quality element would serve to minimize this
increase, the presence of CO hotspots at busy traffic intersections may
never be fully mitigated. Consequently, air quality impacts are consid-
ered to be significant and unavoidable (Class I),requiring a Statement of
Overriding Considerations to adopt the General Plan.
4.5.5 G ENFRAT.PLANPOMCIES
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Air
Quality Element of the General Plan that will lessen air quality impacts resulting
from vehicle trips and reduce ambient CO concentrations.
In addition, the applicant shall provide mitigation for secondary source emis-
sions(i.e.,emissions associated with stationary sources within the development)
through the General Plan policies listed below. During development review and
prior to issuance of building permits, the City will assure confirmation that the
applicable General Plan Air Quality Element policies have been incorporated
into the redevelopment projects to the maximum extent feasible.
7/19Y964(I.WCS 630\EImsECT4-5 VM-* 4.5-22
These key policies provide a well rounded approach to reducing the potential
secondary impacts to air quality generated by the implementation of the Rede-
velopment Plan and subsequent build out of the redevelopment area. Imple-
mentation of these policies serves to reduce the number of vehicle trips and
reduce ambient CO concentrations. The applicable policies are as follows:
• Encouragement of alternate work schedules (Policy AQ 1.1.1).
• Require all businesses and multiple tenant centers with 100 or more
employees to participate in a Transit Management Association or Organi-
zation (Policy AQ 1.12).
• Encourage funding, research, implementation and evaluation of
telecommuting and teleconferencing (Policy AQ 1.1..4).
• Encourage on-site day care facilities, on-site automated teller machines,
telecommuting and/or teleconferencing facilities (Policy AQ 1.1.3).
• Work with OCTA to expand the local transit service area and provide
more frequent service (Policy AQ 2.1.1).
• Require developers and encourage existing property owners of employ-
ment centers with 100 or more employees and major activity centers to
include transit amenities and access as an integrated part of their projects
(Policy AQ 2.1.2).
• Encourage major commercial and industrial development projects lo-
cated along transit routes to include integrated transit access points in
the project design (Policy AQ 2.1.4).
• Require that employment centers with 100 or more employees increase
the availability and attractiveness of parking spaces for vans and carpools
(Policy AQ 3.12).
• Encourage funs to offer alternative schedule work weeks to employees
who carpool(Policy AQ 3.1.3).
• Encourage residential and commercial growth to occur in and around
existing activity centers and transportation corridors (PolicyAQ 5.1.1).
• Encourage commercial-residential mixed use development (Policy AQ
5.1.3).
• Encourage day care facilities to be located at work sites with 100 or more
employees (Policy AQ 5.1.4).
• Investigate the feasibility of providing new Class II bike lanes (Policy AQ
6.1.1).
• Continue to improve existing Class II bike lanes for bicycle travel (Policy
AQ 6.1.2).
7119N6KI.\RSG630W"ECT4-5-VFr- 4.5-23
r
• Encourage all new residential developments to incorporate pedestrian
paths to link the projects with adjacent developments and transit access
points (Policy AQ 6.1.3).
• Encourage commercial developments to provide facilities for employees
and patrons who bicycle to the sites (Policy AQ 6.1.4).
• Continue to implement the Traffic Signal Management Program and
synchronize all other traffic signals, when such technology becomes
economically feasible (Policy AQ 7.1.1 and 7.1.2).
• Encourage the provision of dedicated parking space with electrical out-
lets for electrical vehicles (Policy AQ 7.1.3).
• Convert city owned vehicles to alternative fuels as it becomes economi-
cally and technically feasible (Policy AQ 7.1.6).
• Require installation of temporary construction facilities and implementa-
tion of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto
public roadways (Policy AQ&1.2).
• Assure that sufficient buffer areas exist between a sensitive use and a
potential toxic emission source (Policy AQ 9.1.1).
• Require design features, operating procedures, preventative mainte-
nance operator training and emergency response,planningto prevent
the release of toxic pollutants for applicable uses in all business park,
industrial parks and industrial designated areas (Policy AQ 9.1.2).
• Encourage retrofitting of energy conservation devices in existing devel-
opments (Policy AQ 10.1.2).
4.5 6MITIGATIONMEASURES
The following recommendations will assist in reducing air quality impacts result-
ing from future development and redevelopment within the Merged Project
Area. The recommended mitigation measures are as follows:
Consfmction Exhaust Emissions
4.5 A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. How-
ever,exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled
by the applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard
mitigation measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible.
The measures to be implemented are as follows:
• Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment;
• Maintain equipment in tune,per manufacturers specifications;
7l1"&<LWG630\E W$ECT4-5.wpv» 4.5-24
r
• Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment;
• Use reformulated,low-emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel
powered equipment,where feasible;
• Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged
periods (i.e.,more than five minutes);and
• Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high
ambient pollutant concentrations (i.e.,Stage 2 smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construc-
tion site inspections.
Fugitive Bust
4.5-B The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accor-
dance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emis-
sions and ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during
construction.These measures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site,unpaved roads,and in parking areas;
• Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening;
• Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seed-
ing and watering;
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to ero-
sion over extended periods of time;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed exca-
vated soil during and after the end of work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices;
• Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction,
in coordination with local public agencies;
• Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent
public thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling;
• Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance
with Rule 403 requirements;
• Wash off trucks leaving site;
7n9Y96,AI:NRSG63oVIR\SEcr4-5 wen» 4.5-25
r
• Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks;and
• Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable
means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will
raise significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application.
• Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be
utilized. The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt
should be avoided whenever possible.
• Where feasible,low VOC paints,primers, and coatings,as well as
precoated materials,shall be specified.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site as-
sessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that
locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extrac-
tion process has occurred,the soils will be remediated using appropriate
techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the
generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. These activities
would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which
would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unfor-
seen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during excava-
tion activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the
area could be evaluated and remediated as appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed
by personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing
asbestos will be removed and disposed in accordance with sound engi-
neering practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these mea-
sures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level
that is less than significant.
4.5.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MHTGA770N
Implementation of the above mitigation measures will reduce the construction
air emission impacts to a level below significance. The measure with the greatest
potential to mitigate construction emissions to a level that is less than significant
will result from the phasing of construction such that major portions of the
Merged Project do not overlap. Therefore, because all construction efforts
(including the refurbishment of the Huntington Beach Mall) are unlikely to
occur during the same time period and because the construction impacts will be
7n9i96«j:\xsG63oNEM\$Ecr4-5 VM* 4.5-26
temporary,it is anticipated that construction related impacts will be mitigated to
below a level of significance.
As stated in Section 4.5.4, Cumulative Impacts, cumulative impacts were de-
scribed in the General Plan Update EIR. Because the Amendment/Merger does
not change General Plan land uses or increase development intensity,there are
no additional impacts not previously disclosed in the General Plan Update EIR.
With implementation of required General Plan policies and the mitigation mea-
sures included in this section above, impacts are reduced to a level that is less
than significant.
7n9A6«LUZsc,63n=Ecr4-5.VM>> 4.5-27
4.6 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
This Transportation and Circulation section is based on the analysis prepared for
the Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR. Technical data for the General
Plan Update EIR are taken from a traffic report (dated October 24, 1994;
amended March 21, 1995) prepared by DICS Associates, on file with the City of
Huntington Beach Community Development Department. Major findings of the
study are summarized in this section of the EIR for the Amendment/Merger.
4.6.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMFJVTAL SETTING
This section summarizes the circulation system infrastructure and its operating
conditions within the Merged Project Area of the City of Huntington Beach. The
components of the circulation system in the Merged Project Area include the
following:
• Streets and Highways
• Transit Service
• Rail Systems
• Bicycle Routes.
The basic components of the Huntington Beach circulation system are described
below.
Streets and Highways
The roadways of the circulation system are classified according to their design
and operation. The roadways have been grouped into the following categories:
Freeway, Principal Arterial Street, Major Arterial Street, Primary Arterial Street,
Secondary Arterial Street and Collectors.
Figure 4.6.1 displays the Citys existing circulation network and the Merged
Project Area. Table 4.6A provides the existing design and capacity criteria for
the City's network.
Table 4.6A-City of Huntington Beach
Design Criteria for Arterial Streets and Highways
Maximum
Maximum Width Maximum
Right of Way Cato-Curb Number of Median Width Capacity at
Classification (feet) (feet) lanes (feet) LOS C(ADT)
Freeway Variable Variable 4 Variable 55,000
Variable Variable 6 Variable 100,000
Variable Variable 8 Variable 135,000
Principal N/A N/A 8 14 60,000
Major 120 104 6 14 45,000
Primary 100 84 4 14 30,000
Secondary 80 64 4 0 20,000
80 64 2 0 5,000
Source: City of Huntington Beach,GPEIR,July,1995;Bruce Gilmer,Department of Public Works.
7/18/96ul WCr6W�ECT"-WPD)o 4.6-1
V V O
O W Cr W
ca
1 'SEAL WESTMINSTER
I� 1 �
BEACH BOLSA �� c
5
Y z ARGOSY -
g u0
rADOEN
z yEL EDINGER
44-- HEL
WARNER FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
aa• ::'`:.,:, SLATER405
,\- •1•�� ' __ TALBERTORANGE
Ay,.• Dow 3 cc
0 ELL
ts
d Y
cc
cc
YORKTOWN
Pacific '= >>aA<h `.., 4AMS
t t
O c`e�ari` ...........�<; .. i
r•:•'r`y -1...............
-- ---�—f--�"'_ MANAPOLtS
K01.
Legend
l ATLWTA
City Boundary
Principal Arterial Street
wv;.•;:?aX%•X•x?k::Xu yy;yX!�-�•::
Major Arterial Street
'~C:w4::•w<r:ii>.i:A.. ...........
y:XJ.>X•aa[•r�„X �'
Primary Arterial Street .,..•a
,vwtii�v:" Wv:tJ..Jd:•N•W.. l
•� Secondary Arterial Street µW.is``'" :?.?�.. COSTA
%�i•�N:•a!ro%2.y..:hvv..nriY?::.. sJ MESA
NY.'!`?iFTn>'>XS:C'MJJ'iC!C.,v,'.w.">,N"' MESA
Collector Street <•. .... z-;'•w ,,.
.:i�c4rqO?aar>Fkv,.:p..S: $sna�y't•
Santa Ana River Bridge Crossing
Redevelopment Project Areas ......n xeik?�tar.'c:i:rtti%:�::f.:?c>::.
ource:City of Huntington Beach,Department of Community Development,General Plan Update]fit,July 1"5.
15/96(RSG630) Figure 4.6.1
is Wes Existing Network of
.1SAScale
o 0.5 1 4.6-2 Arterial Streets and Highways
Roadway Segment Characteristics and Capacity
Table 4.6.B provides roadway characteristics for all arterial highways within the
study area relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area. Characteristics are
for both directions of a roadway unless otherwise noted.
Roadway traffic operation is generally evaluated by the ratio of existing daily
traffic volumes to the daily roadway capacity. Capacity is measured in terms of
the ability of the street system to meet and serve the demands placed on it.
Average daily capacity is the theoretical maximum number of vehicles that can
pass over a segment of roadway in 24 hours. The capacity of a roadway is af-
fected by a number of factors, including roadway type, street and lane widths,
the number of travel lanes,the number of crossing roadways,signal cycle length,
the absence or presence of on-street parking, the number of driveways, pave-
ment conditions and roadway design.
The County of Orange Growth Management Plan (GMP) Element of the General
Plan contains policies on the planning and provision of traffic improvements
necessary for orderly growth and development. The Traffic Level of Service
Policy sets,as general criteria,an operating Level of Service (LOS) of D for signal-
ized intersections, which would be a volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio of 0.90 or
less. The City of Huntington Beach accepted level of service value for arterial
links is LOS C (a V/C ratio of 0.80 to 0.89). For signalized intersections,it is LOS
D. These values will be used to assess the adequacy of the circulation system.
Existing Parking Conditions
Parking in Huntington Beach consists of on-street parking, public lots, private
driveways, and private lots. Table 4.6.B identifies the on-street parking supply
for those streets in the Merged Project Area. Parking deficiencies have been a
controversy for many years in Main-Pier, especially in the downtown area near
Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. However,several parking structures have
been added in the downtown area in recent years that have alleviated this prob-
lem. The City has adopted the Downtown Parking Master Plan,which includes
research and data showing that there is adequate parking in the downtown/pier
area for the development allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan.
Existing Daily Traffic Capacity Analysis
Existing daily traffic volumes along arterial streets are shown on Figure 4.6.2. An
analysis of daily operating conditions on the selected roadway segments was
conducted for the General Plan Update EIR,using the County of Orange and the
City of Huntington Beach Arterial ADT Capacities and Level of Service Assump-
tions. Table 4.6.0 includes a summary of existing roadway level of service (LOS).
7/18/9&(I:\RSG630\EM\SECT".WPDN 4.6-3
I
Table 4.6.13-Existing Merged Project Area Roadway Characteristics
Existing Number
of Travel Lanes
Ultimate Curb
Right to-Curb Median NB SB Bike
Roadway Name From To of-Way Width Width or EB or WB Parking Lane
WamerAve. Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Beach Blvd. Newland St. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Atlanta Ave. Lake St. 1st St. 100' 84' - 1 1 P N
1st St. Delaware St. 100' 84' - 1 1 PN N
Delaware St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84' - 2 2 P N
Beach Blvd. I-105 Edinger Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Edinger Ave. Heil Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Heil Ave. WamerAve. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
WamerAve. Slater Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
SlaterAve. Talbert Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Talbert Ave. Ellis Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Ellis Ave. Garfield Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Garfield Ave. Yorktown Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Yorktown Ave. Adams Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Adams Ave. Indianapolis Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Indianapolis Ave. Atlanta Ave. 120' 104' 14' 3 3 NP N
Atlanta Ave. PCH 120' 104' 14' 3 3 PE N
Slater Ave. Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 80' (A' 14' 2 2 NP Y
N/A- not available due to construction PS- parallel parking on south side of street only
NP- no parking PE- parallel parking on cast side of street only
P- parallel parking on both sides allowed PW- parallel parking on west side of street only
PN- parallel parking on north side of street only AP- angle parking on both sides
7/18/96 I:\RSG630\EIM$ECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-4
Table 4.6.11 (Continued)
Existing Number
of Travel Lanes
Ultimate Curb
Right to-Curb Median NB SB Bike
Roadway Name From To of-Way Width Width or EB or WB Parking Lane
Talbert Ave. Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84' - 2 2 P Y
Yorktown Ave. Golden West St. Main St. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 P Y
Main St. Lake St. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 NP Y
Lake St. Delaware St. 100' 84' 14' 2 2 PN Y
Delaware St. Beach Blvd. 100' 84' - 2 2 NP Y
6th.St. PCH Orange Ave. 100' 84' - 1 1 P N
1st St. PCH Atlanta Ave. 100' 84' - 1 1 P Y
Orange Ave. 6th St. Lake St. 100' 84' - 1 12 P N
PCH 17th St. 6th St. 120' 104' 14' 2 2 P Y
6th St. 1st St. 120' 104' 14' 2 2 P Y
1st St. Beach Blvd. 120' 104' 14' 2 2 P Y
N/A- not available due to construction PS- parallel parking on south side of street only
NP- no parking PE- parallel parking on cast side of street only
P- parallel parking on both sides allowed PW- parallel parking on west side of street only
PN- parallel parking on north side of street only AP- angle parking on both sides
7/18/96<<I:\RSG630\EMR SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-5
i
Table 4AB (Continued)
Existing Number
of Travel Lanes
Ultimate Curb
Right to-Curb Median NIl SB Bike
Roadway Name From To of-Way Width Width or EB or WB Parking Lane
EdingerAve. Golden West St. Gothard St. 100, 84' 14' 3 3 NP Y
Gothard St. Beach Blvd. 100, 84, 14, 3 3 NP N
17th St. PCH Orange Ave. 100, 84' 14' 1 1 P Y
Palm Ave. Main St. 100, 84' 14' 2 1 NP Y
Main St. PCH Walnut Ave. 100, 84, - 1 1 AP N
Walnut Ave. Orange Ave. 100, 84' - 1 1 AP N
Orange Ave. Palm Ave. 100, 84' - 1 1 P N
Palm Ave. Adams Ave. 100, 84, 14' 1 1 P N
Adams Ave. 17th St. 100, 84' 14' 1 1 P N
17th St. Yorktown Ave. 100, 84, 14' 2 2 P N
Yorktown Ave. Garfield Ave. 100, 84, 14' 2 2 NP N
Lake St. Orange Ave. 6th St. 100, 84' - 1 1 P Y
6th St. Indianapolis Ave. 100, 84, - 1 1 P Y
Indianapolis Ave. Adams Ave. 100, 84, 14' 1 1 P Y
Adams Ave. Yorktown Ave. 100, 84' 14' 1 1 P Y
Source: City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EUt,July,1995.
N/A- not available due to construction PS- parallel parking on south side of street only
NP- no parking PE- parallel parking on east side of street only
P- parallel parking on both sides allowed PW- parallel parking on west side of street only
PN- parallel parking on north side of street only AP- angle parking on both sides
7/18/96«I:\RSG630\E1R�SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-6
0 ♦'
w 0
x
9
momr1
' b
n p
Ej• ' Ate(„ ��1�� 31 13.000
gw '71 � ♦d''
�• ROl3A
CIRCA
♦' 11.000 Is.000 C 4.000 • .000
♦ S Rta
A.
�y ♦' 0�00 0000
ny .% SPAINODAlf It
7FOy f, 4090 1Moo ,3,000 17.000 7o.000 36.000 70,000FOWAADS
.•�
e '
m jboo 1,.000 11.00• 21.00 16.000 14.060
FG• � � rti
��o ♦, OOIOIHwl,r sr
J 4b Lf oo•
�% NUN�IS,000 N I3.000 76'000 '+ItoeO 3•,000 Y •I.00O,. 41,00 CtooO a•.000
r 01 7
u. � � � � � � � sr 17.000
.�! �_. � cor131R u,000 t•,000 1•,aoo u.000
}. 4.90
♦i o p AMR 7Et ..' „
' &M 4000 000• xp
♦� RfACS OIYD
! ,000
♦ r
ON as 000 ••,000 ".No •0.000 SLOW •3,000 •3,000
1 5�$• p
NCWIAN 10 t" - I7 000 1.000 17 000 1.000 IS"
1 1•,NO MOO ••
i
K660
i y
♦ NAONOl1A i-._ _ 8
i
.W0 3f
sr
lteoo 14.666 14.00 Is. �$y 1 .000�kj 14.446
1-•� ' i N < •g000� < � o < 8 � <
IlAft
.Opp NA00 .sr
►'� CDb.
~
, 7 ••`, < WARD < < sr
(� N
Table 4.6.0-Summary of Existing Roadway Level of Service
Roadway Capacities Average
Dally
Roadway Segment LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E Traffic LOS
Warner Avenue
Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 34,000 B
Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 21,000 A
Slater Avenue
Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 16,000 A
Beach Boulevard
PCH-Atlanta Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 28,000 A
Atlanta Ave.-Indianapolis Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 32,000 A
Indianapolis Ave.-Adams Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 40,000 C
Adams Ave.-Yorktown Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 44,000 C
Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 48,000 D
Garfield Ave.-Ellis Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 58,000 F
Ellis Ave.-Talbert Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 60,000 F
Talbert Ave.-Slater Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 60,000 F
Slater Ave.-Warner Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 62,000 F
Warner Ave.-Heil Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 62,000 F
Heil Ave.-Edinger Ave. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 65,000 F
PCH
Golden West St.-Brookhurst St. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 34,000 E
Edinger Avenue
Edwards St.-Golden West St. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 24,000 A
Golden West St.-Gothard St. 33,900 39.400 45,000 50,600 56,300 39,000 B
Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 33,900 39,400 45,000 50,600 56,300 39,000 B
Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 23,000 E
Talbert Ave.
Golden West St.-Gothard St. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 5,000 A
Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 10,000 A
17th Street
PCH-Orange Ave. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 1,000 A
Palm Ave.-Main St. 11,250 13,150 15,000 16,900 18,750 11,000 A
7/18/96«It\RSG 630\EMISECT4.6.WPD»
4.6-8
Table 4AC (Continued)
Roadway Capacities Average
Daily
Roadway Segment LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS B Traffic LOS
Main Street
PCH-Walnut Ave. 3,000 4,800 6,Oo0 7,500 9,000 3,000 A
Walnut Ave.-Orange Ave. 3,000 4,800 6,000 7,500 9,000 4,000 B
Orange Ave.-6th St. 3,000 4,800 6,000 7,500 9,000 4,000 B
6th St.-Adams Ave. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 12,000 E
Adams Ave.-171h St. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 15,000 F
17th St.-Yorktown Ave. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 15,000 A
Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 12,000 A
Yorktown Avenue
Golden West St.-Beach Blvd. 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 15,000 A
Beach Blvd.-Magnolia St. 18,750 21,900 25,000 28,150 31,250 14,000 A
Magnolia St.-Bushard St. 22,500 26,300 30,000 33,800 37,500 11,000 A
Bushard St.-Ward St. 18,750 21,900 25,000 28,150 31,250 13,000 A
Orange Avenue
6th St.-1st St. 3,000 4,500 6,000 7,500 9,000 3,000 A
Atlanta Avenue
1st St.-Beach Blvd. 7,500 8,800 10,000 11,300 12,500 10,000 C
Source.. City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995.
7/18,96aIr\RSG 630\[!M�$ECT4.6.W]?D»
4.G-9
The rapid dispersement of traffic actually originating or ending in the Merged
Project Area allows focus on roadway conditions that serve the Merged Project
Area and roadways/mtersections immediately adjacent to the Merged Project
Area. Roadways relevant or proximate to the Merged Project Area are shown in
the tables. Existing daily volumes were compared to their roadway capacities to
arrive at the existing LOS of operation for these roadways. The following Merged
Project Area roadway segments are currently carrying traffic volumes in excess of
existing LOS C capacity:
• Beach Boulevard. Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue(ZOS D)
• Beach Boulevard: Garfield Avenue to Ellis Avenue(ZOS F)
• Beach Boulevard: Ellis Avenue to Talbert Avenue(ZOS F)
• Beach Boulevard. Talbert Avenue to Slater Avenue(ZOS 19
• Beach Boulevard: Slater Avenue to Warner Avenue(ZOS F)
• Beach Boulevard.• Warner Avenue to Heil Avenue(ZOS F)
• Beach Boulevard. Heil Avenue to Edinger Avenue(ZOS 19
• Pacific CoastHighway: Golden West Street to Brookhurst Street(ZOS E)
• Main Street: 6th Street to Adams Avenue(ZOS E)
• Main Street. Adams Avenue to 17th Street(ZOS 19
These roadway segments,which are operating at unsatisfactory levels of service,
are shown on Figure 4.6.3.
Existing Intersection Capacity Analysis
Traffic volumes for each intersection were collected on a typical weekday during
a.m. and p.m.peak periods or obtained from the City's count program, County
of Orange's count program, Fuel Efficient Traffic Signal Management Program
(FE'IS1M) studies,or prior traffic analysis from other EM/EIS reports.
The intersection capacity utilization (ICU) is the methodology employed to
determine operating levels of service (LOS) at the signalized intersections (see
Table T-5 from the General Plan Update EIR). The ICU methodology is dis-
cussed in greater detail in Appendix D of the General Plan Update E1R
Table 4.6.1)displays the results of the LOS analysis for the intersections relevant
or proximate to the Merged Project Area for both a.m. and p.m. peak traffic
periods. Figure 4.6.3 also shows existing intersections operating at unsatisfac-
tory levels.
7/18i96«I.\RSG630\En;DSECT".WPD» 4.6-10
Cn _
6 G W W
SEAL WESTMINSTER
BEACH
` 6
S
Y = • p m
8 D • :Mc
—' ,:FADDEN
m Qv
y Q • O
2
T1 i t t t t • • 1 "'";3—EDINGER
-- HER
;�
1 ; •• D -`► WARNER FOUNTAIN
2 VALLEY
405
�i SLATER
COUNTY OF TALBERT of
. ORANGE 9v�
h y
(BOLSA CHIC3
cc
3 -ELLIS o 32
:y:s:::>r .:. r • • �. GARF .D
♦ I
♦ z •�.�.��.. YORK70WN
4
1 f
ADAMS
Legend
Bound ` `'`"` • Mtkk APous
City a
Roadway Segment Level of Service ATtArrTA
LOS F f
``> • HAMLMN
LOSE
LOS D BANNING
Intersection Level of Service
(ABTA
PM Peak Hour '<:<:.. •� • MESA
C A
LOS
AM Peak Hour F;.;Yc:::;#:;'>':t"N
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update ER,7/95.
1118J96(RSG630) Figure 4.6.3
N
Scale in== �leS Existing Intersections and Roadway Segments
LS- -A-- 0 0.5 1Operatin Below Level of Service C
4.6-11 g
Table 4.6.13-Existing A.M.and P.M. Peak Hour LOS at Signalized
Intersections
A.M.Peak Hour P.M.Peak Hour
Intersection V/C Ratio LOS V/C Ratio LOS
Edinger Ave.-Beach Blvd. a68 B 0.97 E
Warner Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.81 D 1.02 F
Slater Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.72 C 0.87 D
Talbert Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.65 B 0.77 C
Adams Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.53 A 0.75 C
Adams Ave.-Brookhurst St. 0.74 C 0.89 D
PCH-Goldenwest St. 0.78 C 0.64 B
PCH-Beach Blvd. 0.51 A 0.47 A
Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EM July, 1995.
7/18N6«L•\RSG630\-I MECT".WPD» 4.6-12
r
Existing Transit and Non-Motorized Service
The General Plan Update EIR describes the various transit options available
throughout the City (see General Plan Update EIR,Appendix D), including bus
service by the Orange County Transportation Authority(formerly OCTD).
Congestion Management Program (CUP) and Transportation Demand
Management(TDM)
In June of 1990, voters approved Proposition 111, which was a component of
the six-bill Transportation and Rail Bond Fund package. Proposition 111 gener-
ated funds through a gasoline tax to fund various transportation improvements
throughout the State. Orange County's share of these gas tax subventions is
estimated at$1.7 billion over a ten-year period.
The Orange County Congestion Management Program has designated all State
Highways within Orange County and a set of principal arterials (SMART Streets)
as the CMP's system of highways. Beach Boulevard is benefitting from these
funding expenditures. Warner Avenue is planned for improvements under this
program. The CUT network within the City of Huntington Beach includes:
• Beach Boulevard
• Warner Avenue
• Adams Avenue: Beach Boulevard to Harbor Boulevard
• Pacific Coast Highway:Warner Avenue to Interstate 405
• Bolsa Avenue
• Bolsa Chica Street
In accordance with the CMP, the City has adopted a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) ordinance, established a Capital Improvement Program
(CIP), and a level of service (LOS) deficiency plan. The City's TDM regulations
apply to any discretionary permit for commercial, industrial, institutional, or
other uses that are determined to employ 100 or more persons. A description of
the full program is provided in the General Plan Update EIR,pages 5-3 to 5-35.
4.6.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The City's accepted level of service for arterial links is LOS C. Therefore,a signif-
icant adverse traffic impact would result if implementation of the Amendment/
Merger would result in level of service conditions of D or worse at any of the
study roadway links.
The City's accepted level of service for traffic signal controlled intersections is
LOS D. Therefore,a significant adverse traffic impact would occur if implemen-
tation of the Amendment/Merger would result in level of service conditions of E
or worse at any of the study intersections.
7/18,96«I.\RSG630\EIIt\SECT".WPD» 4.6-13
4.6.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses the future circulation system requirements,year 2010, for
the Merged Project Area based upon build out of the General Plan. Because the
project is an Amendment/Merger of existing Redevelopment Projects/Plans,and
the Amendment/Merger does not include any new development, there is no
analysis provided beyond reporting conditions created at General Plan build out.
As stated in the Project Description,Section 3.0,all uses permitted in the Merged
Project Area are identical to those allowed by the General Plan. Therefore,
projected traffic conditions within and adjacent to the Merged Project have been
analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR, and impacts are identical to those
reported in the General Plan Update EIR.
Year 2010 Daily Tra,B``u;Capacity Analyse
Year 2010 daily traffic volume projections obtained from the General Plan Up-
date EIR are based on the Santa Ana River Area (SARA) model.' Model results
have been compared to the anticipated future roadway capacities to determine
the volume to capacity ratios and the corresponding level of service.
Review of Table 4.6.E shows that many of the roadway facilities within Hunting-
ton Beach are expected to operate better than LOS C. However, the following
roadway segments serving the Merged Project Area are expected to operate
worse than LOS C:
• Beach Boulevard: Yorktown Avenue to Garfield Avenue(ZOS D)
• Gotbard Street. Heil to Edinger Avenue(ZOS F7
• Gothard Street. Edinger Avenue to Center Avenue(ZOS E)
• Gothard Street: Center Avenue to McFadden Avenue(ZOS.
• Orange Avenue: 17tb Street to 6th Street(ZOS D)
• Padfic Coast Highway: Warner Avenue to Golden West Street(ZOS F)
• Pacific Coast Highway: Delaware Street to Beach Boulevard(ZOS D).
Year 2010 Intersection Capacity Analyses
Intersection capacity analysis was conducted for the year 2010 scenario for 32
key intersections within the City. Year 2010 turning movement counts were
extracted from the SARA model and were refined by Robert Kahn,John Kain and
Associates. Table 4.6.17 shows the results of the level of service analyses and
Figure 4.6.4 shows the intersection locations that are operating worse than LOS
D,which are outside of the Merged Project. Intersections directly adjacent to or
within the Merged Project Area are projected to operate at LOS C or better.
' The Santa Ana River Area (SARA) traffic model developed and refined by
Robert Kahn,John Kain and Associates was used to determine the future
baseline daily traffic forecasts.
7/18i96KLAIGG63WEI SECT".WPD» 4.6-14
Table 4.6.E-2010 Merged Project Area Roadway Level of Service Summary,
Average
Daily Roadway
Roadway Segment V/C Ratio I.oS Traffic Classification
Atlanta Avenue
1st St.-Beach Blvd. 0.64 B 24000 4-lane primary arterial
Beach Boulevard 0.48 A 27,000 6-lane major arterial
PCH-Hamilton Ave. 0.53 A 30,000 6-lane major arterial
Ellis Ave. -Talbert Ave. 0.65 B 49,000 8-lane major arterial
Slater Ave.-Warner Ave. 0.67 B 50,000 8-lane major arterial
Delaware Street
PCH-Hamilton Ave. 0.28 A 10,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Hamilton Ave.-Atlanta Ave. 0.28 A 10,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Atlanta Ave.-IndianapolIs Ave. 0.14 A 5,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Edinger Avenue
Golden West St. -Gothard St. 0.78 C 44,000 6-lane major arterial
Gothard St. -Beach Blvd. 0.75 C 42,000 6-lane major arterial
Deach Blvd. -Newland St. 0.71 C 40,000 6-lane major arterial
Gothard Street
Ellis Ave.-Talbert Ave. 0.36 A 13,000 4-1ane secondary arterial
Heil Ave.-Edinger Ave. 1.12 F 40,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Edinger Ave.-Center Ave. 0.93 E 33,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Center Ave.-McFadden Ave. 1.35 F 48,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Without Garfield and Banning Bridges,with Cross Gap Connector.
7/18/96«I;V1SG6301CIR`SECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-15
Table 4.6.E-2010WrgWroject Area>'Roadway Level of Service Summary-continued
Average
Daily Roadway
Roadway Segment V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Classification
Lake Street
PCH-Atlanta Ave. 0.35 A 13,000 4-lane primary arterial
Atlanta Ave. -Adams Ave. 0.29 A 11,000 4-lane primary arterial
Adams Ave. -Yorktown Ave. 0.37 A 14,000 4-lane primary arterial
Main Street
Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 0.69 B 26,000 6-lane major arterial
Garfield Ave.-Delaware St. 0.77 C 29,000 4-lane primary arterial
Delaware St.-Beach Blvd. 0.66 B 37,000 4-lane primary arterial
McFadden Avenue
Golden West St. -Gothard St. 0.70 C 25,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Gothard St. -Beach Blvd. 0.53 A 19,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Orange Avenue 0.20 A 7,000 4-lane secondary arterial
Golden West St. - 17th St. 0.81 D 29,000 4-lane secondary arterial
17th St. -6th St.
PCH
Golden West St.- 17th St. 0.78 C 44,000 6 lane major arterial
17th St.-6th St. 0.69 B 39,000 6 lane major arterial
6th St. -Lake St. 0.76 C 43,000 6 lane major arterial
Lake St.-Delaware St. 0.80 C 45,000 6 lane major arterial
Delaware St. -Beach Blvd. 0.85 D 48,000 6 lane major arterial
Without Garfield and Banning Bridges,with Cross Gap Connector.
7/18/96«I:\itSG630\EMECT4.6.WPD» 4.6-16
Table 4.6.E-2010""Project A- .re' ::.Roadway Level of Service Summary-continued
Average
Daily Roadway
Roadway Segment V/C Ratio LOS Traffic Classification
Slater Avenue
Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 0.48 A 17,000 4 lane secondary arterial
Talbert Avenue
Gothard St. -Beach Blvd. 0.32 A 12000 4 lane primary arterial
Yorktown Avenue
Golden West St. -Main St. 0.77 C 29,000 4 lane primary arterial
Main St. -Lake St. 0.56 A 20,000 4 lane secondary arterial
Lake St. -Delaware St. 0.36 A 13,000 4 lane secondary arterial
Delaware St. -Beach Blvd. 0.31 A 11,000 4 lane secondary arterial
17th Street
PCH-Orange Ave. 0.29 A 11,000 4 lane primary arterial
Palm Ave. -Main St. 0.48 A 18,000 4 lane primary arterial
Source: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995.
Without Garfield and Banning Bridges,with Cross Gap Connector.
7/18/96(<I:\RSG630\EM\;SECT4-6.WPD)> 4.6-17
1
Table 4.6.F-Year 2010 A.M.and P.M. Peak Hour LOS
at Signalized Intersections
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection V/C Ratio LOS V!C Ratio LOS
Edinger Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.88 D 0.82 D
Warner Ave. -Beach Blvd. 0.80 C 0.81 D
Slater Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.90 D 0.911 C1
Talbert Ave.-Beach Blvd. 0.72 C 0.82 D
Yorktown Ave.-Golden West St. 0.61 B 0.77 C
PCH-Golden West St. 0.70 B 0.70 B
PCH-Beach Blvd. 0.58 A 0.80 C
PCH-Brookhurst St. 0.68 B 0.66 B
Source: City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update M:R July 1995; DKS Associates,
March 21, 1995
1 LOS was determined using the intersection operational analysis methodology as
described in Chapter 9 of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
7/18/9&1:\FSC,630\En;(,SECT".WPD» 4.6-18
U � �
.�CnpU 4 O
G Z p ~
O G W W
SEAL WESTMINSTER
BEACH soLsaILI in
W
S `
Y • m
uc
c z — FA00.N
m
•
1?
--- ` HER
WARNER FOUNTAIN
-_--- 2 VALLEY
405
SLATER
. �o
COUNTY OF TALSERT Fq
ORANGE wy
3
N
.
(BOLSA CH1CA) a
M
J
•�. ELLIS o 5 x
::tit N Q G
m m
GARFIELD
.>......
's>: z_ YORKrOWN
4 t
's! ADASIS
•`,2GS
t
MIAWOL S
f ATL W7A
Legend >« 5
Cky Boundary
W ::;...
<` HMXTON
Roadway Seamenf Level of Service <`°`"` • .
BAWNG
LOSD
`' ' •• 1 COSTA
Intersection Level of Service =l •
a. ?;:'.; •� MESA
PM Peak Hour ;<' f` w >: `?> >, '•
Los
�--AM Peak Hau
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,7195.
'7119/96(RSG630) Figure 4.6.4
N
Scale in Miles Intersections and Roadway Segments
�� Operating Below Level of Service C
LS—A 0 0.5 1 Post General Plan Update Implementation
4.6-19
General Plan Update
The General Plan Update EIR describes how the General Plan reduces environ-
mental impacts on the City circulation network. This is accomplished through
the use of two basic tools: 1) improve roadway facilities, and 2) control land use
growth. Generally, it will be necessary for the City to coordinate with regional
agencies such as Caltrans and OCTA in an effort to control impacts. Because the
Amendment/Merger calls for a program of roadway improvements, including
those in the City's Seven Year Capital Improvement Program and those listed in
Chapter 3.0, it implements improvements consistent with the City's General
Plan and lessens traffic congestion,especially at Center Avenue and I-405.
A key component of the General Plan's Circulation Element is that roadway
geometrics and lane widths are proposed to change in order to accommodate
future traffic volumes. As Table 4.6.G indicates, there are five Merged Project
Area roadway segments that may require an increase in the number of lanes.
Based upon the threshold of significance of LOS C, all potential traffic impacts
on roadway segments would be mitigated to acceptable levels of service by these
improvements, except for one: Pacific Coast Highway from north of Beach
Boulevard to south of Brookhurst Street, a roadway segment serving,but outside
of, the Merged Project Area.
Table 4.6.G-Merged Project Area General Plan Roadway Segments
Change in Roadway Classification
Existing Proposed
Roadway* Classification Classification
Gothard Street: Heil Avenue to 4 lane secondary 6 lane major
McFadden Avenue
Orange Avenue: Golden West Street 4 lane secondary 2 lane collector
to Sixth Street
Pacific Coast Highway: N/O Beach 6 lane major 8 lane major
Boulevard to S/O Brookhurst Street
Warner Avenue: Gothard Street to 6 lane major 8 lane major
Magnolia Street
Yorktown Avenue: Golden West 4 lane secondary 4 lane primary
Street to Main Street
*None of the identified roadways require right-of-way acquisition.
Source: City of Huntington Beach,Community Development Department.
AMENDMENT1A=GE.R INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS
The Amendment/Merger includes Agency assistance and/or participation in a num-
ber of transportation improvements. In many of the cases,these improvements are
to alleviate congestion, remedy design problems, or offset anticipated growth in
background traffic combined with Merged Project Area development and economic
7118/96«l:\.RSG630,I=ECT".WPD» 4.6-20
growth. Specific roadway improvements are noted in this EIR in Section 3.5,and are
repeated below:
Oakview Area Complete improvements to streets,
street lights,alleys,and landscape.
Talbert-Beach Monitor maintenance requirements
of public infrastructure.
Center Avenue Complete construction of Center
Avenue street improvements and
traffic signal,and improvements to
signage and landscaping at the Hun-
tington Beach Mall.
Interstate 405 Improve I-405 off-ramp access to
Huntington Center. Improve I-405
cloverleaf landscaping and widen
McFadden/I-405 overpass.
Edinger Avenue Street Alignment Seek adoption of the specific plan
and construction of street improve-
ments,including consolidation of
ingress/egress points,unified signage
and landscaping.
Gothard Street and Hoover Street Construct street improvements to
Connection connect Gothard and Hoover Streets
to create another north-south arte-
rial to alleviate traffic congestion on
other north-south arterials.
These improvements include minor widenings, within the existing right-of-way,
restriping of streets, additional rum lanes and neighborhood protection measures
(cul-de-sac at Keelson and Elm). The exceptions to these minor improvements are:
1) McFadden Bridge widening, which requires additional non-City/non-Agency
funding to be constructed;and 2) the improvements to Center Avenue at Hunting-
ton Beach Mall.
Details of CenterAvenue improvements include a new driveway into the Huntington
Beach Mall. This driveway would be located directly across from the I-405 south-
bound off-ramp at Center Drive.
The proposed driveway will consist of one lane (14 feet wide) and will be restricted
j to inbound traffic only. No exits or left turns into the driveway will be permitted. In
1993, the owners of Huntington Beach Mall approached the City of Huntington
Beach with plans to change the tenants and uses for a portion of the shopping
center. Because of the changes of uses, which are still being finalized, the City
requested that the owners investigate the possibility of providing an additional,
direct access to the center from the I-405 off-ramps.
I
7/18/96«I-WG630%E $ECT".WMA 4.6-21
y
I
It is proposed that the new driveway be designated for inbound traffic only and be
restricted to direct access from the I-405 southbound off-ramp and right-turn only
from Center Avenue. Construction of this project will have no impact on mainte-
nance of the traffic signal or improvements at this interchange. A minimal amount
of landscaping will be removed from the westerly side of Center Avenue due to
construction of the proposed driveway fill. This driveway was proposed by the City
of Huntington Beach to assist in promoting business to the center by means of
providing a direct access from the freeway,making the plaza more of a regional than
a local shopping center.
The improvements included in the Amendment/Merger, as described above, will
provide general benefits to the Merged Project Area and to the City's roadway net-
work consistent with the circulation element of the General Plan.
Although circulation benefits are forecast as a result of the General Plan improve-
ments, the General Plan Update EIR traffic analysis concluded that a significant
unmitigable impact would occur along Pacific Coast Highway in the future build out
condition. The segment of Pacific Coast Highway north of Beach Boulevard to south
of Brookhurst Street is forecast to operate at unsatisfactory levels of service in the
General Plan build out scenario. This forecast condition is partially a function of
implementation of the General Plan, but is largely due to regional through traffic
along Pacific Coast Highway. Overriding considerations were adopted as part of the
General Plan Update EIR acknowledging the unmitigable impact.
As the Amendment/Merger maintains the same land use designations and intensities
as the General Plan, the Amendment/Merger is consistent with the findings of the
General Plan Update EM including the General Plan impacts, mitigation measures
and overriding considerations. The Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts
are the same as those in the General Plan. Therefore, no circulation impacts are
forecast that were not considered in the General Plan Update EIR. Furthermore,no
additional mitigation is required,and the overriding considerations adopted as part
of the General Plan are unaffected by the Amendment/Merger project.
4.6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Further growth and development allowed by the General Plan would result in an
increase in vehicle trips to and from the City of Huntington Beach,as well as genera-
tion of pass through vehicle trips. The impact of this regional"background"growth
was incorporated into the traffic model utilized in the General Plan analysis. There-
fore,all projected traffic levels and the LOS reported for the segments and intersec-
tions include cumulative conditions.
Several factors contribute to the conclusion that the Amendment/Merger will not be
locally or cumulatively significant. The land uses included in the Merged Plan are
identical to those designated in the City's General Plan. Therefore, the Amend-
ment/Merger does not result in land use changes,and traffic generation will not be
affected by the Amendment/Merger. With no increase in traffic, the Amend-
ment/Merger will not affect traffic levels of service or intersection capacity. The
cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan build out that are considered
significant and unavoidable are only PCH north of Beach Boulevard to south of
7/18i96«I.-\RSG630\ERlSECT".WPD» 4.6-22
Brookhurst Street. There are other similar impacts that were identified as significant,
but mitigatible. These impacts have been previously acknowledged by the City in
adopting the City's General Plan and certifying the General Plan Update EIR. There-
fore, the Amendment/Merger has no effect on that prior finding. Future projects
within the Merged Project Area,when implemented, represent a very small percent-
age of the total future traffic generated in the City.
Finally, the Merged Project Area is currently built out, with few opportunities for
new infill development. While future redevelopment projects may result in some
intensification of uses (and, therefore, increase in traffic). The intensifica-
tion/mcrease will be a small increment of existing background traffic increases. In
addition,because it is an objective of redevelopment to resolve infrastructure prob-
lems, future redevelopment projects have the means to resolve traffic impacts in
conjunction with the implementation of the project. This is demonstrated by the
circulation improvements already included in the list of infrastructure improvements
to be assisted by the Agency.
As previously discussed, the Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the
same as the General Plan. Therefore, cumulative General Plan impacts, mitigation
measures to address these impacts,and overriding considerations for those cumula-
tive General Plan impacts deemed unmitigable are unaffected by the Amendment/
Merger. The Amendment/Merger project is consistent with the findings of the
General Plan Update EIR, including the overriding considerations for the forecast
conditions along Pacific Coast Highway.
4.6.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Circulation
Element of the General Plan that will serve to lessen the impacts to traffic and circu-
lation resulting from the Amendment/Merger. The policies that are applicable to the
proposed project are listed below:
• Maintain primary truck routes that sustain an effective transport of commodi-
ties while mitigating the negative impacts on local circulation and on noise
sensitive land uses as shown in Figure CE-7 of the Circulation Element and
Figure N-1 of the Noise Element in the General Plan(Policy CE 1.2.3).
• Utilize Caltrans and City design criteria for any future truck routes within the
City(Policy CE 1.2.4).
• Maintain a dry-wide level of service (LOS)for links not to exceed LOS"C"for
daily traffic with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway south of Brookhurst
Street(Policy CE2.1.2).
• Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or
have reached,unacceptable levels of services (Policy CE 2.1.3)-
• Encourage and support the various public transit agencies and companies,
ride sharing programs,and other incentive programs,that allow residents to
7/18/96«I.\RSG630\M;$EC'r.".WPD» 4.6-23
r
utilize forms of transportation other than the private automobile(Policy CE
3.1.1).
• Augment the existing bus routes with any new bus routes designated in the
Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA) Future Transit Needs Study
as shown in Figure CE-8 in the General Plan(Policy CE3.1.2).
• Explore the possibility of a transportation center located in the vicinity of the
downtown commercial area(Policy CE3.1.4).
• Work with OCTA in pursuing a future urban trail transit system that services
the City of Huntington Beach(Policy CE3.1.5)•
• Provide for future use of water borne passenger services along ocean front-
ages`and harbor waterways(Policy CE3.1.7).
• Require developers to include transit facilities, such as park-and-ride sites,
bus benches,shelters, pads or turn-outs in their development plans,where
feasible as specified in the City's TDM Ordinance(Policy 3.2.1).
• Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of
demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use
(Policy CE5.1.1)-
• Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural
environment,the community image, or quality of life(Policy CE 5.1.2).
• Encourage the utilization of easements and/or rights-of-way along flood
control channels,public utilities, railroads and streets,wherever possible,for
the use of bicycles and/or pedestrians(Policy CE 6.1.5).
• Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to pro-
vide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments,schools
and public facilities(Policy CE 6.1.6).
• Require new development to provide accessible facilities for the elderly and
disabled(Policy CE 6.1.7).
• Encourage non-residential development to provide employee incentives for
utilizing alternatives to the conventional automobile,i.e.,carpools,vanpools,
buses,bicycles and walking(Policy CE 4.1.1).
• Encourage employers to use flex-time, staggered working hours and other
means,such as but not limited to the following,'to lessen commuter traffic
during peak hours(Policy CE 4.1.2):
' Includes Mitigation Measure T-1 as specified in EIR No.94-1,Table EX 1.
7/1"6«I:VRSG630\EM�SECT".WPn» 4.6-24
Bus passes that can be purchased on a monthly basis and sold to
employees at a reduced rate with proof that they consistently used
the transit system to commute.
Single Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) Parking Fees or a monthly parking
fee for SOV's using parking facilities.
Commuter Rideshare Matching Service or a database containing
employees zip codes and commuting preferences to be provided to
interested participants.
Guaranteed ride home (GRIT) program that provides a ride home to
employees.
• Encourage the use of multiple-occupancy vehicle programs for shopping and
other uses to reduce midday traffic(Policy CE 4.1.3).
• Support national, state and regional legislation directed at encouraging the
use of carpools and vanpools(Policy CE 41.4).
• Promote ride sharing through publicity and provision of information to the
public(Policy CE 4.1.5)•
• Restriction or elimination of curb-side parking along congested arterials
(Policy CE 4.1.8).
4.6.6 MITIGATIONMEASURES
None required.
4.6.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
There are no significant project impacts on the circulation system that result from
the Amendment/Merger.
7/18/96<<I.\.RSG630\EII;�SECT".WPD» 4.6-25
4.7 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
This section provides an overview of the biological resources present within the
City of Huntington Beach and in the Merged Project Area,and discusses poten-
tial impacts to those biological resources resulting from the proposed project.
The information presented here is taken primarily from the EIR for the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan Update prepared by Envicom Corporation Quly
5, 1995),which is herewith incorporated by reference.
4.7.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SE2I7NG
Biological resources within the City of Huntington Beach include marine open
waters, coastal dunes, coastal saltmarsh, freshwater marsh, and grassland. The
majority of these habitats is concentrated in a few areas, since most of the land
within the City has been converted to residential, commercial, industrial, and
public park uses. The Merged Project Area is primarily built out with urban uses,
except for sandy beaches and a small wetland area at Beach Boulevard and PCH
(see Figure 4.7.1,Area E,where a small wetland extends west of Beach Boule-
vard). Urbanized areas and small municipal parks provide little or no habitat for
native plants and animals. The exception is Huntington Beach Central Park,
which is not within the Merged Project Area.
Signi,Fscant Biological Resource Areas
Areas within the City, as described in the General Plan Update EM that continue
to provide important biological resource values are described below and shown
on Figure 4.7.1. The Talbert Marsh (Area G) and least tern nesting colony(Area
I) are located more than two miles south of Main-Pier. The Huntington Mesa is
located about one-half mile west of Yorktown-Lake. There are a few vacant lots
in the City that have biological resource value. Those of interest include larger
lots with some large trees (e.g.,Eucalyptus spp.) adjacent to open fields that
support California ground squirrels, Botta's pocket gopher, mice, and other
small animals. The important vacant lands are shown on Figure 4.7-1, and are
not in the Merged Project Area and would not be affected by any redevelopment
activity in the Merged Project. The Newland Avenue Marsh (Area E) and Hun-
tington Beach Central Park (Area D) are located directly to the west of the
Talbert-Beach and southwest of Oakview.
The City's corporate boundary includes Bolsa Chica Beach State Park, Hunting-
ton Beach Municipal Beach,and Huntington Beach State Park. These areas are
mostly devoid of vegetation, and are subject to intense human presence, and
periodic removal of drift algae and debris. Nonetheless, the beach surf zones
provide habitat for sand dwelling invertebrates, which are important food for
shorebirds such as the sanderling,willet, and western sandpiper. These shore-
birds, in rum, are prey for raptors, possibly including peregrine falcons. One
interesting species found along sandy beaches is the California grunion
(Leuresthes tenuis), a fish that leaves the ocean in spring, during high tides on
nights following the full moon, to lay its eggs in the sand.
7/19N&<I:\.RSC.630\EIR\SEC r4-7 WI'D» 4.7-1
r
-C V
U u C
CM
CJ < C C
J Q Z C H
Q t W
SEAL I _
WESTMINSTER
BEACH `
BCLSAI
1 5 a
p
o � � W1: �
en FADDEN
gz i I - W
co -
_ EDI.\GER
--- HE IL
Q 113
A ! I I
1 --- WARNER
2 FOUNTAIN
._.-_-_ VALLEY
C I II
SLATEi+ GCS
4 c�
.I
-v` COUNTY OF It TAL BERT 'G�c9f
ORANGE 3 ry
• - (3oLSA CHICA) c
ff
I>
ElltS z 5 0
.l I I: C
1 c i
.�
r GARFIELD
c a•
- '1 f
f I
s f
I
D z � � YORK70Wti
4
A
S
(klf f
[ f
�! ADAbiS
I
{( i
t i
LEGEND
� wDUN.�clls
i
City Bou
ndary darY t 5 1 ATLA.VTA
Redevelopment Project Areas
® 3 P'
IER;::. E
Open Space with Hau I"
s Resource Value:Biological R F
A Vacant Land(White-tailed Kite observed) BAv hG
B Vacant Land(Bolsa Chica Mesa) G
C Huntington Beach Central Park COSTA
D Vacant Land(Huntington Beach Mesa)
: .•:.
E Newland Avenue Marsh ;:•r.-:. H
F Vacant Land
G Huntington Beach Wetlands I
A Talbert Marsh
I California Least Tern Nesting ColonyIx
Source:City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR.7/95.
117/96(RSG630) Figure 4.7.1
N
Scale in Miles
Huntington Beach Natural Open Space
L S-A, 0 0.5 1 4.7-2 With Biological Resource Value
I
Sandy beaches are located directly across PCH from Main-Pier.
The Newland Avenue Marsh is located in the northeast comer of the junction at
PCH and Beach Boulevard, west of Newland Avenue. A portion of this comer
along PCH, and at the junction of PCH and Newland Avenue, has been devel-
oped, and the entire area is subject to human intrusion (e.g., beach parking,
off-road vehicles, pedestrians, etc.). The marsh supports vegetation characteris-
tics of a wetland,despite its history of disturbance and isolation from tidal influx.
Moisture to support the existing pickleweed saltmarsh habitat is either through
groundwater inflow, accumulated rainfall, or occasional overflows of the Hun-
tington Beach Channel. A small strip of wetland habitat,which supports cattails,
is located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, separated from the Newland
Avenue Marsh by Beach Boulevard. This small patch, less than an acre, is in the
Waterfront development site, which has had previous environmental review in
Supplemental EIR 82-2.
Several bird species have been recorded as nesting in the Newland Avenue
Marsh, including black-necked stilt, American avocet, and killdeer (CNDDB,
1994). In addition,sensitive bird species have been recorded nesting at the site:
the western snowy plover and Belding's Savannah sparrow(CNDDB, 1994).
The Newland Avenue Marsh is directly adjacent to the southern end of Main-Pier.
Based on findings from Supplemental EIR 82-2, certified for the Waterfront
project, there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the
redevelopment of the Waterfront site.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Sensitive biological resources are associated with most of the important resource
areas described above. Sensitive resources include wetlands, coastal dune and
scrub habitats, and a number of plant and wildlife species associated with these
habitats. Appendix C of this EIR provides a complete listing of the sensitive
biological elements known from or expected to occur within the City. None of
the sensitive biological elements identified in Appendix C exist within the
Merged Project Area.
4.7.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds for findings of significance for impacts to biological resources are
taken from Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
j guidelines. According to these guidelines,a project will normally have a signifi-
cant effect on biological resources if it would:
Conflict with the adopted environmental plans and goals of the commu-
nity where it is located;
i
7/19i96«I:\RSSG630\EMSECT4-7 WPD- 4.7-3
• Substantially effect a rare or endangered species of plant or animal or the
habitat of the species;'
• Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory
fish or wildlife species;or
• Substantially diminish habitat for fish,wildlife, or plants.
4.7.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Impacts to biological resources can be either direct or indirect. Direct impacts
involve the removal of habitat for plants and animals for conversion to some
other use. Habitat removal results in the displacement or mortality of plants and
animals occupying a project area,both during site preparation and throughout
the life of a project. Indirect impacts generally involve the effects of disturbance
and cumulative impacts, including:
• Noise and night lighting that interrupts normal daily cycles;
• Predation by cats and dogs;
• Introduction of non-native plant and animal species that out compete or
prey upon native species;
• Human collection or killing of animals;and
• General human activity in open space that, because it is not easily con-
trolled, can create trails, disrupt breeding activities, and generally de-
grades habitat quality for plants and animals.
In order for direct or indirect impacts to be considered significant, they must
result in impacts that exceed thresholds defined in Section 4.7.2,above.
Direct impacts to important biological resources resulting from the Amendment/
Merger could occur only where those resources are found within the Merged
Project Area. Based on the discussion above and on field windshield surveys,
there are no important biological resources within the Merged Project Area,
except for the small strip of wetland habitat across Beach Boulevard from the
Newland Marsh. As mentioned above, the effect on this strip has had previous
environmental review is discussed in Supplemental EIR 82-2 for the Waterfront
Project, and mitigation to offset project impacts has been required in the EHL
' Section 15380 of CEQA indicates that plants or animals listed by a gov-
ernment agency as rare or endangered are presumed rare or endangered
for the purposes of CEQA analysis, without the need for further proof.
In addition, Section 15380 (d) states that a plant or animal species can
be treated as rare or endangered even if not placed on an official list,
provided the status of the species meets the definitions of rare or endan-
gered in Section 15380(b).
7/19N64<I:WG630\Ent SECT4-7.WD» 4.7-4
Any future discretionary actions associated with the Newland Avenue Marsh and
the small strip of wetland habitat will be subject to further environmental re-
view.
Indirect impacts may occur where important biological resources are located
adjacent to or nearby the?Merged Project Area and-the proposed redevelopment
would result in changed or intensified uses,causing greater indirect effects than
existing conditions.
Although sandy beaches are in close proximity to Main-Pier, the existing intense
use of the beaches would mask any additional impact associated with the
Amendment/Merger.
Huntington Beach Central Park receives intensive public use. Important biologi-
cal resource areas are located in relatively protected, interior areas of the park.
Existing uses within the park have a greater effect on the park's biological re-
sources than any uses proposed for the Merged Project Area adjacent to the
park. The streets surrounding the park act as a buffer between the park and
adjacent uses. In addition, the more developed perimeter park space serves as a
buffer between sensitive biological resources in the interior of the park and
activities outside the park. For these reasons, indirect impacts to the park's
biological resources resulting from the Amendment/Merger are not expected to
be significant.
As indicated in Section 4.7.1 above, the Newland Avenue Marsh is located di-
rectly adjacent to the southern end of Main-Pier. Newland Avenue Marsh may be
indirectly impacted by changed or intensified uses at the southern end of Main-
Pier,which is adjacent to the marsh. As noted previously, the marsh is disturbed
and degraded, but still provides important resource values. Indirect impacts
may include increased human intrusion and related activities such as noise and
night lighting associated with higher intensity/higher scale uses. The degree of
potential indirect impacts would depend on the uses proposed and their scale.
None of the other designated biological resource areas is closer than one-half
mile to the Merged Project Area, and are too far from the Merged Project Area to
be affected by direct or indirect impacts. Furthermore, the Merged Project is
located in an urban setting and will not adversely impact any rare or endangered
species of plant, animal or any habitat of the species; interfere with the move-
ment of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species;or diminish habitat for
fish,wildlife and/or plants. Therefore, the Merged Project will not significantly
impact biological resources in the area.
4.7,4,CL39)ZA77VE IMPACTS
General Plan land uses within the Merged Project Area will not change with the
Amendment/Merger. Consequently, the effects on biological resources with the
Merge Project Area will be identical to the potential impacts that would occur
without it. In addition,the Merged Project Area land use designations are identi-
cal to the City's General Plan designations. In addition, the Merged Project is
not proposing any development or the change of any land use designations.
7/19/9&I:\FSG630\EM\SECT4-7.WPD» 4.7-5
Therefore,the potential impacts are no different from those contemplated in the
General Plan and reported in the General Plan Update EIIL For these reasons,it
is not expected that there would be significant direct or indirect impacts to the
significant biological resource areas identified in the General Plan or the sensi-
tive biological resources identified earlier in this section.
4.7.5 GENERAr.PLAN POLICIES
None apply to the Merged Project.
4.7.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.7.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AF7]ER MITIGATION
The Merged Project is located in an urban setting and is not near any sensitive
biological resource areas. Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in signifi-
cant direct or indirect impacts on any rare or endangered plant or animal species
or their habitats,interfere with the movements of any migratory fish or wildlife
species, or diminish the habitat for fish,wildlife and/or plants.
l
7/19/96«IAFSr6 O\F.=ECT4-7.WM-* 4.7-6
4.8 PUBLIC HEALTH
4.8.1 EXISTING ENVIIZONm NTAL SEZ ,,irG
The public health issues and hazards identified in the Merged Project include the
following: hazardous waste materials (generation, collection, treatment, trans-
port),and emergency response time/capabilities.
Regulatory Background
Hazardous waste is defined as: "a solid waste, or combination of solid wastes,
which because of its quantity,concentration,or physical, chemical,or infectious
characteristics may:
• Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in mortality or an in-
crease in serious irreversible,or incapacitating reversible illness;or
• Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the
environment when improperly treated,stored,transported, or disposed
of,or otherwise managed."'
Beginning in 1987,the Orange County Board of Supervisors directed the prepa-
ration of a County Plan under AP 2948. The Orange County Hazardous Waste
Management Plan (HWMP), completed in January, 1989, and amended in June
1991, established a city and County action program for managing hazardous
waste through the year 2000. The City of Huntington Beach has incorporated
applicable portions of the HUMP into their General Plan. A description of the
implementation programs for existing and future actions and activities of the
County, cities, and special districts for the management of hazardous waste in
Orange County contained in the HWMP is included in the General Plan Update
EIR.
County and City Requirements
A permit is required by the Orange County Health Department if a business
creates or disposes hazardous waste. Businesses that handle hazardous materials
are also required by County ordinance to disclose the amounts and the types of
materials to local fire departments.
In addition to County requirements,the City of Huntington Beach requires that
any business storing or handling hazardous materials secure a City permit.
The City of Huntington Beach has approximately 690 facilities registered as
hazardous materials operations within its boundaries (General Plan Update EIR,
page 5.11-2). The majority of these facilities are small-scale generators such as
auto body and repair garages, gas stations, dry cleaners, and light industry.
i Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,§ 1004(5)
7ns96«I.WG630%EX\sEcr4-s wan» 4.8-1
These facilities are spread throughout the City, including the Merged Project
Area.
Hazardous Waste Generation/Treatment
Relative to larger scale hazardous waste generators, the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCIA) established
the federal means for hazardous waste dump sites "cleanup,"and identified the
methods to finance cleanup operations of so called "Superfund" sites. Two
"Superfund"sites are located (Aston Landfill and AMF Tobo Scope Inc.)within
Huntington Beach. In addition, the Huntington Beach Fire Department has
identified 19 hazardous materials operations (including the two "Superfund"
sites) in the City that they feel are of special concern (see Figure HH-1 in the
General Plan EIR,page 5.11-4). None of the"Superfund"sites or the 19 hazard-
ous materials operations are located in the Merged Project Area; however, the
Ano D'art Inc. operation is located adjacent to Huntington Center.
Hazardous Waste Collection
The Hazardous Materials Program at the Orange County Fire Department is
responsible for planning,coordination,and management of a countywide collec-
tion and disposal of household hazardous waste. The City of Huntington Beach
Fire Department, in conjunction with the Orange County Fire Department,
operates a facility called the Orange County Household Hazardous Waste Collec-
tion Center at the Rainbow Disposal Company transfer station,located at 17121
Nichols Avenue in Huntington Beach. This transfer station serves the Merged
Project Area,but is not located within the Merged Project Area.
Hazardous Waste Transport
The transport of hazardous materials by truck or rail is regulated by the United
States Department of Transportation through National Safety Standards. The
federal safety standards are also included in the California Administrative Code,
Environmental Health Division.
There are no designated routes or travel time restrictions for hazardous material
transporters on City streets; however, the local police department must be
notified of the transport. In addition,transport of acutely toxic/hazardous mate-
rials must be reported to the California Highway Patrol.
The Huntington Beach Police Department has reported that most of the City's
hazardous waste transport occurs along the City's truck routes.
Typical east west corridors used to transport hazardous waste within the Merged
Project Area include Warner and Edinger Avenues. Beach Boulevard is often
used as the primary route when transporting hazardous waste from the Ascon
Landfill to disposal sites outside of the City. Hazardous waste transport also
7n8/96«i:\xsc,630\Y-=EC".VTE► 4.8-2
occurs along the I-405 Freeway,which abuts several residential and commercial
land uses in Huntington Center.
Emergency Response
The Huntington Beach Fire Department initially responds to all local reports
involving hazardous waste. If they determine a need for special expertise and
equipment, they may request assistance from the Orange County Hazardous
Materials(Hazmat) Team. The Hazmat Team provides hazard identification,risk
assessment, and actual control measures. The Hazmat Team is a cooperative
organization structure intended to bring the maximum available equipment and
special expertise to any given emergency situation. Huntington Beach also
maintains a Multi-Hazard Function Plan, should a hazardous waste accident
create the need to evacuate all or a portion of the City.
4.8.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds of significance are used to determine potentially signifi-
cant public health impacts:
• Project construction that would interfere with emergency response plans
or emergency evacuation plans.
• Increased exposure to the general public or environment due to a haz-
ardous material release or improper hazardous materials disposal prac-
tices.
• Degradation of water quality or contamination of a public water supply
by release of hazardous waste or materials.
4 8.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
With the Amendment/Merger,there will be no change in the Merged Project Area
boundaries. The Amendment/Merger does not add property to, or delete prop-
erty from,the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger is a reorganization
of the redevelopment process and authority.
None of the 19 hazardous waste material operations identified by the City of
Huntington Beach Fire Department are located within the Merged Project Area;
however,the Ano D'art Inc.operation is located adjacent to Huntington Center.
Safe and proper operation of hazardous material at existing and future land sites,
including the Ano D'Art Inc. operation, requires that these operations continue
to be subject to local, State, and federal regulations regarding the use, genera-
tion, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of toxic and hazardous
materials/waste. All hazardous waste material sites would continue to be identi-
fied, monitored, and controlled by the Huntington Beach Fire Department.
Therefore,any effects to public health and safety would be considered minimal
and less than significant.
T/I8i96 1.WG63O\MWECT".VM 4.8-3
4.8.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The General Plan Update ElR(page 5.11-10) discusses the cumulative impacts of
implementing the General Plan from existing and reasonably foreseeable future
sources of toxic or hazardous materials/wastes. Although future populations will
be subject to impacts from existing and reasonable foreseeable sources of toxic
or hazardous materialstwastes, implementation of existing County and State
criteria and guidelines for toxic and hazardous materials handling, storage,
transport,and location of new uses that include toxic or hazardous materials will
reduce the adverse cumulative impacts to a level below significance.
4.8.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan identifies several policies in the Hazardous Materials Element
that reduce potential effects in the Merged Project Area. The applicable policies
are identified below:
• Facilitate proper disposal of hazardous waste by providing means for safe
disposal(Policy HM 1.1.1).
• Implement federal, State and local regulations for the handling, storage
and disposal of hazardous materials (Policy HM 1.1.4).
• Support land use patterns that avoid development of hazardous waste
generators adjacent to sensitive uses (Policy HM 1.2.1).
• Identify and map all existing hazardous waste sites (Policy HM 1.4.1).
• Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan
with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management
Agency(EMA) (Policy HM 1.4.4).
These policies, combined with the current regulatory practices of the Hunting-
ton Beach Fire Department and the permitting review necessary to maintain an
existing hazardous materials site or to open a new site,fully regulate the poten-
tial safety hazards to a level of impact that is less than significant.
4.8.6 MITIGATTON MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.8.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MMGATTON
With implementation of the General Plan policies, the effects of the Amend-
ment/Merger to public health will be reduced to a level below significance.
7/18/96 cLWG63o\MUECT".WPD» 4.8-4
r
4.9 NOISE
This section is based on the analysis in the General Plan Update EIR and on field
observation by ISA in May, 1996.
4.9.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SE777NG
Noise Sources
a variety f u Noise is generated from an o sources, including mobile andstationary
g tS' g
sources. Exterior noise applicable to the study area is generated by motor vehi-
cles, aircraft operations, construction work, and industrial operations. Noise is
often defined as "unwanted sound" because of its potential to disrupt sleep,
interfere with verbal communication,and damage hearing.
The primary noise source within and adjacent to the Merged Project Area is
vehicular traffic. Secondary noise sources include aircraft operations and petro-
leum extraction activities.
Vehicular traffic noise is the most pervasive source of noise in the Merged Project
Area. This can be attributed to the extensive network of arterial roadways and
the large number of vehicle trips on those roadways.
There are no airports located within Huntington Beach. In addition, no airplane
Sight patterns for either the Long Beach Municipal Airport or the Orange County
Airport (John Wayne Airport) exist over the City of Huntington Beach (Federal
Aviation Administration, Burgen, 1992). However, it is not uncommon for
airplanes to fly over the Merged Project Area displaying advertisement banners,
primarily during summer months,and during aircraft approach to either of the
two aforementioned airports. During approach flights to the Long Beach Munic-
ipal Airport,airplanes typically fly several times daily over downtown Hunting-
ton Beach,areas east of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands,and the Huntington Harbour,
at altitudes ranging from 1,500 to 4,000 feet. For similar approach flights to the
Orange County Airport, airplanes occasionally fly over the southeastern most
portion of the City at an altitude of approximately 5,000 feet(Burgen, 1992).
Two heliports and three helistops are located within the City. A heliport is
defined as an airport that serves helicopters,whereas a helistop is a landing take-
off pad that is primarily used to pick up and drop off passengers. The heliports
are located on Gothard Street (10301 Gothard) and the Signal Oil Fields. The
helistops are located at the Guardian Center, the McDonnell-Douglas Space
Center, and the Civic Center. With the exception of the Huntington Beach
Police Department's helicopters, helicopter flight routes within the City are
typically located above major and primary arterials,as well as the 405 Freeway.
Although single event noise exposure resulting from airplane and helicopter
operations are potentially annoying, the relatively low frequency and short
duration of these operations do not significantly affect average daily noise levels
within the City.
7f19N6-KI.uPSG630\EnZnSECr4-9.WPDN 4.9-1
Petroleum extraction from the Huntington Beach Oil Field is a source of noise
within the City. Various independent oil companies also maintain several `oil
islands"(isolated oil extraction areas) near Downtown Huntington Beach. Main-
Pier has several "oil islands"disbursed throughout the project area.
Noise Measurement
Environmental noise is usually measured in A-weighted decibels (dB). A decibel
is a logarithmic unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves,traveling outward
from a source exert a sound pressure (commonly called "sound level") mea-
sured in decibels. The dBA is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency
response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. In
general, a three dBA increase in sound level represents a doubling in sound
energy but it will not be experienced as a doubling of loudness. A one dBA
fluctuation in sound requires close attention to notice a change in loudness,
whereas a three dBA change is clearly noticeable and a ten dBA change is nearly
twice as loud. A noise level of 70 dBA is approximately twice as loud as 60 dBA
and four times as loud as 50 dBA. The average range of sounds that humans are
commonly exposed to generally falls within the 30-100 dBA range (Table 4.9A).
Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time. Different types of noise
descriptors are used to account for this variability. These descriptors include
Leq, which is the actual time-averaged noise level, and Ldn, which is the
day-night average noise level. Ldn is a 24 hour noise measurement,which ac-
counts for people's greater sensitivity to nighttime noise. Using the Ldn
descriptor, noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. is weighted by adding ten
dBA to noise readings taken during that period to account for the greater annoy-
ance of nighttime noises. For planning purposes, the 24 hour Ldn is roughly
equivalent to the peak hour Leq for noise environments dominated by traffic
noise minus five dBA(Office of Noise Control, 1976). This System of Calculating
noise exposure has been recommended as the uniformly accepted index by the
Environmental Protection Agency(EPA).
Noise Regulations
The State Office of Noise Control has established guidelines to provide a com-
munity with a noise environment that it deems to be generally acceptable.
Figure 4.9.1 depicts ranges of noise exposure levels that are considered compati-
ble with types of land uses. Where a land use is denoted as "normally accept-
able"for the given Ldn noise environment, the highest noise level in that range
should be considered the maximum desirable for conventional construction that
does not incorporate any special acoustic treatment. The acceptability of noise
environments classified as"conditionally acceptable"or"normally unacceptable"
will depend on the anticipated amount of time that will normally be spent
outside the structure and the acoustic treatment to be incorporated in the struc-
ture's design.
i
I
7/19i964(I:Ut5G630\EWECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-2
Table 4.9A-Sound Levels and Human Responses
Sound
Level
dBA Example Human Response
0 Threshold of hearing
10 Just audible
20 Broadcasting studio
30 Whisper Very quiet
40 Library Quiet
50 Light auto traffic at 100 feet
60 Conversation
70 Freeway traffic at 50 feet Telephone use difficult
80 Alarm clock Annoying
90 Heavy truck Very annoying;hearing
damage after 8 hours
100 Jet Flyover(1000 ft.)
110
120 Jet flyover(200 ft.) Initial discomfort;maxi-
mum vocal effort
130
140 Initial pain threshold
150 Carrier deck jet operation
Source: General Plan Update EM July 1995.
7/119N6«I:\RSG630\EIR'SECT4-9.WPD>> 4.9-3
COMMUNITY NOISE EXPOSURE
LAND USE CATAGORY Ldt OR CNEL,dB
55 60 65 70 75 80
RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY
SINGLE FAMILY,DUPLEX,
MOBILE HOMES
.. ....... ... . ...........
............... ..............
RESIDENTIAL-MULTI-FAMILY
TRANSIENT LODGING-
HOTELS,MOTELS
SCHOOLS,LIBRARIES,
CHURCHES,HOSPITALS,
NURSING HOMES
AUDITORIUMS,CONCERT HALLS,
AMPHITHEATRES
SPORTS ARENA,OUTDOOR
SPECTATOR SPORTS
PLAYGROUNDS,
NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS t
GOLF COURSES,RIDING STABLES,
WATER RECREATION,
CEMETERIES
OFFICE BUILDINGS-BUSINESS,
COMMERCIAL&PROFESSIONAL
INDUSTRIAL,MANUFACTURING,
UTILITIES,AGRICULTURE
®NORMALLY ACCEPTABLE ®NORMALLY UNACCEPTABLE
Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the New construction or development should generally be
assumption that any buildings involved are of normal discouraged. If new construction or development does
conventional construction, without any special noise proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
insulation requirements. requirements must be made and needed noise insulation
features included in the design.
CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTABLE
New construction or development should be undertaken —CLEARLY UNACCEPTABLE
only afar a detailed analysis of the noise reduction
requirements is made and needed noise insulation New construction or development should generally not
features included in the design. Conventional be undertaken.
construction, but with closed windows and fresh air
supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice.
Source:Office of Noise Control,California Department of Health.
5r—V%(RSG630) Figure 4.9.1
LSD Land Use Compatibility for
4.9-4 Community Noise Environments
Federal and State regulations provide for certain controls on noise sources, such
as motor vehicles. In addition, the City has adopted provisions that restrict the
generation of noise within the community. The City of Huntington Beach Noise
Ordinance is described in detail in the City's Municipal Code, Chapter 8.40,
Noise Control. The noise level standards that have been adopted by the City are
more stringent than State Office of Noise Control guidelines for residential and
commercial noise levels. Furthermore, the City's noise ordinance places limita-
tions on noise produced by equipment operation, human activities, and con-
struction. As stated in the City's Noise Ordinance, the Orange County health
officer has primary responsibility for the enforcement of these regulations. The
exterior and interior noise standards of the City's Noise Ordinance are presented
below in Tables 4.9.13 and 4.9.C.
Existing Noise Conditions
As discussed previously, the primary source of noise affecting the Merged Project
Area is motor vehicles. Average daily traffic flows along primary roadway corri-
dors within the City were utilized to model noise levels (Table 4.9.1)).
In addition to the Noise Prediction Model, which is based on existing traffic
volumes on primary roadways in the City, noise measurements were also taken
at various locations throughout the City to validate the accuracy of the model
calculation, to determine existing ambient noise levels on secondary or less
traveled residential streets, and to account for point sources of noise. These are
reported in the General Plan Update in their entirety (see General Plan Update
EIR Figure N-2). Noise measurements in specific residential areas throughout
the City were taken to assess existing ambient noise levels. Noise levels in these
areas generally range from 50-65 dBA Ldn. Residential uses at various locations
throughout the City are exposed to noise levels exceeding 55 dBA Ldn, the
normally acceptable level according to Chapter 8.40 (Noise Control) of the City's
Municipal Code. However,many of these uses are provided with noise attenua-
tion measures (e.g.,walls,double glazed windows).
Noise measurements were also taken near selected point sources of noise,
including the Huntington Beach Oil Field, Orange County Sanitation Treatment
Plant, and Southern California Edison Company Generating Plant. All of these
locations registered noise levels below 66 dBA Ldn; the main source of noise was
generated by motor vehicles operating in the vicinity of the point sources (see
Appendix F of the General Plan Update EIR Technical Appendices).There are no
known noise point sources within the Merged Project Area based on a review of
the General Plan Update EIR and visual inspection of the Merged Project Area in
May, 1996.
7n9,96<<I:\Rsc,63o\Etx sEcr¢9.wpn» 4.9-5
r
Table 4.9.B-City of Huntington Beach Exterior Noise Standards
Noise
Zone Land Use Noise Level Time Period
1 All residential properties 55 dBA 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.
50 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m.
2 All professional office 55 dBA Anytime
and public institutional
properties
3 All other commercial 60 dBA Anytime
properties
4 All industrial properties 70 dBA Anytime
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995•
Table 4.9.0-Interior Noise Standards
Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period
1 55 dBA 7:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.
1 45 dBA 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
22324 55 dBA Anytime
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995.
i
I
I
I
I
P
I
7/19i96«I:WG630\Enz,$EC r4-9.WPD» 4.9-6
Table 4.9.1)-Existing and Future Noise Levels (Ldn) at 50 Feet from Centerlines of Major
Traffic Corridors
Average Daily Traffic Noise Level dBA
Roadway Segment Existing(1992) Future(2010) Existing Future
A- Warner Avenue(between)
1) Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 34,o00 46,000 65.27 65.40
2) Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 21,000 47,000 65.06 68.56
B. Adams Avenue(between)
1) Main St.-Beach Blvd. 8,000 17,000 64.64 67.91
C. Beach Boulevard(between)
1) PCH-Atlanta Ave. 28,000 30,000 65.19 65.22
2) Indianapolis Ave.Adams Ave. 40,000 40,000 65.34 65.34
3) Adams Ave.-Yorktown Ave. 44,000 38,000 65.38 65.32
4) Ellis Ave.-Talbert Ave. 60,000 54,000 65.52 65.47
5) Talbert Ave.-Slater Ave. 60,000 49,000 65.52 65.43
6) Slater Ave.-Warner Ave. 62,000 49,000 65.53 65.43
7) Warner Ave.-Heil Ave. 62,000 50,000 65.53 65.44
D. PCH(between)
1) Golden West St.-Brookhurst St. 34,000 49,000 65.27 65.43
E. Main Street(between)
1) Yorktown Ave.-Garfield Ave. 12,000 26,000 64.82 68.18
F. Edinger Avenue(between)
1) Golden West St.-Gothard St. 39,000 44,o00 65.33 65.38
G. Talbert Ave.(between)
1) Golden West St.-Gothard St. 5,000 9,000 64.44 66.99
2) Gothard St.-Beach Blvd. 10,000 12,000 64.82 64.90
3) Beach Blvd.-Newland St. 14,000 18,000 64.97 65.08
H. Yorktown Avenue(between)
1) Beach Blvd.-Magnolia St 14000 17000 64.89 64.97
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July,1995.
7/19A&<I:\RSSG63"-IROSECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-7
4.9.2 77MESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
As identified above, ambient noise levels exceed City standards along major
arterial roadways within the Merged Project Area. The following thresholds of
significance are used to determine potentially significant noise impacts.
• Future ambient noise levels exceed 70 dBA Ldn in Noise Zone 4 (Indus-
trial);
• An audible(three dBA) increase in exterior 24 hour ambient noise levels
occurs in Noise Zones 1, 2 or 3 (see Table 4.9.0 for interior noise stan-
dard noise zones).
No additional CEQA Guidelines thresholds of significance criteria apply.
4.9.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
This section addresses future noise effects for the Merged Project Area based
upon cumulative build out of all areas within the City boundaries,as presented
in the General Plan Update EIR. Implementation of the General Plan would
generate an increase in vehicular trips throughout the City that would, in turn,
generate an increase in ambient noise levels throughout the City. This includes
increased vehicle trips originating from, and ending in,the Merged Project Area.
Future ambient noise levels were estimated using future traffic data as presented
in Section 5.3,Transportation/Circulation of the General Plan Update EIR.
Table 4.9.1) includes modeling results for existing as well as future ambient
noise levels at build out conditions along the arterial roadways of the City near
the Merged Project Area. As the table indicates, there are no areas within the
Merged Project Area that would experience an audible (three dB or greater)
change in ambient noise levels.
None of the above roadway links are within the Merged Project Area; however,
they are adjacent (Main Street between Yorktown Avenue and Garfield Avenue;
Warner Avenue between Beach Boulevard and Newland Street). Nonetheless,at
build out of the City,including the Merged Project Area,traffic from and through
the Merged Project Area will contribute to the overall increase in noise levels
reported in the General Plan Update EHL
Significant noise impacts on existing sensitive uses may also be generated during
the construction of infrastructure improvements and future uses permitted in
the Merged Project Area. Construction noise is controlled through the City's
Noise Ordinance. General Plan Policy N 1.6.1 ensures that construction activi-
ties are regulated and are in conformance with City ordinances. Adherence to
the City's policies and noise ordinance will reduce the effects of construction
noise on sensitive receptors to a level that is less than significant.
7/19i96«I:\RSG630\EIMECT4-9.WPD» 4.9-8
4.9.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As reported in the General Plan Update EIR, local and regional vehicular traffic,
as well as increases in rail and air traffic,will contribute to cumulative increases
in ambient noise levels,both within and outside of the boundaries of the Merged
Project Area. Because there is no specific development proposed as part of the
Amendment/Merger,and there is no additional traffic or aircraft trips associated
with the Amendment/Merger (see Transportation and Circulation, Section 4.6
for a description of traffic effects), there will be no increase in ambient noise
levels. Therefore,there is no exceedance of the thresholds of significance.
4.9.5 GRNFRA T.PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan includes several relevant polices in the Noise Element. The
policies that are applicable to the Amendment/Merger are identified below.
• Require, in areas where existing or future noise levels exceed an Ldn of
50 dB(A) exterior and an Ldn of 45 dB(A) interior,all new development
of "noise sensitive" land uses such as housing, health care facilities,
schools,libraries,religious facilities include appropriate buffering and/or
construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to
levels within acceptable limits (Policy N 1.2.1).
• Require new industrial and new commercial land uses or the major
expansion of existing land uses to demonstrate that the new or ex-
panded use would not be directly responsible for causing ambient noise
levels to exceed an Ldn of 65 dB(A) exterior on areas containing"noise
sensitive"land uses as depicted on Figure N-1 in the General Plan(Policy
N 12.2).
• Require development,in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds
an Ldn of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate
special design measures in their construction,thereby,reducing interior
noise levels to the 45 dB(A)Ldn level (Policy N1.2.3).
• Encourage existing "noise sensitive uses, " including schools, libraries,
health care facilities, and residential uses to incorporate fences, walls,
landscaping,and/or other noise buffers and barriers,where appropriate
and feasible to mitigate noise impacts (Policy N 1.2.4).
• Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent
increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land uses
to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the
acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance (Policy N 12.5).
• Require all new non-residential development to design and configure
on-site ingress and egress points diverting traffic away from nearby"noise
sensitive"land uses to the greatest degree practicable (Policy N 1.3.1).
7/19i96-c<I:WCR 630\E=ECT4A.WPD* 4.9-9
1
• Provide for the development of alternate transportation modes such as
bicycle paths and pedestrian walkways to minimize the number of noise
generating automobile trips (Policy N 1.3.7).
• Require that mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units or
pool equipment,comply with the City's noise ordinance and Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance (Policy N 1.3.10).
• Require commercial and industrial land uses' loading and shipping facili-
ties which abut residential parcels to be located and designed to mini-
mize the potential noise impacts upon residential parcels (Policy
N 1.4 2).
• Require all commercial and industrial land uses' parking areas which
abut residential areas to be buffered and shielded by walls, fences, or
adequate landscaping (Policy N 1.4.3).
• Require commercial or industrial truck delivery hours to land uses abut-
ting residential uses to be limited unless there is no feasible alternative
or there are overriding transportation benefits (Policy N I.4.5).
• Require that commercial and residential mixed-use structures minimize
the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial
land use to the residential land use. The design measure used may in-
clude: (1)the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission;or(2)
the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and
transmission (Policy N 1.5.1).
• Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of
operation,to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excess or adverse
noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordi-
nance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance (Policy
N I.6.1).
• Require that entertainment and restaurant/bar uses take appropriate
steps to control the activities of their patrons on-site,as well as within a
reasonable and legally justified distance or proximity,to minimize poten-
tial noise-related impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods (Polity
N1.8.1).
• Require new oil or residential development to include noise mitigation
measures (PolicyN1.11.1).
• Require detailed and independent acoustical studies be conducted for
any new or renovated land uses or structures determined to be potential
major stationary noise sources. Recommended mitigation measures
( must be successfully implemented and tested, prior to the issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy for the land use or structure (Policy N1.12.1).
i
j • Encourage major stationary noise generating sources throughout the City
of Huntington Beach to install additional noise buffering or reduction
7/19i96«I:\RSG630NE RRSECT4-9.WPD>> 4.9-10
i
mechanisms within their facilities to reduce noise generation levels to
the lowest extent practicable prior to the renewal of Conditional Use
Permits or business licenses or prior to the approval and/or issuance of
new Conditional Use Permits for said facilities (Policy N 1.12.2).
4.9.6MITIGATIONMEASURES
None required.
4.9.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
General Plan Noise Element policies and City noise ordinances will be imple-
mented for the Amendment/Merger,resulting in lower ambient noise levels than
reported in the General Plan Update EIR Because the Amendment/Merger does
not change land use intensities from those reported in the General Plan, and
there is no specific new development proposed by the Amendment/Merger,
there are no significant impacts.
7/19/9&I.\RSG63aNEMR ECT4-9.VPD» 4.9-11
I
4.10 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Questionnaires were sent with the Notice of Preparation for the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment EIR to the public service utilities and other service provid-
ers requesting information on current service levels in the Merged Project Area,
whether demand exceeds supply, and whether there would be an impact as a
result of the project. Information from the questionnaire responses is used as a
basis for the analysis,and is included throughout the chapter. Information from
the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR is also used in the analy-
sis in this section.
4.10.1 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SE7777VG
Police Services
The City of Huntington Beach is served by one central police station and four
substations. The main station is located at 2000 Main Street,within Yorktown-
Lake. The Oakview Center Substation, located at 17261 Oak Lane, is located
within Oakview. The Downtown Substation, at 204 5th Street,is located within
Main-Pier. Huntington Center Substation, at 7777 Edinger, is located within
Huntington Center. Figure P-1 in the General Plan Update EIR (page 5.13.1-2)
identifies the locations of the central police station and substations.
The General Plan Update EIR reports that the Downtown and beach areas con-
tinue to require extensive police coverage, particularly during the warmer
months of the year when crowds increase. Although the Koledo Park-Oakview
area requires extra police coverage,the police substation in that area has helped
to stabilize reported crimes.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department provides fire protection services
to the Merged Project Area. The Fire Department has seven fire stations,three of
which are located adjacent to or within the Merged Project Area. The station
number,name,location,and equipment assigned to the three stations are iden-
tified in Table 4.10A. Table 4.10.B lists the necessary staff levels to operate the
fire protection equipment.
The Fire Department operates on a 24 hour shift basis,with one command unit
staffed with two persons,five engine companies staffed with three persons each,
two paramedic engine companies staffed with four persons each, three Para-
medic vans staffed with two persons each, two ladder truck companies staffed
with four persons each, three ambulance units staffed with two persons each,
and a combination engine,hazmat/light air company staffed with three persons.
This provides a total of 36 firefighters each day,supported by three dispatchers
and administrative staff. Staffing levels are increased when fire risk levels are
increased (e.g.,high winds,active fire conditions,natural disasters).
7/19j96<<I,\.BSG630\EDO$ECT4-10 wpn» 4.10-1
I
i
Table 4.10A-Fire Stations Servicing the Merged Project Area
Station No./Name Station Location Equipment Assigned'
1-Gothard Station 18311 Gothard Ambulance Unit HA 41
Street Fire Paramedic Engine HME 41
Fire Engine Squad HE 241
HAZ-MAT Unit HMH 41
Air&Mobile Light Plant HIA 41
Command Unit HB 4
2-Murdy Station 16221 Gothard Fire Ambulance HA 41
Street Fire Engine HE 42
Ladder Truck HQ 42
Paramedic Unit HM 42
Reserve Engine HE 242
Ambulance Unit HA 42
5-Lake Station 530 Lake Street Fire Engine HE 45
Ladder Truck HQ45
Paramedic Unit HN 45
Reserve Engine HE 245
Ambulance Unit HA 45
Table 4.10.B-Fire Operations Staffing Levels
Hazardous
Engine Truck Materials Paramedic Engine
1 Captain 1 Captain 1 Captain 1 Captain(Paramedic)
1 Engine 1 Engine 1 Engineer 1 Engineer(Paramedic)
1 Firefighter 2 Firefighters 1 Firefighter 1 Firefighter
1 Firefighter Paramedic
3 Total 4 Total 3 Total 4 Total(Requires a total
of two paramedics)
Dispatch Medic Van Battalion Chief
3 Dispatch2 2 Paramedics 1 Battalion Chief
1 Engineer/Aide
3 Total 2 Total 2 Total
SOURCE:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995.
I
i
I
' HA-Huntington Ambulance
HE-Huntington Engine
HM-Huntington Medic
HHM-Huntington Hazardous Materials
HLA-Huntington Light Air
HB-Huntington Battalion
�I
f2 Operated under a joint Powers Authority that includes the cities of Foun-
rain Valley,Huntington Beach,Newport Beach,and Westminster.
i
7/19196«I:�RSG630ZMI$ECT4-10 VPD»� 4.10-2
Currently, a response time of five minutes or less exists for the Merged Project
Area. (Source: General Plan Update EIR).
Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities
The City of Huntington Beach has several parks, and offers a wide variety of
recreational programs and facilities, primarily through the City's Department of
Community Services. Park facilities include community centers,senior centers,
a golf course,clubhouses,a gym and pool,bikeways and equestrian trail systems,
a historic structure, campgrounds, and marine based amenities such as the
beaches and the pier.
The City contains 1,165.7 acres of parks and recreational facilities, including
beach parks, a City owned golf course, and other parks currently planned or
under development. Park facilities in the City include mini, neighborhood,
community,and regional parks.
Terry Park is located within Talbert-Beach. Facilities at Terry Park include an
activities building, basketball courts, children's play area, open grass play area,
picnic tables and softball diamonds. The Huntington City Beach is located
within Main-Pier. Facilities include a public beach, basketball courts, a bicycle
path, and camping. There are no park facilities located within Yorktown-Lake,
Huntington Center and Oakview.
Recreational facilities other than parks in the City include the Municipal Pier,
recreational vehicle camping,Huntington Harbour,community centers,Seniors'
Center,golf courses, City Gym and Pool, clubhouses, bikeways, equestrian trail
system,Newland House, Golden West College,and private recreational facilities.
These facilities are described in further detail in the General Plan Update EIR
(pages 5.13.4-5 through 5.13.4-8).
Road Maintenance
Road maintenance includes the general care of roads and landscaping within all
public rights-of-way. This work is primarily handled by the City's Public Works
Department through the Street and Sewer Maintenance Division and the Park,
Tree,and Landscape Division.
The Street and Sewer Maintenance Division is responsible for maintaining the
City's streets. The Division also conducts preventative road maintenance ser-
vices.
The Park, Tree and Landscape Division is responsible for landscape and tree
maintenance of all public right-of-way property within the City. In addition,the
Division maintains landscape and trees on Beach Boulevard (SR-39) and Pacific
Coast Highway(SR-1).
7/19/96«I.\RSG630\E=ECT4-10 VM>> 4.10-3
L
The above road maintenance programs and departments cover the entire Cary of
Huntington Beach- Therefore,the Merged Project Area is served by road mainte-
nance in the City of Huntington Beach.
Other Governmental Services
Library Service
There are five public libraries within the City, which serve the Merged Project
Area and are identified in Table 4.10.C. The Oakview Branch Library is the only
library within the Merged Project Area.
Table 4.10.0-City of Huntington Beach Public Libraries
Visitors Per
Name Location Day No.of Volumes
Central Library 7111 Talbert Ave. 3,000 350,000 volumes, 12,000
and Cultural genealogy items&5,700
Center media items
Graham Branch 15882 Graham 240 19,850
Street
Oakview Branch 17251 Oak Lane 100 6,540
Banning Branch 9281 Banning Ave- 214 24,197
nue
Main Street 525 Main Street 160 26,670
Branch
SOURCE: City of Huntington Beach, General Plan Update EIR,July, 1995;Personal
Communication with Oakview Branch Library Staff.
The Banning and Graham branches are operating beyond capacity. In addition,
the Main Street branch library requires facility rehabilitation. The Oakview
branch library is a new facility, and is located in Oakview. This facility has been
in operation for approximately one year.
Public Health Care Service
Public health care is provided to City residents through two governmental orga-
nizations: the County of Orange Health Care Agency and the University of Cali-
fornia at Irvine,Medical Center.
7/1"&I ZG63ovMsEcr4-io WM)* 4.10-4
r
Utility Services
Water
The Huntington Beach Water Department currently supplies an annual average
of 33 million gallons per day (MGD) to 48,000 water meters. Typically, the
majority of the City's water is supplied by groundwater wells,while the remain-
der is supplied through imported sources. Varying rainfall amounts and import
water availability make these amounts vary from year to year.
The City has two water pressure zones: Zone Nos. 1 and 2. Zone No. 1 covers
the majority of the City and includes the Merged Project Area. The water pres-
sure in Zone No. 1 is approximately 50 to 60 pounds per square inch(psi).
Other sources of water for the City of Huntington Beach include water supplied
by the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) and 14 underground water wells.
One of the wells is located within the Merged Project Area,within Huntington
Center.
The City's water storage system consists of the Overmyer Reservoir Complex and
the Peck Reservoir. The Peck Reservoir has a capacity of 16 million gallons;the
Overmyer Reservoir Complex has a capacity of 24.5 million gallons. Currently,
the storage facilities are inadequate to serve the water demands of the City. A
new nine million gallon reservoir is being considered.
Under the Master Plan for the City's water system designed to accommodate new
growth and development,including the following facilities to be constructed:
• Three new underground water wells,
• One nine million gallon reservoir,and
• Reclaimed water distribution line to connect with the Orange County
Water District's Green Acres Project.
i
Other planned improvements include increasing the water system capacity for
water distribution relative to boosters and groundwater well sources.
i
Sewerage
i
Sewerage services for the City of Huntington Beach are provided by the Sanita-
tion Districts of Orange County and the City of Huntington Beach. Currently,98
percent of the residents of the City are connected to the existing sewer system,
while the remaining two percent use septic tanks.
The Sanitation Districts of Orange County has two wastewater treatment plants
that serve the City. Both wastewater treatment plants perform primary and
secondary treatment. Plant No. 1 has an operating capacity of 60 million gallons
per day (mgd). Plant No. 2 has an operating capacity of 200 mgd for primary
treatment and 96 mgd for secondary treatment. Plant No. 2 currently operates
at 170 mgd. Currently,the Sanitation Districts of Orange County is experiencing
a 14 percent decrease in wastewater treatment demand due to conservation
f
s
7/19i96KL•\RSG630\EIMECT4—IO.WPDN 4.10-5
I
I
I
r
practices and City/County imposed regulations. Neither of these wastewater
treatment plans is located within the Merged Project Area. However, these
plants serve the Merged Project Area.
Solid Waste
The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department reports that the City
currently generates approximately 1,845 tons of solid waste per day. Rainbow
Disposal,the provider of waste collection service to the City, transports waste to
a transfer station and then to the City's materials recovery facility (MRF). The
MRF is located at 17121 Nichols Avenue, and is not within the Merged Project
Area. Solid waste is sorted at the MRF,and all recyclables are separated. Approx-
imately 16 percent of the solid waste accepted by the MRF is diverted to recy-
cling.
Solid waste that is not recycled is transported to the Frank Bowerman Landfill in
Bee Canyon in the City of Irvine. The I fespan of the Landfill is 30 years,begin-
ning in 1995.
On January 1, 1990, the California State Legislature enacted the California Inte-
grated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939). Under AB939, cities and
counties must identify and implement a solid waste reduction schedule to divert
25 percent from the solid waste stream by 1995, increasing to 50 percent by
2000. In response to AB939, the City of Huntington Beach adopted a Source
Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE) and a Household Hazardous Waste
Element (HHWE) in April, 1992. If AB939 (discussed below) solid waste reduc-
tion requirements are met,the Frank Bowerman Landfill has a potential lifespan
of 50 years.
Storm Drainage/Flooding
Storm Drainage
The storm drainage system for the Redevelopment Project Area is a combination
of the Orange County Flood Control District and the City of Huntington Beach
Public Works Department. Figure SD-1 in the General Plan Update EIIt (page
5.12.3-2) illustrates the existing storm drain channels within the City.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) has identified locations in
the City that are susceptible to flooding. Figure 4.10.1 identifies the potential
FEMA flood event locations in the City. The Merged Project Area is also shown
on the map. Project specific flooding information is identified below.
I
E
The Santa Ana River Mainstem Project,a storm water project of the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, is expected to be completed in the year 2000. The
purpose of the project is to decrease storm drainage impacts on the Santa Ana
I River and its basin by increasing the storage capacity of dams located along the
river and improving the river's channels from the San Bernardino Mountains to
I
I
7/19,96«I:\,RSG630%EMR.SECT4-10.WPD» 4.10-6
U V O
U < C
Z 3 ~
(7 Q CD
ccW W
CLI
u}
O
SEAL N WESTMINSTER
BEACH BOLSAMe
_- o
g z j FADDEN
co
— EDL14GER
. :. .. 2 HEILWA WARNER
FOUNTAIN
VA
LLEY LLEY
SLATER
d'
9
✓
Elev.10-13' ;;.; COUNTY OF TALBERT
ORANGE
{BOL SA CHICA lJ y
Elev.13 MIS z 5 x
jf 2 cc ¢ 3
GARFIELD
-14
_z YORKTOWN
ra
ss ADAMS
LEGEND ,Elev.13''"'"``''::`� °D �
:.::.:.::.
Elev.12 >•.:>
� City Boundary 5
ATLANTA
A-No Base Flood Elevation Elev.Ylrl'a ''
® A99-Protected by Federal Project Elev.12-13' >tt;=.y HAu4TON
Under Construction
Ele
v.
® VE-Coastal Flood with Velocity Hazard
'•. BANNING
X-Areas of 500 Year Floods,
:< Areas of 100 Year Floods with Average Depth COSTA
< 1 Ft.and Protected by 100 Year Flood Levels V Elev.1l'' °<'• MESA
Area Outside of 500 Year Floodr>
3 Redevelopment Areas
mow..: ...
Source:Ciry of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EM,7/95.
7/1 G6301 Figure 4.10.1
N
L SD scale in Miles
0 0.5 1 4.10-7 Flood Hazard Areas
I
demands are being met and that additional demand for natural gas can be pro-
vided if necessary.
Telecommunications
Telephone
General Telephone and Electric (GTE) provides telephone service to the Merged
Project Area. Five GTE offices are located in the City of Huntington Beach,
providing local service coverage for all of the Merged Project Area.
Cable Television
Time Warner Communications provides cable television service to the Merged
Project Area.
4.10.2 27UWSHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts to public services and utilities are considered significant if they result in
the following:
Police Services
• Results in increased demands that significantly exceed the Huntington
Beach Police Department's capabilities to the extent that they pose a
serious health and safety risk.
Fire and Emergency Medical Services
• Results in demands that significantly exceed the Huntington Beach Fire
Department's capabilities to the extent that they pose a serious health
and safety risk.
Otber Services and Utilities
• Results in demands for services that significantly exceed available service
or utility rapacity.
4.10.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
i
Police Services
j
' The Merged Project Area is nearly built out at this time,and future build out will
not substantially increase the need for police service. Therefore,it is anticipated
l
I
7/'19A6((i:\RSG,63ovMC�sEcr4-io wPE)» 4.10-9
I
i
that police service facilities would not be significantly impacted due to the im-
plementation of the Amendment/Merger. Future redevelopment and new
construction projects will need to be analyzed on a project by project basis to
determine potential police service needs in the Merged Project Area. Therefore,
the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on police services.
Eire and Emergency Medical Services
Build out of the Merged Project Area would result in additional incremental
demands for fire and emergency medical services.
Due to the nature of the redevelopment activities to implement infrastructure
improvements, and to assist in affordable housing and economic development
activities, additional demand for fire and emergency medical services would be
small. The potential Agency actions do not change any land uses,and potential
development is consistent with anticipated growth in the City's General Plan.
Future redevelopment and construction projects associated with the implemen-
tation of the Amendment/Merger will need to be analyzed on a project by pro-
ject basis to determine potential new demand for fire and emergency medical
services. Therefore,the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on
fire and emergency medical services.
Parks and Recreation
The General Plan Update EIR indicates that existing parks and recreation facili-
ties are adequate under build out of the General Plan Update. The growth
within the Merged Project Area is consistent with that anticipated at build out of
the General Plan; therefore,the Amendment/Merger will not result in significant
impacts to parks and recreation located in the Merged Project Area. Therefore,
the Merged Project will not result in significant impacts to the demand for parks
and recreation services.
Road Maintenance
Build out of the General Plan Update will create an increased demand on road
maintenance services beyond existing provision of services. Construction of new
roadways will add to the demand for road maintenance service,as well as land-
scape maintenance services. The General Plan Update EIR reports that without
increases in funding, level of service provided by road maintenance crews will
decrease due to increased demand on existing staff, equipment and facilities.
One of the functions of the Amendment/Merger is to provide additional funding
for such projects within the Merged Project Area. Therefore,the Merged Project
Cwill offset new demand for road maintenance and landscape maintenance ser-
vices by providing funding for such programs.
f
E
7/19&&I.\RSSG630\Ett\$ECT4-ro.VPD» 4.10-10
I
Other Governmental Services
Library
The General Plan Update EIR identifies the need for additional library space on a
citywide basis. The Oakview Branch Library, which has been in service for ap-
proximately one year,provides services to the Merged Project Area. One of the
programs that could be funded by Redevelopment Agency tax increment financ-
ing is expansion of the Oakview Branch Library. This could more than offset any
impacts resulting from implementation of the Amendment/Merger.
Public Health Care
Due to the nature of the redevelopment activities to increase commercial reha-
bilitation and provide economic and infrastructure incentives to aid in economic
revitalization, the overall effect will be to add job opportunities and reduce
dependance on social programs. The redevelopment activities programmed in
the Amendment/Merger will not displace or physically effect any public health
care provider. Therefore,there is no significant effect on public health care.
Utility Services
Water
Because of the nature of typical redevelopment investment into infrastructure
and resolving service deficiencies as a means of promoting area economic devel-
opment, and the additional financing available by the Amendment/Merger,
beneficial effects on infrastructure are anticipated, including water services.
Redevelopment activities that are primarily infrastructure projects and economic
development assistance will not significantly affect existing water service. How-
ever,future redevelopment and new construction projects will need to be ana-
lyzed on a specific project level basis to determine the future water service need
for the Merged Project Area.
Sewerage
The Amendment/Merger will not change the redevelopment area boundaries or
the land uses that were analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. Therefore,the
conclusion that sewage capacities at nearby plants was adequate to ensure that
sewage service could be provided is still valid for the Amendment/Merger. The
Amendment/Merger will not change the amount of sewage and, therefore,will
not adversely impact the ability of the Sanitation Districts of Orange County to
provide service to the area.
I
I
f
I
i
I 7/19/96«I.WCr630NEntN$ECT4-10 WPD» 4.10-11
Solid Waste
Although the Merged Project Area is included in the General Plan, the square
footage and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are unknown at this
time. In addition,it is anticipated that the potential increase in capacity needed
under the General Plan build out would not be significant, and could be re-
duced through implementation of solid waste reduction policies. Therefore,it is
anticipated that redevelopment activities will not significantly affect existing
solid waste facilities or generate a significant amount of solid waste.
Storm Drainage/Flooding
Because the Merged Project Area is nearly built out, with a small number of
vacant parcels yet to develop, the additional development potential would not
substantially increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, i.e., it would have
virtually no effect on runoff amounts and velocity.
Potential runoff increases resulting from new projects will need to be analyzed
on a project by project basis to determine any potential storm drain impacts on
the storm drain channels in the immediate vicinity. The Orange County Environ-
mental Management Agency (OCEMA) has indicated that it will not accept any
new connections to the County's storm drainage system until existing facilities
have been expanded to accommodate additional capacity. Several of the pro-
jects that could be funded by Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing
could include improvements to storm drains and surface drainage. However,
the Merged Project will not result in increased stormwater runoff and will not
impact the storm drain system.
Tsunami/seiche hazards are also considered to be potentially significant due to
the City's proximity to the Pacific Ocean. When a tsunami reaches shallow
coastal areas,the rapid incoming tide "runs up"onto beaches,harbors and other
narrow inlets, damaging light weight and poorly constructed structures. Main-
Pier would experience the most severe tsunami/seiching damage;the remainder
of the Merged Project Area would not be affected. These conditions currently
!, exist at the Main-Pier, and are not a direct result of the Merged Project.
Flooding hazards to the City and to the Merged Project Area are considered to be
potentially significant. As previously identified,portions of the Merged Project
Area are located in areas of potential flood depths of up to three feet. Future
redevelopment sponsored activities and new construction projects will need to
! be analyzed on a project level basis to determine future storm drainage and
jflooding avoidance needs. Projected construction of stormwater runoff drainage
systems using Redevelopment Agency tax increment financing could be a major
benefit of the adoption of the Amendment/Merger (see the list of projects
funded by the Redevelopment Agency in Chapter 3.0).
7n9A64 NRSc63O\EM\sEcr4-lowrn» 4.10-12
�I
I
Electricity
The square footage and ultimate build out of the Merged Project Area are un-
known at this time. Based on SCE's continued provision of electrical service to
the Merged Project Area and the City as a whole, it is anticipated that the Merged
Project will nor significantly affect existing electrical facilities and demands.
Therefore, the Merged Project will not result in a significant impact on the de-
mand for electricity in the area.
Natural Gas
The potential Merged Project programs and ultimate build out of the Merged
Project Area are consistent with the General Plan. As indicated in the General
Plan Update EIR, there are adequate services available or planned to accommo-
date the planned growth. It is anticipated that redevelopment activities Will not
significantly affect existing natural gas service and demands.
Telecommunications
As indicated in responses to a questionnaire, GTE will continue to provide its
current level or expanded levels of stationary telephone service. In addition,
Time Warner Communications will be able to accommodate increased demands
for cable television associated with implementation of the project. Therefore,no
significant effects to telecommunications service will result with build out of the
General Plan or the implementation of the Merged Project.
4.10.4 CUMULATIVEIMPACTS
Due to the nature of the proposed projects of the Redevelopment Agency,
including street, landscaping and storm drainage improvements (see Chapter
3.0), the anticipated benefits to the Merged Project Area from these infrastruc-
ture and facilities improvements will lessen service and facility cumulative de-
mand.
The General Plan Update EIR indicates that build out of the General Plan Update
will bring an additional 48,470 persons to the City's population base. The Police
Department has indicated that, using its current facilities and staffing levels,an
adequate level of service cannot be provided with build out of the General Plan.
However,the Amendment/Merger is not proposing to build any project. There-
fore,the proposed Merger Project will not contribute to this cumulative impact.
I
I
4.10.5 G ArERALPIANPOLICIES
I
4 With implementation of the policies contained in the Utilities Element of the
General Plan, effects resulting from increased demand on police and fire ser-
vices,public service,and utilities and facility improvements will be substantially
reduced.
I
7/1 9A6*LARsc,63ONEMSECr4-lo.VM> 4.10-13
r
• Identify tsunami and seiche susceptible areas, and require that specific
measures be taken by the developer,builder or property owner,as nec-
essary, to prevent or reduce damage from these hazards and the risks
upon human safety (Policy EH5.1.1).
• Participate in the National Weather Service or other system for local
tsunami and/or seiche warnings (Policy EH5.1.2).
Implementation Programs
• Standards for tsunami/seiche studies to be completed for harbor areas,
breakwaters and dikes,and coastal areas of concern. The City shall up-
date its evaluation of the tsunami hazard, make its standard more spe-
cific,and disseminate available information on tsunami warnings and on
procedural steps to prepare the populace for such an event. Mitigation
measures shall be suggested for new construction(Program I-FH1).
4.10.6 MITTGA7ION MEASURES
There are no potentially significant or significant impacts to public services and
utilities resulting from the implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There-
fore,no additional mitigation measures are required.
4.10.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MTITGA27ON
Provided that the mitigation measures identified above and the General Plan
policies are implemented and monitored, the impacts to public services and
utilities are considered to be less than significant.
I
E
7/1"6«L•\BSG63o\Zn;�SEC r4-to.wrn» 4.10-14
4.11 AESTHETICS
This section is based on a field survey by ISA in May, 1996, and on information
in the City's General Plan Update EIR.
4.11.1 ZUSTZNG ENVn?OA3fE?VTAL SETTING
Urban Form
The Merged Project Area is located in portions of the City of Huntington Beach
that have flat or near level topographic expression. As a result, there are no
significant identifiable landform features relevant to these areas. Main-Pier has
some minor landforms where the beach area gradually slopes down to the Pacific
Ocean. Elevation differences in this area are minor.
The General Plan divides the City into component urban forms. These include
principal districts, nodes and key entry points, paths, landmarks and edges.
Principal visual assets are also identified. The Merged Project Area includes
many of these urban forms,as illustrated in Table 4.11A.
The City of Huntington Beach's urban form has been determined by residential,
commercial, and industrial subdivisions that have occurred in a piecemeal and
inconsistent manner since before the City's founding. Generally,the design and
configuration of lots and uses reflected planning styles that were typically used
at the time the subdivisions were platted. As the City is comparatively flat, the
patterns of development have occurred with little regard to natural topography,
creating relatively uniform grid patterns. The only significant natural element
influencing the urban pattern in the Merged Project Area is the Pacific Ocean,
which establishes a clear edge on the City's western boundary.
An exception to the standard subdivision development pattern occurs in the
City's downtown area. This unique pattern of development formed very early in
the City's history;this follows the old"town lot"pattern,consisting of small lots
and short blocks that have been developed in a consistent grid pattern. Devel-
opment and lots were configured to form a distinct"coastal village" character,
which was representative of many communities along the Southern California
coastline.
Older Urban Condition
The Merged Project Area contains a mixture of residential, commercial and
industrial land uses. Although some new development has occurred, most
development is at least 20 years old or older. With the aging process,there are
notable visual issues regarding lack of routine maintenance,including exterior
building paint and repair, and deterioration of landscape materials. Improve-
ments needed to address these issues generally range from general maintenance,
such as paint and minor exterior remodeling, to major exterior upgrading, and
modernization of signage.
7l19/964(I-WG630%E=ECT4-11.WYD» 4.11-1
- 1
Table 4.11.A-Relevant Urban Forms In Merged Project Area
Location Primary District Node/Entry Point Path Landmark Edge Vlsunl Asset
Main-Pier Downtown Commercial Secondary entries along Beach(primary); Pier/Pierside Pacific Pacific Ocean
(7) PCH;internal node at Main PCH(primary);Main Pavillion/Maxwell's;Wa- Ocean/Beac
&PCH (secondary) terfront Hilton hes
Huntington Cen- Edinger Commercial Primary entry node at Beach Beach(primary); None San Diego None
ter Corridor(9) Boulevard;internal nodes at Edinger(primary) Preeway
Edinger/Golden West& (405)
Edinger/Beach
Oak View Beach Commercial Cor- Internal node at Warner& Beach(primary); Guardian Tower None None
ridor(8);Gothard In- Beach Warner(primary)
dustrial Corridor(14)
Talbert-Beach Beach Commercial Cor- None Beach(primary) None None None
ridor(8);Gothard In-
dustrial Corridor(14)
Yorktown-Lake "Old Town"District(1) Internal node at Yorktown& Main(secondary) City Hall&High School None Mature Land-
Lake scaping
Source:City of Huntington Beach,General Plan Update EBt,July,1995.
7/19/96 I:\RSG630\\EMSECT4-i1.WPD» .4.11-2
Visual Liabilities
Visual elements exist within the City that confuse and weaken the community's
aesthetic resources and overall visual appearance. These visual liabilities inter-
fere with development of a cohesive City image. The nature of community
development can,in and of itself,be a visual liability if it inhibits the observer's
ability to gain orientation or a sense of place.
The EIR for the General Plan describes the types and locations of Huntington
Beach's visual liabilities that contribute negatively to the visual quality of the
community. These liabilities are classified in three categories: 1) confusions, 2)
obstructions, and 3) discontinuities. Briefly "confusions" are locations that do
not provide orientation or a sense of direction to either pedestrians or vehicular
traffic. Obstructions are natural or man-made elements that limit visual access
within a community. Discontinuities are developments where there is no appar-
ent order or harmony in the overall scale or character of the built environment.
All three types of these visual liabilities were identified in the General Plan Up-
date EIR as being found within the Merged Project Area. Within Huntington
Center,the Beach Boulevard off-ramp of the southbound I405 is identified as an
area of"confusion,"primarily as a result of the convergence of traffic onto Center
Avenue from various directions.
Huntington Center, Oakview and Talbert-Beach are all characterized predomi-
nately as containing "obstructions" such as fencing/landscaping signage or de-
tracting urban activities (i.e., oil production facilities or large buildings),which
block views and create visual clutter. One example of this is vegetation that
blocks views from the I405 Freeway, creating visual obstruction to Huntington
Beach Mall.
Yorktown Lake and Main-Pier include areas of identified"discontinuuties,"where
the pattern of urban development has resulted in a lack of a cohesive urban
design or visual character.
Through identification of these visual liabilities, the City identified specific poli-
cies within the General Plan to guide the urban design and aesthetic character of
new development and identify other means for improving the overall visual
appearance of the City as a whole.
Visual Amenities
The primary visual amenity within the Merged Project Area is the view of the
ocean and beach frontage on the southerly side of PCH. Adding to the shoreline
identity of the community is a significant landmark,the Huntington Beach Pier.
This landmark is a major identifying element of the community, and is also an
historic landmark. The pier was demolished after being severely weakened by
heavy storms, and was rebuilt according to original plans, thus preserving its
place as an important visual and historical element of the City of Huntington
Beach.
7/1"6«I:%RsG630\EmR.sECT4-11 vM* 4.11-3
t
4.11.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines includes a definition of a significant aes-
thetic/visual impact as having a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect on the environment. The General Plan Update EIR applies this broad
definition to the City of Huntington Beach, in two ways. Significant aesthetic
impacts would be generated if the Amendment/Merger:
• Results in a substantial disruption or loss of public views, including
those of the ocean and shoreline, natural bluffs, wetlands, or mature
vegetation.
• Allows development or intensification of development which is substan-
tially out of character or scale with the existing development of a dis-
trict, node,path, landmark, or edge area of the City.
4.11.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Since implementation of the Amendment/Merger will allow land uses consistent
with the land uses identified in the General Plan,this impact analysis is based on
the analysis conducted for the EIR for the General Plan.
As concluded in the EIR for the General Plan,intensification of residential, com-
mercial and industrial land uses within the City will result in opportunities to
remedy existing visual liabilities or enhance the visual strengths of existing
districts, nodes, paths, landmarks and edges. Although intensification has the
potential to create visual liabilities, such as obstruction of existing views and
introduction of land uses that are out of character/scale with existing land uses,
implementation of the policies of the General Plan will foster development of
unifying visual themes and result in a net improvement of the visual image of the
City of Huntington Beach, reducing potential impacts to below the level of
significance.
In relationship to the Merged Project Area, the primary visual effects of the
proposed land use intensification would occur along the Beach Boulevard and
Edinger Avenue commercial corridors. Huntington Center, Oakview and
Talbert-Beach are located adjacent to or in proximity to Beach Boulevard, and
would be affected by General Plan policies developed to enhance the economic
viability of this corridor. General commercial expansion would be allowed from
the I405 to Warner Avenue,between Talbert and Garfield Avenues and between
Yorktown and Adams Avenues.
The Edinger Avenue commercial corridor, from Golden West Street to Beach
Boulevard (within Huntington Center), is characterized by intermittent "large
box" retail centers. The proximity to freeway transportation,which can more
easily access larger market areas,favors locations along Edinger Avenue for such
commercial uses rather than more southerly locations in the City. _
In addition, the Downtown commercial district includes an area covering two
blocks on each side of Main Street, between the pier or Pacific Coast Highway
7n9y96(<I:\Rsc,63a�E=ECr4-1i wpn» 4.114
I
and Palm Street. The General Plan Update indicates that this district will likely
continue to experience growth in the form of mixed-use developments,such as
those recently constructed with a neo-Mediterranean design (within the Main-
Pier).
The encouragement of commercial growth to selected segments of Beach Boule-
vard and Edinger Avenue is designed to complement existing conditions, to
enhance commercial themes, and to permit distinct locations and identities
along existing commercial corridors. The overall visual image characteristics of
the commercial corridors would only slightly change over the short term, at an
incremental,fairly slow pace as business owners' decisions to build new business
and/or expand existing ones occur. Most of the increased commercial develop-
ment would be along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue corridors,which
are outside of the Merged Project Area.
General Plan Policies
The General Plan sets forth a number of goals, objectives, and policies that are
intended to enhance and better coordinate the visual character of Huntington
Beach's natural and built environments. These policies are, for the most part,
applicable to the Amendment/Merger. Goals presented in the Environmental
Resources/Conservation (ERC) Element address issues relating to Scenic High-
ways, Aesthetic Resources, and Open Space. Goals contained in the Urban
Design (UD) Element focus on issues related to the enhancement of the City's
visual image. Goals and objectives established for both of these elements are
also designed to remedy,repair,or improve the visual character of visual liability
areas of the City.
Several of the stated goals,objectives,and policies contained in the General Plan
are intended to foster the creation of identifiable visual themes for the 15 urban
districts and for the corridors and nodes that link them physically and function-
ally(see Section 5.9,Aesthetic/Visual Resources, Figures VR-2,VR 3 and VR-4 in
the General Plan Update EIR).
Implications of the Amendment/Merger
The adoption and implementation of the Amendment/Merger will allow the
Agency to collect additional tag increment revenue. The increased tax revenues
will, in part, be applied to upgrading the Merged Project Area aesthetics, thus
improving the visual appearance and reducing or eliminating negative visual
images. Revenues can be used to renovate buildings, provide public landscap-
ing,demolish blighted,dilapidated and unsafe buildings,among other uses. The
use of tax increment revenue to eliminate blight, and to upgrade and improve
existing buildings,will result in positive aesthetic impacts to the Merged Project
Area and the City of Huntington Beach.
The Amendment/Merger does not include any specific development projects.
The only projects associated with the Amendment/Merger include capital public
improvements such as street,storm drains,sidewalks, curbs and gutters, as well
i
7/19i96«I:\tSG630\EMSECT4-11.WPI > 4.11-5
i
ii
as water and sewer utilities. The construction of these improvements will assist
in improving the area's aesthetics and image. It is likely that these types of
improvements will have a positive impact on private investment,thus encourag-
ing local property owners to follow with additional upgrades, improvements,
increased maintenance and new development. All of these efforts are consid-
ered beneficial due to the Amendment/Merger and, therefore, will result in
positive aesthetic impacts to both the project area and the City in general.
At the time that private projects are proposed,consistent with the Merged Plan
and General Plan, they must be submitted to the City Community Development
Department for review. If there are potential aesthetic impacts associated with a
particular project, the City will,through its normal development review process,
require design changes to reduce aesthetic impacts to acceptable Ievels. The
Community Development Department reviews all project applications, and the
Amendment/Merger will have no effect on that process. All future projects
developed with redevelopment assistance must be processed through the City's
development approval process and building permit process.
Overall, the Amendment/Merger is anticipated to have positive and beneficial
aesthetic impacts to the Merged Project Area. The use of tax increment revenue
will allow the Agency to use monies for improving and updating dilapidated and
blighted buildings,ultimately having positive visual impacts.
Within the Merged Project Area, development projects that could negatively
affect or disrupt public views, or could be developed out of character or scale
could occur. However,there are several reasons why such development should
not negatively affect the Merged Project Area's visual resources or adjacent
resources:
1. The Merged Project Area is substantially developed, and future infill
development of vacant parcels will not be significant. Where redevelop-
ment involves substantial demolition and reconstruction,there is a po-
tential for larger scale development and loss of public views, if these
views were previously available. However,in the four inland portions of
the Merged Project Area, there are no locations where existing public
views would be affected, either through development of vacant parcels
or through large-scale redevelopment.
2. Future development requests that are out of character or scale would be
reviewed and modifications recommended to achieve neighborhood
compatibility consistent with the policies of the General Plan. In any
event,as described above,future development projects are submitted for
development review by the City Community Development Department;
this assists in reducing the negative aesthetic impacts to acceptable lev-
els.
3• Main-Pier, located within the coastal resource area, could have future
projects that affect public views, including those of the ocean and shore-
line. Depending upon the location,size and height of these future pro-
jects, views from inland areas to the coastal resources values could be
adversely affected. However, as stated above, all future projects would
7/19i96<ARSG630NEEDSECT4 11XPD» 4.11-6
be submitted to the Community Development Department for develop-
ment review. Any project in Main-Pier submitted for review would have
to be consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan. This review,together
with public disclosure of project impacts during public hearings, will
assist in reducing the potential adverse aesthetic impacts to acceptable
levels.
4. The Amendment/Merger does not involve changes to land use or to
other features of the planning process that were identified to have signifi-
cant visual impacts as part of the analysis for the EIR prepared for the
General Plan Update. The General Plan defines and guides future devel-
opment to achieve land use balance and internal land use compatibility.
Applicable policies that protect views of the beach and ocean area indi-
cated below in Section 4.11.5. These policies provide strong guidance
to protect these important views. The Merged Plan is consistent with the
General Plan land use designations;thus,impacts similar to those identi-
fied in the General Plan Update EIR can be expected. Therefore,future
development projects within the Merged Project Area would attain the
appropriate scale and character within the respective urban district,
node,path,landmark or edge and will not result in new significant visual
impacts. In addition,the Downtown Specific Plan includes development
restrictions that help to maintain the community character and future
beach oriented development, consistent with the downtown/pier/beach
atmosphere of the area.
4.11.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will encourage planned develop-
ment within the Merged Project Area,consistent with the General Plan land use
designations and applicable policies. Given that implementation of the General
Plan was determined to have less than significant visual impacts,with implemen-
tation of General Plan policies and no additional development intensity permit-
ted by the Amendment/Merger, no additional cumulative impacts will occur
within the City as a result of project implementation. Any cumulative aesthetic
effects are considered less than significant.
4.11.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan identifies several policies contained in the Urban Design Ele-
ment and the Environmental Resources Conservation Element that enhance
! aesthetics and views and lessen or mitigate negative impacts of development.
The policies that are applicable to the Amendment/Merger are listed below.
• Require public improvements to enhance the existing setting for all key
I nodes and pedestrian areas through the consideration of the following
i
(Policy VD 1.2.1):
a. Provide pedestrian connections and visual continuity between
I the node and the surrounding neighborhoods;
7/19,96«I:\RSSG63oX=ECT4-11 WPD» 4.11-7
I
b. Incorporate shade trees to shelter pedestrians;
C. Incorporate the use of enhanced paving materials at the pedes-
trian crosswalks;
f. Incorporate landscaping to mask oil operations and major utili-
ties, such as the Edison generating station.
• Require that the nodes indicated in Table UD-1 incorporate the public
improvements specified in Policy UD 1.2.1 of the General Plan and other
elements that may be listed in the table,as feasible (Policy UD 1.2.2).
• Coordinate the design of public and private signs and graphics on a
citywide basis (Policy UD 1.2.3).
a. Prepare and implement a coordinated public signage program
that fosters a cohesive city image.
b. Develop a major arterials'public signage installation program.
C. Consider developing guidelines for private commercial monu-
ment signage that incorporate a consistent public identification
device such as a City logo or a logo for the business's location,
i.e., Beach Boulevard.
• Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character
along the community's corridors,reflecting the unique qualities of each
district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial
corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image
corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting
visual continuity throughout the City(Policy UD 1.3.1).
• Provide for the implementation of streetscape and landscape improve-
ments along the major commercial corridors, through public capital
improvement programs, business district improvements, or other tech-
niques as funding is available(Policy UD 1.3.2).
a. Develop or enhance the pedestrian environment in those parts of
the corridors where there is existing or the potential for pedes-
trian activity;this includes the use of:
- Sidewalk R miture;
- Shade trees;
- Shade structures;
- Special paving;and
- Pedestrian walkways linkages.
b. Consider using special corridor oriented public signage, public
I art, or median monuments at prominent intersections.
i
f
E
7n9/964cl.Wc63oVMIN$Ecr4-11 WM>> 4.11-8
C. Discourage the excessive use of temporary signage including
bunting and commercial banners.
• Provide for the implementation of additional streetscape and landscape
improvements in the corridors specified in Table UD-2 and shown in
Figure UD-5 and UD-6 in the General Plan, through public capital im-
provement programs, business district improvements, or other tech-
niques as funding is available(Policy UD 1.33)•
• Establish visual relief to the monotony of walled "superblock" corridors
and enhance the corridors image through the visual strengths of the
respective residential neighborhoods in which they are located including
(Policy UD 1.3•4):
For new development,require the use of landscape materials in
the public right-of-way;
For existing development, add tree pockets and/or landscape
planters along arterial tract walls;
For both new and existing development, establish a consistent
pattern of street trees along the corridor using the predominate
tree types of the adjacent residential areas;
Develop a variety of street sections to allow for variation of right-
of-way widths and sidewalk configurations,for example,some of
the walls have a three to four foot planting strip in which plant
materials have been placed outside of the wall while other tracts
have no plantings outside of the wall. Recognize that sidewalk
width on residential district arterial streets is less important than
in other situations as there are few pedestrians and few pedes-
trian destinations (bus stops are a possible exception) along
these arterials. If the sidewalk is narrowed to accommodate tree
wells or wider planting strips, a sidewalk width of three to four '
feet is ample to accommodate the occasional pedestrian and
maintain handicapped access (see Figure UD-7 and Figure UD-8
[in the General Plan);
For new development,increased landscaping area;
Consider reducing street widths to increase landscaping area;
and
Consider establishing a public art ordinance for the placement of
art in public R.O.W.
• Establish design standards for walls along the residential "superblock"
corridors,including(Policy UD 1.3.5):
For new development, require that privately developed walls
make a positive visual contribution to the public streetscape
7/19i96«I.\I2sG63ONEM\.SECT4-i1.WM>► 4.11-9
r
including provisions for plant material enhancements such as
vine pockets or decorative plants, and design features such as
sculptured or textured masonry units;
For existing development,require that any modifications to walls
in the public right-of-way are of quality construction and perma-
nent materials consistent with the design of the wall, and that
any additions to the walls be designed to make a positive visual
contribution to the public streetscape;and
For both the new and existing development, require that the
walls will be maintained over their lifetime,and that future modi-
fications to the walls will not negatively impact the public
streetscape.
• Require that new development be designed to consider coastal views in
its massing, height,and site orientation (Policy UD 2.1.1).
• Require additional landscaping and varying hadscape along the beach
trail and roadway medians,where appropriate (Policy UD 2.1.2).
• Require landscape and architectural buffers and screens around oil pro-
duction facilities and other utilities visible from public rights-of-way
(Policy UD 22.1).
• Require landscaping to screen flood control channels where visible to
public view and where there is adequate planting area available (Policy
UD 2.2.3).
• Promote the preservation of public view corridors to the ocean and the
waterfront through strict application of local ordinances, design guide-
hues and related planning efforts,including defined view corridors (Pol-
icy UD 415).
• Include commercial,residential,industrial,and natural areas in the bill-
board removal programs (Policy ERC 41.7).
j Include commercial,residential,industrial,and natural areas in the elec-
trical undergrounding program (Policy ERC 4.1.8).
I
I .
4.11.6 MrHGATION MEASURES
None required.
4.11.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTLR MI Z7GA77ON
Successful implementation of the General Plan Update policies would reduce
potentially significant impacts of the AmendmenVMerger relative to aesthet-
ics{visual resources to less than significant levels.
E 7119i96(<1Axsc639=,sEcr4-11 VPD» 4.11-10
4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
This section includes a summary of the prehistory of Orange County and of the
historic period from the Mission Period up to the history of settlement of Hun-
tington Beach in the late 1890s and tarn of the century. For the full historical
report, including information about the Huntington Beach Ranchos Las Bolsas
and Bolsa Chica,early European settlement and the period of prehistory, please
see Appendix B.
This section also includes the results of a historic building survey conducted by
LSA within the Merged Project Area in the City of Huntington Beach. The survey
assessed the presence of historic buildings (defined as any structures 50 or more
years of age) within the Merged Project Area.
In addition to the field survey,a records and literature search was conducted to
assess the presence of prehistoric archaeological resources within the Merged
Project Area. The results of this records search are summarized below;a copy of
the records search is presented in Appendix B.
4.12.1 FISTING ENVIR0NA1E?VTAL SETTING
The history of the City of Huntington Beach is provided below in its entirety
because of the location of the Merged Project in the City, and the relevance of
the more recent subdivision and construction activities to the structures within
the Merged Project Area. The following sections provide background informa-
tion.
Prebwory of Orange County
The following, outline, which is based primarily on Wallace's chronology
(1955;1978) as revised for Orange County, provides background information
relevant to the discussion of archaeological sites located within the Merged
Project Area (Koerper 1981;Koerper and Drover 1983)•
Early Period(Prior to 6,000 B.C.)
The Early Period (also known as the Hunting Period)covers the interval from the
first presence of humans in Southern California until post-glacial times (6,000 to
3,000 B.C.). Although Early Period sites have seldom been identified in Orange
County,there are two sites in the Upper Newport Bay area. No Early Period sites
have been identified within the Merged Project Area.
Milling Stone Period(6,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C.)
The transition from the Early Period to the Milling Stone Period is marked by an
increased emphasis on the processing of seeds and edible plants, and is esti-
mated to have occurred between 6,000 B.C. and 3,000 B.C. Milling Stone
7n8/964I.W"3mEMR.SEcr4-Z2.WPD» 4.12-1
r
Period settlements were larger and occupied for longer periods of time than
those of the Early Period, and mortuary practices included both flexed and
extended interments as well as reburials.
Several Milling Stone Period sites have been identified in Orange County. The
best known is in Irvine. No Millingstone sites have been identified within the
Merged Project Area.
Intermediate Period(3,000 B.C. to A.D.500)
By approximately 3,000 B.C., the inhabitants of Southern California were ex-
ploiting a diverse array of food resources, including seeds and edible plants,
shellfish, fish,and mammals.
Intermediate Period sites are characterized by the appearance of the mortar and
pestle (although the mano and metate also continued in use) and small projec-
tile points. At present,at least two Intermediate Horizon site components have
been identified in Upper Newport Bay: ORA-121 (Crownover et al. 1989) and
ORA-287 (Clevenger 1986). Closer to the study area, two field camps (ORA-
22L222 and ORA-226)apparently have small Intermediate Horizon components
(Rosenthal and Padon 1986; Mason et al. 1987). No Intermediate Period sites
have been identified within the Merged Project Area.
Late Period(A.D.500 to 1769)
I
The late Prehistoric Period,which began approximately A.D. 500,saw a number
of important cultural developments in Southern California, including the con-
centration of larger populations in settlements and communities,greater utiliza-
tion of the available food resources, and the development of regional subcul-
tures. Cremation was the preferred method of burial during the Late Period,and
elaborate mortuary customs with abundant grave goods were common. Other
cultural traits diagnostic of the Late Period include increased use of the bow and
arrow, steatite containers,circular shell fishhooks, asphaltum (as an adhesive),
bone tools and personal ornaments of bone, shell and stone (Bean and Smith
j 1978;Elsasser 1978:56;Moratto 1984:159;Wallace 1955:195).
A number of the cultural elements found in Southern California during the Late
Period have been linked to the migration of Uto Aztecan-speaking peoples from
the Great Basin; these traits include the manufacture of ceramics, the use of
small triangular arrow points (especially those with side notches and serrations),
and interment by cremation. The Los Angeles-Orange counties region was home
to one Uto-Aztecan speaking group known as the Gabrielino.The City of Hun-
tington Beach is located along the southwestern boundary of coastal Gabrielino
territory.
The Gabrielino practiced a hunter-gatherer lifestyle and lived in permanent
communities located near the intersection of two or more environmental zones
(habitats); commonly chosen sites included: rivers, streams and inland water-
courses; sheltered coastal bays and estuaries; and the transition zone marking
7/18i96<<I,\RSG630 ZMZECT4-12 VPD» 4.12-2
it
the interface between prairies and foothills. The Gabrielino community of
Lukupa was located in the Huntington Beach area,perhaps in the vicinity of the
Newland House; the name Lukupa reportedly means "silvery" (McCawley
1996:71).
A record search (Appendix B) conducted at the South Central Coastal Informa-
tion Center,Institute of Archaeology, University of California,Los Angeles, iden-
tified one archaeological site,CA-ORA-149,within the Merged Project Area. This
site,which is described as a shell midden with lithic (stone)artifacts,most likely
dates to the Late Prehistoric Period.
The Historic Period
The Mission Period
The fast recorded contact between the Gabrielino and Europeans occurred in
1542 when the Cabrillo Expedition arrived at Santa Catalina Island (Wagner
1941). On the mainland,the first documented contact between the Gabrielino
and European explorers occurred in 1769 when an expedition led by Gaspar de
Portola's crossed present-day Los Angeles and Orange Counties (W. Bean
1968:36-38; Bolton 1927). Two years later, in 1771, Mission San Gabriel was
established in the Gabrielino territory near Whittier Narrows;several years later,
the Whittier Narrows site was abandoned and the mission was moved to its
present location in the City of San Gabriel (Engelhardt 1927a:19). In 1776,
another mission was established in San Juan Capistrano (Engelhardt 1922).
Although this mission lay outside the Gabrielino territory, many of its converts
were drawn from the Gabrielino community.
Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Cbica
European patterns of land use in the Orange County region commenced with
the establishment of missions San Gabriel (in 1771)and San Juan Capistrano (in
1776). In addition to the missions, the Spanish also established the pueblo of
Los Angeles (El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles de Porciuncula) and a number
of private ranchos. One of these, Los Coyotes, was granted to Manuel Perez
Nieto by Governor Pedro Fages in 1790 (Young et al. 1989), and was subse-
quently subdivided into four ranchos,including Las Bolsas.
In 1841,at the request of the Nieto heirs, Las Bolsas was further subdivided to
create the 8,107-acre Rancho Bolsa China, which was granted to Joaquin Ruiz
(Cowan 1956:19). Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chica included the area now
occupied by Huntington Beach.
History of Huntington Beach
Cattle ranching in Southern California reached its peak of prosperity during the
period when Ranchos Las Bolsas and Bolsa Chica were owned by Abel Stearns.
The Gold Rush and the arrival of massive numbers of immigrants created a huge
7n8/964(LuuG630\EIMEcr4-12.wPD» 4.12-3
demand for beef and turned the ranchers into cattle barons. As immigration to
Southern California increased during the late 1860s, Stearns began subdividing
his landholdings and selling them in 20 to 60 acre parcels at prices varying from
$5.00 to$10.00 per acre; the sales were managed through the"Robinson Trust,"
a syndicate comprising Stearns, Alfred Robinson, Sam Brannan, Edward F.
Northam, Charles B.Polhemus and Edward Martin. Although Stearns lived only
a few years after the syndicate was organized,dying in 1871 during a trip to San
Francisco,his widow Arcadia survived him by more than 40 years;when she died
in 1912, her estate was estimated at $15 million (Cleland 1941:106, 109, 134,
135, 203, 204,207;Wright 1977:97;Huntington Beach General Plan).
One of the individuals who purchased former Rancho Las Bolsas land was Colo-
nel Robert Northam. Northam purchased the area occupied by Huntington
Beach (Meadows 1966:106). In 1901, a syndicate comprising Phillip Stanton,
John N.Anderson and S. H.Finley purchased 1,500 acres from Robert Northam
for $100,000; the syndicate, known as the West Coast Land Company, subdi-
vided 40 acres of this property to create the community of Pacific City. In 1902,
the West Coast Land Company was reorganized as the Huntington Beach Com-
pany and included Henry E. Huntington; two years later (in 1904) the new
community(now renamed Huntington Beach)was connected to Long Beach by
a line of Huntington's Pacific Electric Railway(Macleod and Milkovich 1988). In
1909, the City of Huntington Beach was incorporated as a town with an area of
3.57 acres and a population of 915 (Macleod and Milkovich 1988; Huntington
Beach General Plan).
Agriculture was an important component of the early economy of the Hunting-
ton Beach region;crops included celery,asparagus,peppers,corn and potatoes,
and barley was grown on the mesa inland from the town. Huntington Beach
also served as a transportation center for the region. The fast railroad in the
region,the Smeltzer branch of the Santa Ana-Newport Railroad,was constructed
in 1897 along the bluff of the Huntington Beach mesa;the line ended five miles
inland from the coast, where peat bogs made further construction impractical
(Macleod and Milkovich 1988).
A number of early industries were located in the Huntington Beach area,includ-
ing:the Rainey Tile Company(which manufactured industrial pipe used to drain
the local farmlands) and La Bolsa (another tile company);the Holly Sugar Com-
pany; the Helm House Furnishing Company (a pre-1910 commercial building
located within the study area,which retains its architectural integrity);a broom
factory; and a linoleum factory(Macleod and Milkovich 1988). However, these
early industries were eclipsed during the 1920s by the discovery of oil. Early
Huntington Beach residents discovered natural gas while drilling water wells,
and in 1919,geologists influenced by the natural gas discoveries started explor-
atory oil drilling. These efforts eventually led to the discovery of the Huntington
Beach Field in May, 1920. Standard Oil leased 500 acres of land from the Hun-
tington Beach Company and drilled its first well in the northwest portion of the
City. The first well produced 91 barrels a day and the second well,which was a
much larger find,pumped 2,000 barrels a day. A second oil boom in 1926 was
centered on the region between 8th Street and 23rd Street (Huntington Beach
General Plan).
7/18/9&<I.\xsc,6307-W ECT4-12.WPD)o- 4.12-4
I
Although oil was an important factor in the growth and development of the City
of Huntington Beach, the community remained small (3.57 square miles) until
the late 1950s, when 11 farmland annexations expanded its size to 25 square
miles. The arrival of the aerospace industry during the 1960s was another im-
portant factor in the growth of the region. Today,oil production and aerospace
remain important aspects of the local economy- (Huntington Beach General
Plan).
Existing Cultural Resources/Results of the Records and Literature Search
A record search (Appendix B) conducted at the South Central Coastal Informa-
tion Center, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, on
May 9, 1996, shows one prehistoric site within the Merged Project Area. The
site, CA-ORA-149, was recorded in 1963 and again in 1980 (McKinney 1963;
Douglas 1980);it was described as a shell midden with a"few"artifacts. CA-0RA-
149 had been heavily impacted by road and residential construction, and by oil
production and storage activities. Three additional prehistoric sites have been
identified within one-quarter mile of the Merged Project Area;they are CA-0RA-
276, CA-ORA-296, and CA-ORA-359• No historic archaeological sites have been
recorded within the Merged Project Area.
As part of previous EIRs, for other projects, five separate surveys and/or excava-
tions have been conducted within one-quarter mile of the Merged Project Area;
two of these included portions of the Merged Project Area, and are described
below. In 1987, Beth Padon completed a linear survey of a small strip of land
adjacent to Beach Boulevard along the eastern border of Main-Pier (Padon
1987). In 1989,STA Planning Inc.completed a survey of the downtown portion
of the City of Huntington Beach (STA Planning,Inc. 1989). No new archaeologi-
cal sites were identified as a result of these surveys.
In addition to the California Archaeological Inventory, which houses the perti-
nent information used to determine whether an area has been surveyed and
whether any sites exist within the area,the following sources were reviewed: the
Directory of Properties in the Historic Property Data File for Orange County
(HDP19; the National Register of Historic Places; the California State Historic
Resources Inventory;the California Points of Historical Interest;and the listing
of California Historical Landmarks in the region. The National Register of His
toric Places lists one property within the Merged Project Area and within one-
quarter mile of Main-Pier (NR#89001203). The California State Historic Re-
sources Inventory lists numerous properties within a one-quarter mile radius of
the Merged Project Area,most of which are located in the downtown Hunting-
ton Beach area; a listing of these properties is included in Appendix B. The
listings of the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic Preser-
vation and the California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties
within the Merged Project Area or within one-quarter mile of the Merged Project
Area.
7/1"6<<I.\xsc,63oNEDI\sECr4-12.Wrrno 4.12-5
r
Results of Field Survey
On May 7 and May 8, 1996, a visual survey of the Merged Project Areas was
completed. This survey was directed toward identifying historic buildings,
defined as any structures appearing to be 50 or more years of age. The survey
methodology consisted of walking or driving the study area and examining
every building visible from the street or sidewalk. The age of each building was
estimated based on visible architectural features including the following: roof
design; window design; type of foundation; exterior wall treatments; building
style or architecture;and setting. Those buildings that were estimated to be 50
years of age or older were recorded by address on the survey forms. In a few
cases,addresses were not visible on the curb,building,or mailbox;these excep-
tions were noted on the survey forms.
The results of the survey were spot-checked for accuracy against several pub-
lished sources, including the Directory of Properties in the Historic Property
Data File for Orange County (California State Historic Resources Inventory),
published by the Office of Historic Preservation, and the listing of local land-
marks in the Huntington Beach General Plan Update EIR. These results are
presented in tabular form in Appendix B. The survey confirms the existence of a
substantial number of historic buildings within the Merged Project Area, espe-
cially within Main-Pier, which includes downtown Huntington Beach. Among
the most prominent of these early buildings are several that have been identified
from earlier studies including: the Helm House Furnishing Company, con-
structed in 1904 and the Helm-Worthy House, constructed in the 1880s; the
Shank House, constructed in 1912; the City Hall and jail, constructed in 1918;
and the Pioneer Feed and Fuel building,constructed in 1904.
Paleontological Resources
Record searches into the archives of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural
History and the Orange County Natural History Association were conducted for
the Merged Project Area. A single site was recorded within Oakview. This site
(IACM 4018) is a peat bog deposit located near the intersection of Warner Ave-
nue and Golden West Avenue. This site produced an extensive fauna including
invertebrates, reptiles, birds, rodents, horses and deer. Radiocarbon dating
showed the site is very late Holocene in age.
Both record searches indicate that paleontological sites are known within a one
mile radius of the Merged Project Area. Most of these sites are from Late Pleis-
tocene formations of the Palos Verdes Sand, San Pedro Sand and Pleistocene
Terrace deposits.
4.12.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
If the project may cause damage to an important archaeological or historical
resource, the project may have a significant effect on the environment. For the
purposes of CEQA,an"important archaeological resource"is one that:
7/1"6«I:\RSG630WM05ECT4-12.WPD* 4.12-6
1
A. Is associated with an event or person of.
1. Recognized significance in California or American History, or
2. Recognized scientific importance in history.
B. Can provide information that is both of demonstrable public interest and
useful in addressing scientifically consequential and reasonable or ar-
chaeological research questions;
C. Has a special or particular quality such as oldest, best example, largest,
or last surviving example of its kind;
D. Is at least 50 years old (per the California Register of Historical Re-
sources[AB 2881]) and possesses substantial stratigraphic integrity;or
E. Involves important research questions that historical research has shown
can be answered only with archaeological methods.
For scientific resources, the proposed project will have a significant effect if
unmonitored construction activities would result in the destruction of scientifi-
cally valuable fossils.
4.12.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Historical Resources
A complete listing of homes in the Merged Project Area that appear to be ap-
proaching the 50 year threshold is provided in Appendix B. The homes on the
list are approaching or are at the 50 year old criterion and need to be consid-
ered when redevelopment of the land occurs. Future new development and
redevelopment in the Merged Project Area will need to be analyzed on a specific
project level basis to determine the potential impact to historic resources in the
Merged Project Area.
In general, tract style houses were not recorded during the survey, although
some of these structures may date to the late 1940s and may therefore be ap-
proaching the 50 year threshold for historic structures.
Arcbaeological Resources
According to the archaeological records search, no historic archaeological sites
have been recorded within the Merged Project Area. However,unknown archae-
ological resources may be encountered during grading activities for new con-
struction and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area.
In particular,the prehistoric reference material suggests that the City of Hunting-
ton Beach, perhaps in the vicinity of the Newland House, may contain artifacts
from the Gabrielino community ofLukupa. It is possible that subsurface distur-
7,'18i96«I.\RSG630\EM\.SECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-7
bance within the Merged Project Area may encounter previously unknown
archaeological resources. Therefore, the potential for discovery of previously
unknown resources exists.
Paleontological impacts
Based on a review of the Merged Project Area's geology,there is a high potential
for disturbing unknown subsurface paleontological resources during project
grading.
4.12.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Because there is no physical change contemplated for this Amendment/Merger
that would affect any known cultural or scientific resource,there are no cumula-
tive impacts. Future development in accordance with the General Plan has the
potential to impact historic resources;however,with mitigation,such potential
impacts can be reduced to below a level of significance.
4.12.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Historic
and Cultural Resources Element of the General Plan that will lessen the impacts
to historic and prehistoric resources. Policies HCR 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.2.1,
1.2.2,and 1.2.4 provide mechanisms to identify,record,and preserve significant
archaeological resources. Policies HCR 1.1.4, 1.2.2, and 1.3.7 provide for the
identification and protection of historic resources. The policies relevant to this
Amendment/Merger are listed below:
• Establish a historical overlay for the area bounded by Gothard Street,
Warner Avenue, Southern Pacific right-of-way, and Cedar Avenue. The
overlay will encourage the adaptive reuse of the existing historic struc-
tures while maintaining the light industrial surrounding uses (Policy
HCR 1.1.3).
• Utilize the Secretary of Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and
standards and guidelines as prescribed by the State Office of Historic
Preservation as the architectural and landscape design standards for
rehabilitation, alteration, or additions to sites containing historic re-
sources in order to preserve these structures in a manner consistent with
the site's architectural and historic integrity(Policy HCR 1.2.1).
• Encourage new development to be compatible with adjacent existing
historic structures in terms of scale, massing, building materials and
general architectural treatment(Policy HCR 1.2.2).
I; -
• Explore alternatives that enable a property owner to sensitively add to
the existing structure, or develop an accompanying building on the site
that allows property development rights to be realized. Deviation to
7/18,96«I:\RSG630\EIR4SECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-8
setbacks, heights and parking requirements should be considered to
make the preservation of an existing historic building feasible when no
other reasonable alternative exists(Policy HCR 1.3.7).
4.12.E MITTGA7TON MEASVRES
The following mitigation measures will assist to reduce impacts to cultural
resources in the Merged Project Area. Although specific project level impacts
cannot be identified at this time, future specific development and redevelop-
ment projects will comply with the mitigation measures.
4.12 A Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or
require demolition of potentially significant resources,a complete assess-
ment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings iden-
tified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a mini-
mum,this assessment shall include the following documentation:
A) A full description of each building including architectural style,
roof design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall
treatments,special architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of
each building.
C) A determination of construction date from existing records such
as building permit record books on file in the Planning Depart-
ment at the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records
cannot be located for some of the buildings,interviews should
be conducted with members of the local historical society or
other individuals who may have relevant data to share.
D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to
the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identi-
fied in the present study. Additional measures may be imple-
mented as a result,if necessary to prevent an adverse impact.
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,archaeological resources or paleontological
resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Or-
ange certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the
Community Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of
the resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such re-
sources,3)ascertain the presence of additional resources,and 4) provide
j additional monitoring of the site,if deemed appropriate.
i
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equip-
ment monitoring shall be on site during grading operations.
I, 4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collection of historic
documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library,or another
suitable local archive.
7/18i96KI.\R5G630\E=ECT4-12.WPD» 4.12-9
4.12.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MrHGATTON
The actions evaluated in this EIR will not directly result in any new develop-
ment. Future projects in the Merged Project Area could impact potentially
historic resources. Implementation of the General Plan Update policies and the
mitigation measures identified above will reduce future impacts to cultural and
historic resources within the Merged Project Area to less than significant.
7n8,96<<i:\.RsG530\EMEcr4-12 WM>> 4.12-10
4.13 SCHOOLS
4.13.1 EXISTING FNVIROA31ENTAL SETTING
The Merged Project Area is currently served by one high school district and three
elementary school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District
(HBUHSD) includes the entire City of Huntington Beach, as well as portions of
the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, and Westminster, and
portions of unincorporated territory in Orange County.' The Huntington Beach
City School District (HBCSD), Westminster School District (WSD), and Ocean
View School District (OVSD) also provide educational services to the Merged
Project Area. Figure 4.13.1 identifies the location of the schools that serve the
Merged Project Area. Each site name in Figure 4.13.1 is followed by its school
district designation.
There are no schools located within the Merged Project Area; however, one
elementary school (Oak View Elementary) is located directly adjacent to
Oakview.
High Schools
The HBUHSD operates four high schools serving the Merged Project Area. They
are the Huntington Beach High School,Westminster High School, Marina High
School, and the Ocean View High School. Each facility serves grades 9-12. The
District does not have any schools that are on a year-round schedule. Table
4.13.A provides information on the existing enrollments and capacities for each
of the four high schools that serve the Merged Project Area. The number of
portables indicated is in addition to the number of classrooms identified.
Middle/Elementary Schools
Huntington Beacb City Scbool District
The HBCSD has 13 facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, four of which
serve the Merged Project Area. Of the four schools,two are elementary schools
(Kettler Elementary and Smith Elementary)and two are middle schools (Dwyer
Middle and Sowers Middle). The grades served, capacities, and enrollment for
the schools serving the Merged Project Area are listed in Table 4.13 A-
1 The school district boundaries were set by the State Department of Edu-
cation prior to the determination of the City boundaries, and were not
changed to coincide with City boundaries.
7/19/96«I:\RSG630\EM\5ECT4-13 VM* 4.13-1
r
Westminster High
Stacey Intermediate (HBUHSD)
(WSD) - - ---
' Clegg Elem. ,,.r __ ... _
(WSD) A■
Schroeder Elan-� \\
1 - (WSD)
-C,- Marina High --
�`�.. (HBUHSD) ASun View Elem.
Spring View Middle Oak View Elem --
\��`% ✓� (OVSD) ■ (OVSD)
...........
- \\_' :(Na ur R�dcsrlapnmrNoa)
�'\ '•'�%'� Golden View Elem. -
{ (OVSD)
s=\ Marine View Middle■ ---
�. (OVSD) -
�� A 0 Ocean View High ~`
Hope View Elem. ■ (HBUHSD) --
(OVSD) Mesa View Middle
-. Huntington Beach
High
El
Dwyer Middle■ Smith Elem-
(HBCSD) \ (HBCSD) Sowers Middle
(HBCSD) . ..:---
LEGEND
�.•� City Boundary _— AKettlerElem.
(HBCSD)
Redevelopment Areas =ice
High School —-- _
Middle School --
Elementary School `
i . .
i
6"ai95(Rsc530) Figure 4.13.1
N
Scale in Miles
LSA
Schools Serving the
0 os 1 4.13-2 J
Redevelopment Project Area
P
Table 4.13A-Schools Serving the Merged Project Area
Number of
Student Current Remaining Percentage Classrooms
Name of School Capacity Enrollment Capacity of Capacity (Portables)
Eigb Schools(9-12)
Huntington Beach High School 2,266 2,145 121 95% 80(0)
(HBUHSD)
Ocean View High School(FIBUHSD) 1,989 1,640 349 82% 5 16)
Marina High School(HBUHSD) 2,367 2,055 312 87% 75(7)
Westminster High School(HBUHSD)) 2,563 2,322 241 91% 89(0) 3-.. /
•r.
Total 9,185 8,162 1,023 89%
Middle Schools(6-8) J•�,`A
Mesa View Middle School(OVSD) 740 701 39 95% 24(4)
Spring View Middle School(OVSD) 850 826 24 97% 26(3)
Marine View Middle School(OVSD) 800 703 97 88% 25(7)
Stacey Intermediate School(WSD) 764 709 55 93% 30(1)
Dwyer Middle School(I-1BCSD) 1,080 870 210 81% 45(1)
Sowers Middle School(HBCSD) 1,110 1,146 (36) 103% 31(10)
Total 5,344 4,955 389 93%
Elementary Schools(KS)
Oak View Elementary School(OVSD) 617 617 0 100% 19(6)
Sun View Elementary School(OVSD) 470 440 30 94% 15(2)
Hope View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 593 27 96% 23(3)
Golden View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 561 59 90% 22(3)
Clegg Elementary School(WSD) 420 481 (61) 115% 16(2)
Schroeder Elementary School(WSD) 420 449 (29) 107% 15(2)
Kettler Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 686 4 99% 22(6)
Smith Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 770 (80) 112% 23(6)
Total 4,547 4,597 (50) 101%
&nmv:Huntington Beach City School District,Development Fee Findings Report,March 14,1996.;Huntington Beach Union
High School District,Development Fee Findings Report, February 27,1996;personal communication with Ocean View School
District and Westminster School District.
7/19,9&L--WG630\E=ECT4-13 VM* , 4.13-3
Ocean View School District
There are approximately 641 residences within the Merged Project Area served
by the OVSD. The District has six schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of
the six schools, four are elementary schools (Oak View Elementary, Sun View
Elementary, Hope View Elementary,and Golden View Elementary) and two are
middle schools (Mesa View Middle and Spring View Middle). Table 4.13A iden-
tifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers.
Westminster School District
There are no residences within the Merged Project Area served by the WSD. The
District has three schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the three
schools,two are elementary schools (Clegg Elementary and Schroeder Elemen-
tary) and one is an intermediate school (Stacey Intermediate). Table 4.13A
identifies the schools'capacities and enrollment numbers.
413.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A significant impact to public schools would occur if the anticipated future
student population generated by the AmeadmenvMerger exceeded the antici-
pated capacity of school facilities located within the affected district, and the
overcrowding resulted in some other related physical impact, that caused a
significant effect on the environment.
4.Z3.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Based upon Section 15131(a) of CEQA and recent court interpretations, the
analysis of environmental impacts resulting from a project must focus on the
physical effects of the project. For schools,this means that potential classroom
overcrowding and the potential cost of constructing new classrooms are not in
themselves adverse environmental effects. CEQA applies only to activities that
will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's social and eco-
nomic effects can be relevant to an EIR's analysis if they are shown to lead to
physical impacts on the environment.
In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant envi-
ronmental impact,the court in Goleta Union School District v.The Regents of
the University of California noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for
construction of new schools,not increased enrollment or potential overcrowd-
ing,that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding is not a change
in the physical environment and, therefore,should not be treated as an impact
j on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmen-
tal impact under CEQA where a change in physical conditions,such as classroom
f
or new school construction,will occur. In other words,there must be a chain of
events caused by a project or program that causes a physical change to the
environment. Overcrowding by itself is not an environmental impact. Because
increased enrollment is not an environmental impact,the court held the Regents
i
i
7/19/964cI:\tSG630\E=ECT4-13.WPD» 4.13'4
r
had no duty under CEQA to commit additional funds to mitigate student enroll-
ment increases.
Recently passed SB1287 amended State law to limit a public agency's ability to
levy fees, charges or dedication against a development project for the construc-
tion or reconstruction of school facilities. Under this amended State law, only
fees that can be established to help finance school facilities are the developer fee
funding, described below,and community facilities district financing.
The current State statutory development fees levied for residential development
is$1.84 per square foot and$0.30 per square foot for commercial development.
The elementary school districts (grades K-8),including HBCSD,OVSD,and WSD,
receive 61 percent of the developer fees. The high school district, HBUHSD,
receives the remaining 39 percent.
This E1R describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment.
This EIR analysis also recognizes that the school district will decide which solu-
tion to implement. It is not the purpose of this document to dictate policy to
the school districts to select a specific implementation program to address needs
created by the students generated by the Amendment/Merger or to suggest that
the districts employ a particular mitigation approach. As the Merged Project Area
is developed and student numbers increase, it is anticipated that the school
districts will make decisions regarding the placement of the students on the basis
of policies then in effect on and current circumstances and options. The analysis
that follows concentrates on the predicted student population generated from
the Amendment/Merger, possible measures that could be implemented to pro-
vide adequate facilities for that population, and the potential adverse impacts
that could result from those choices.
Higb Scbools
Huntington Beacb Uttion High Scbool District
HBUHSD uses a student generation factor of.1159 per dwelling unit. This is
based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average
number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell-
ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten
percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000
square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be
increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in
excess of 4,500 square feet,to account for additional bedrooms.
Huntington Beacb High Scbool
According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FM), HBHS has a total
capacity of 2,266 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at
2,145 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 121 students. As
indicated in the FMP,the total number of permanent classrooms at HBHS is 80,
with no portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms is
7/19,96<<I.\RSG639,Y�ECT4-13 VD» 4.13-5
f
multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,which ranges from 33 for regular
academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity
has a range of 2,400 to 2,640 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 255 to 495 students.
HBHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put HBHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Yorktown-lake and Main-Pier are within the attendance area of HBHS. There are
no planned residential areas associated with redevelopment actions within
Yorktown-Lake;however,based upon the anticipated redevelopment actions in
Main-Pier, 563 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of
units by the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of
approximately 65 students to HBHS. This addition to HBHS will not signifi-
cantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the
additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capac-
ity.
Ocean View High School
According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (F1VSP), Ocean View High
School (OVHS) has a total capacity of 1,989 students. The District reports that
current enrollment is at 1,640 students,leaving an approximate surplus capacity
for 349 students. As indicated in the FMP,the total number of permanent class-
rooms at OVHS is 53,with 16 portable classrooms. When the number of perma-
nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,
which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental
classes,the total school capacity has a range of 2,070 to 2,277 students. There-
fore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 81 to 288 students.
OVHS is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put OVHS on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Oakview and Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of OVHS. There are
no planned residential units associated with redevelopment actions within
Oakview; however, based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert-
Beach,43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by
the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of approxi-
mately five students to OVHS. This addition to OVHS will not significantly affect
the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional
students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity.
Marina High School
According to the District's 1995 FMP,the Marina High School has a total capacity
of 2,367 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,055 stu-
dents,leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 312 students- As indicated in
7/1"6«I.\RSG630\E MI$ECT4-13:WPD» 4.13-6
I
the FMP,the total number of permanent classrooms at MHS is 75,with 7 porta-
ble classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is
multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,which ranges from 33 for regular
academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity
has a range of 2,460 to 2,706 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 93 to 339 students. -
Marina High School is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District
were to make the decision to put Marina High School on a year-round track,the
school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center;
therefore,no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Marina High School from additional
students generated by the project.
Westminster High School
According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Westminster High School has a total
capacity of 2,563 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at
2,322 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 241 students. As
indicated in the FMP,the total number of permanent classrooms at Westminster
High School is 89,with no portable classrooms. When the number of perma-
nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,
which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental
classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,670 to 2,937 students. There-
fore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 107 to 374 students.
The school is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to
make the decision to put it on a year-round track, the school's total student
capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center,
therefore,no additional students will be generated,upon implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Westminster High School from
additional students generated by the project.
Middle Schools
Huntington Beach City School District
The HBCSD uses a student generation factor of.3095 per dwelling unit. This is
based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average
number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell-
ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten
percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000
square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be
increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in
excess of 4,500 square feet,to account for additional bedrooms.
7n9/96<<L\xsc, 30\E sEcr4-13 VM> 4.13-7
I
Dwyer Middle School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996,Dwyer Middle School (DMS) has a total capacity of 1,080 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 870 students,leaving an approximate surplus
capacity for 210 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of per-
manent classrooms at DMS is 45,with 1 portable classroom. When the number
of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading
capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity increases to 1,380 students.
Therefore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 300 students.
DMS is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the
decision to put DMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no planned residential areas within Yorktown-Lake; therefore, no
additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend-
ment/Merger. There is no impact to DMS from additional students generated by
the project.
Sowers Middle School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report(DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996,Sowers Middle School (SMS) has a total capacity of 1,110 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 1,146 students,leaving an approximate capac-
ity deficit of 36 students. As indicated by the District,the total number of perma-
nent classrooms at SMS is 31,with 10 portable classrooms. When the number of
permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading
capacity of 30 students,the total school capacity is increased to 1,230 students.
Therefore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students.
SMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
j
A small segment of Main-Pier is within the Sowers Middle School attendance
area; however,this segment is composed of a neighborhood commercial strip.
There are no residential projects included in this area;therefore,no additional
students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of
the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SMS from additional student
generated by the project.
I
Westminster School District
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of Stacey Intermedi-
ate.School (SIS), the area is not anticipated to generate additional students to
SIS. Currently, the area does not have any residential areas nor does it propose
any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment
f
i
! 7/19i96«I.\RSG630\r=ECT4-13 VM>> 4.13-8
I
actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to
SIS from additional students generated by the project;however,a discussion on
the total capacity at SIS is provided below.
Stacey Intermediate School
According to the District, total student capacity at Stacey Intermediate School
(SIS) is 764 students. Currently, SIS has a student enrollment of 709 students,
with a surplus capacity for 55 students. As indicated by the District, the total
number of permanent classrooms at SIS is 30,with 1 portable classroom. When
the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class-
room loading capacity of 30,the total student capacity is 930 students. There-
fore,the school's total student capacity would increase by 166 students.
SIS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SIS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated,Huntington Center neither has nor proposes any residential
land uses. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area,
resulting in no impact to Stacey Intermediate School.
Ocean View School District
OVSD uses a student generation factor of.30 for single family dwelling units and
.04 for multifamily dwelling units.
Mesa View Middle School
According to the District, total student capacity at Mesa View Middle School
(MUMS) is 740 students. Currently, MVMS has a student enrollment of 701
students,with a surplus rapacity of 39 students. As indicated by the District,the
total number of permanent classrooms at MUMS is 24, with 4 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34 students, the total student capacity is
increased to 952 students. Therefore,the school's total student rapacity would
increase by 212 students.
MVMS is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put MUMS on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Oakview and all of Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of
MVMS. As stated earlier,redevelopment actions within Oakview will not result
in new housing units. However, based upon anticipated redevelopment in
Talbert-Beach,43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of
units by the District's student generation factor of.30 results in an increase of
approximately 13 students to MUMS. The addition to MVMS will not significantly
7n9A64(I.\xsc,630\EI"ECT4-13 VM* 4.13-9
affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the addi-
tional students using either method of calculating the surplus capacity. There-
fore,the number of students to MUMS resulting from anticipated redevelopment
actions in Talbert-Beach is incremental and considered less than significant.
Spring View Middle School
According to the District, total student capacity at Spring View Middle School
(SUMS) is 850 students. Currently, SUMS has a student enrollment of 826 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 24 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at SVMS is 26, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to
986 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
136 students.
SVMS is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put SUMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of SVMS, the area is
not anticipated to generate any additional students to SUMS. There are no
existing or planned residential areas within this area; therefore, no additional
students will be generated by redevelopment action's upon implementation of
the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVMS from additional students
generated by the project.
Elementary Schools
Huntington Beacb City School District
f
As identified above, the HBCSD uses a student generation factor of.3095 per
j dwelling unit.
i
i
Kettler Elementary School
i
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report(DFFR)prepared in
li March, 1996, Kettler Elementary School (KES) has a total capacity of 690 stu-
dents. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 686 students, leaving an approximate
surplus capacity of four students. As indicated by the District,the total number
of permanent classrooms at KES is 22, with 6 portable classrooms. When the
number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom
loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 840
students. Therefore, the school's total student rapacity would increase by 150
students.
f
I
fI� _
7/19Y96I:%RSG630XIK%$ECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-10
KES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put KES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Main-Pier(the area southeast of 1st Street) is within the attendance
area of Kettler Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in
this part of the area, approximately 350 residential units are expected with the
Waterfront Project. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student
generation factor of.3095 results in an increase of approximately 77 students to
KES. This addition to KES will not significantly affect the school's facilities since
adequate capacity exists to serve the additional students when the maximum
allowable classroom loading capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore,
the impact to KES is considered less than significant.
Smith Elementary School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Smith Elementary School has a total capacity of 690 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 770 students, leaving an approximate surplus
deficit of 80 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma-
nent classrooms at Smith Elementary is 23,with 6 portable classrooms. When
the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class-
room loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to
870 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
180 students.
Smith Elementary is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were
to make the decision to put Smith Elementary, on a year-round track, the
school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Main-Pier(the area north west of 1st Street)is within the attendance
area of Smith Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this
part of the area,approximately 213 residential units are expected (150 with the
Chevron Project and 63 with the Third Block West Project). Multiplying the
number of units by the District's student generation factor of.3095 results in an
increase of 66 students to Smith Elementary. This addition to Smith Elementary
will not significantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to
serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading
capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore,the impact to Smith Elemen-
tary is considered less than significant.
Westminster School District
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of both Clegg Ele-
mentary School (CES) and Schroeder Elementary School (SES), Huntington
Center will not generate any additional students to CES or SES. Currently,the
area neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no addi-
tional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to CES or SES from addi-
7/1996«I.\RsCr63o\E=ECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-11
r
tional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the school's
capacities is provided.
Clegg Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Clegg Elementary School
(CES)is 420 students. Currently, CES has a student enrollment of 481 students,
with a surplus deficit for 61 students. As indicated by the District, the total
number of permanent classrooms at CES is 16, with 2 portable classrooms.
When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the
classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 540 students.
Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students.
CES is not on a year-round schedule;however, if the District were to make the
decision to put CES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated, Huntington Center includes no residential land uses. The
Amendment/Merger proposes no change in land use for Huntington Center.
Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in
no impact to Clegg Elementary School.
Schroeder Elementary School
According to the District,total student capacity at Schroeder Elementary School
Schroeder Elementary is 420 students. Currently, Schroeder Elementary has a
student enrollment of 449 students,with a surplus deficit for 29 students. As
indicated by the District,the total number of permanent classrooms at Schroeder
Elementary is 15,with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent
classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30,
the total student capacity is 510 students. Therefore,the school's total student
capacity would increase by 90 students.
Schroeder Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District
were to make the decision to put Schroeder Elementary on a year-round track,
the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated,the Amendment/Merger proposes no residential land uses
for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated
from this area,resulting in no impact to Schroeder Elementary School.
Ocean View School District
As identified above, OVSD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single
family dwelling units and.04 for multifamily dwelling units.
i
7n9/9601Axsc630NJ=Ecr4-13 VPD» 4.13-12
Oak View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Oak View Elementary School
(OYES) is 617 students. Currently, OVES has a student enrollment of 617 stu-
dents,with no surplus student capacity available. As indicated by the District,
the total number of permanent classrooms at OYES is 19,with 6 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to
850 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
233 students,resulting in a surplus student capacity.
OVES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put OVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no planned residential uses within Oakview;therefore,no additional
students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger.
There is no impact to OVES from additional students generated by the project.
Sun View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Sun View Elementary School
(SVES) is 470 students. Currently, SVES has a student enrollment of 440 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 30 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at SUES is 15,with 2 portable classrooms.
When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the
classroom Ioading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 578
students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 108
students.
SVES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put SVES on a year-round track,the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of SVES,the area is
not anticipated to generate any additional students to SVES. Currently,the area
does not have any residential land uses,nor does it propose any. Therefore,no
additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon imple-
mentation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SUES from addi-
tional students generated by the project.
Hope View Elementary School
According to the District,total student capacity at Hope View Elementary School
(HUES) is 620 students. Currently,HVES has a student enrollment of 593 stu-
dents,with a surplus capacity of 27 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at HUES is 23, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to
7l1"C-I-\RSG630%EU;I SECT¢13 WYD» 4.13-13
r
884. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 264 stu-
dents.
HVES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put HUES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Talbert-Beach is within the attendance area of HUES. Based upon the proposed
redevelopment actions in this area, 43 new housing units are projected. Multi-
plying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30
results in an increase of approximately 13 students to HVES. This addition to
HVES will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate
capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the
school's surplus capacity.
Golden View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Golden View Elementary
School(GVES)is 620 students. Currently, GVES has a student enrollment of 561
students,with a surplus capacity of 59 students. As indicated by the District,the
total number of permanent classrooms at GVES is 22, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading rapacity of 34,the total student capacity is increased to
850. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 230 stu-
dents.
GVES is not on a year-round schedule; however,if the District were to make the
decision to put GVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated,residential land uses associated with redevelopment actions
are not proposed. Therefore,no additional students will be generated from this
area,resulting in no impact to GVES.
Summary of Impacts
In summary,the potential impacts to schools serving the Merged Project Area are
considered less than significant. Table 4.13A indicates student enrollment
approaching and sometimes exceeding the student capacity at several schools,as
stated by the school districts. However, the districts did not calculate their
potential student capacity by multiplying the number of classrooms and
portables by the classroom loading capacity,and may have inadvertently under-
stated actual rapacity. When student capacity is calculated,the student capacity
figure increases substantially.
Based upon this method of calculation, implementation of the Amendment/
Merger will not generate students beyond the total student capacity at any
school. Therefore, there appears to be adequate space available to serve addi-
7/19,9&1-\RSC7630XMISECT4-13.VPD» 4.13-14
tional students. When a year-round school schedule and increased usage of
portable classrooms are considered,adequate capacity is assured.
In regard to potential project demands for school facilities, the districts collect
school impacts fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. With the excep-
tion of the establishment of community facility districts for specific develop-
ments,no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are
possible,pursuant to State law(SBA 1287). In addition,the districts will receive
Average Daily Attendance financing to fund district teacher salary and other
general education expenses.
Furthermore, school districts will be entitled to a share of the tax increment
revenue generated by the Merged Project. As discussed in the Project Descrip-
tion, Section 3.0, the Amendment/Merger will amend the Merged Plan as such;
therefore, statutory payments provided by Section 33607.7 will be remitted to
any affected taxing agency with whom the agency has not entered into a pass
through agreement prior to January 1, 1994;the Agency will continue to remit
payments in accordance with such pass through agreement in lieu of statutory
payments. Such statutory and pass through payments are designed to alleviate
any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing agencies may incur as
a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Because there is no physical impact to any of the schools and because construc-
tion of a new school is not justified, there are no physical consequences that
result from the Amendment/Merger. Impacts to the schools serving the Merged
Project Area are considered less than significant.
4.13.4 CUMUZA=BLPACTS
Although the General Plan Update EIR identifies that a cumulative increase in
the number of students generated would result in cumulative impacts to all of
the school districts and their facilities that serve the City of Huntington Beach,
the number of additional students resulting from the Amendment/Merger does
not exceed any affected school's existing facitilities and capacities. HBCSD will
experience an increase of 143 students as result of the Amendment/Merger;
however,this amount is only slightly higher than the student growth projections
for HBCSDI. Using the maximum allowable classroom loading capacity specified
by HBCSD,the number of students does not exceed HBCSD's rapacity. There-
fore, as previously stated, there are no physical consequences that result from
the Amendment/Merger; therefore, there is no physical impact to any of the
schools and construction of a new school or a portion of a school is not justified.
Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts resulting from the Amendment/
Merger.
1 Community Systems Associates,Inc.,Development Fee Findings Report,
March 14, 1996.
7n9/96<:%TtSG43ONEMSECr4-13 VM* 4.13-15
r
4.13.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan Update E1R identifies several policies contained in the Land
Use Element and the Public Facilities and Public Services Element of the General
Plan Update that will lessen impacts to the affected school districts. The policies
are listed below:
• Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre-
lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser-
vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele-
ments) (PolicyLU2.12).
• Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the
local school districts to review measures alleviating some school's over-
crowding while other school's have available capacity(Policy PF 41.1).
• Continue communication and cooperation efforts between City officials
and the local school districts, especially in the areas of population pro-
jections, funding sources, and through annual monitoring of develop-
ment activities in order to promote a better quality of life for existing and
future residents (Policy PF4.2.1).
• Require that new development projects to pay appropriate school im-
pact fees to the local school districts (Policy PF 42.2).
4.13.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
4.13.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER=GA27ON
In regard to potential project demands on school facilities, expected increases in
students are consistent with the General Plan Update. In addition,pursuant to
the California Health and Safety Code Sections 33000 et.seq,statutory and pass
through payments to school districts are considered adequate mitigation for
financial burden and detriment incurred as a result of the Amendment/Merger.
No unavoidable adverse impacts to schools are expected to result from the
project.
With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the addi-
tional demands to the school districts that serve the City of Huntington Beach
will be lessened to a level below significance.
7/19i96«I.RSG630\EIRIt�5ECT4-13.VM>> 4.13-16
I
5.0 ALTERNATIVES
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126(d), an EIR must discuss a
reasonable range of alternatives that could feasibly attain the basic objectives of
the project. This chapter discusses the following alternatives: 1) No Project, 2)
Alternative Financing, 3)Alternative Project Location, 4) Increased Development
Alternative,and 5) Reduced Development Alternative.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of alternatives shall
focus on alternatives capable of eliminating any significant adverse environmen-
tal effects or reducing them to a less than significant level of impact, while still
meeting most project objectives. The alternatives considered in this EIR were
selected because they represent reasonable alternatives for the project area that
potentially could achieve the objectives of the project, and because they have the
potential to reduce unavoidable impacts of the project, or cumulative impacts of
the project and reasonably foreseeable projects. The individual impacts associat-
ed with each alternative are discussed in relation to changes in existing condi-
tions and their relative severity compared to the impacts of the
Amendment/Merger.
5.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 -NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative consists of maintenance of existing environmental
conditions as a baseline for comparison to the project. This alternative would
entail no changes in the existing and planned uses of the project areas, and
would maintain existing land use patterns and conditions. This alternative
contemplates development continuing at its current pace as allowed under
existing City regulations and the General Plan. This alternative is very similar to
the proposed Amendment/Merger, since the build out would be exactly the
same. The difference is that without the financing mechanism provided by the
Amendment/Merger, the build out under this alternative is likely to occur more
slowly,and may be dependent on other factors (such as market forces or other
fondling sources) to achieve the ultimate build out. The pattern of development
and existing land uses is described in Section 4.1,Land Use.
Because this project is primarily a program for economic development,elimina-
tion of blight, and financing of infrastructure within the Merged Project Area,
there are implied redevelopment activities that would affect the long-term condi-
tions within these areas. Therefore,the No Project Alternative will include a sub-
set called the No Build condition,wherein there would be no growth, no addi-
tional financing for infrastructure and public facilities,and no growdVchanges in
land use or any other physical changes to the baseline environmental conditions.
It is important to note that the No Build condition is not a realistic condition. It
has been included here to comply with CEQA requirements to address the No
Project scenario,where no additional development occurs. This is not a realistic
scenario for two reasons: 1) the Amendment/Merger does not include develop-
ment of private. property within the Merged Project Area; even with the No
Project Alternative,it is unlikely that all development within the Merged Project
Area would cease; and 2) the General Plan provides for future growth in the
7/19,96«I:\RSG630 EM SECTS-0.WPD» 5-1
i
r
Merged Project Area, so if growth does not occur as a future outcome of the
Amendment/Merger,growth is still provided for in the General Plan.
Land Use
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing land use designations would
remain as they are proposed in the General Plan. These designations primarily
include commercial, industrial and residential. The potential land use related
impacts associated with the No Project Alternative would be of no significance,
as the current land uses within the project boundaries would continue un-
changed due to the Redevelopment Plans' adoption of the current land use
designations of the General Plan and all future amendments to the General Plan.
In this way, the Redevelopment Plans will always be consistent with the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan Update. However, the eminent domain powers
that the Redevelopment Agency proposes to maintain in the project area would
lapse,preventing the Agency from converting existing commercial and industrial
properties to land uses that may be more beneficial to the City as a whole.
No Project/No Build
The No Project/No Build Alternative would result in current land uses remaining
exactly the same as those evident today,and no new development or redevelop-
ment would occur on currently vacant or degraded parcels. This alternative
would essentially freeze land use as it is today;no physical improvements would
be made, no economic development would occur, and existing infiastructure
deficiencies would remain.
Population and Housing
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, economic growth and the construction of
affordable housing would occur at a slower rate than under the proposed pro-
ject due to the lack of tax increment financing and a coordinated economic
development program for the project areas. The No Project Alternative would
consequently result in the same ultimate employment and population as pro-
jected in the General Plan,but slower employment and population growth than
would occur without the Amendment/Merger. The development of general
commercial and general industrial properties would proceed before the con-
struction of additional affordable housing units,resulting in a negative impact to
the jobsthousing balance. In addition, the Agency's powers of eminent domain
would expire for Huntington Center and Oakview, thereby limiting the ability of
the Agency to make space available for constructing affordable housing. Because
the No Project Alternative would prolong the City's shortage of affordable hous-
ing,failure to implement the proposed Amendment/Merger would not allow the
7n9/964(I.\Rso630�EWEcr5-o•WPn* 5-2
r
Agency to assist in providing a range of housing available to all economic seg-
ments of the community.
No Project/No Build
The No Build Alternative would prohibit the construction of any additional
assisted housing and would further worsen the City's housing shortage. Moder-
ate employment growth would still occur,but no additional housing would be
provided for future workers within the City.
Geology/Seismicity
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, funding for redevelopment in the Merged
Project Area would remain limited. Housing development, commercial develop-
ment, and economic growth would occur at a slower pace, resulting in slightly
fewer residents and employees moving into the City. From a seismic hazards
standpoint, there is no measurable difference in impacts of this alternative. The
replacement of older buildings (not built according to more stringent seismic
design requirements) with newer buildings (for those projects relying on rede-
velopment funds) would not occur, thus potentially increasing risk. Overall,
impacts relating to the identified seismic hazards would be similar to the Amend-
ment/Merger, since the minor amount of new buildings will not result in a
statistically significant decrease in risk exposure.
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no new development would occur.
Older buildings would not be replaced through redevelopment actions, result-
ing in continued occupancy of some buildings that may be seismically unsound
and could be at risk. For this reason, impacts due to geology and seismicity
would be greater than with the Amendment/Merger.
Water Resources
No Project
As with the Amendment/Merger,the No Project Alternative would result in less
than significant impacts to water quality and water resources. The funding
available for water quality control and new drainage improvements would be
more limited than under the proposed project.
7/19A6«I:\tSG630WMSECTS-0.WPD» 5-3
No Project/No Build
Impacts to water resource for the No Project/No Build Alternative would be the
same as those under the No Project Alternative.
Air Quality
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative, existing uses and densities would remain in
place, with incremental increases in density occurring as allowed under the
City's General Plan. Air quality impacts of the No Project Alternative are the
same as those identified for the project.
Since the No Project Alternative would generate the same amount of traffic as
the Amendment/Merger,with development occurring at pace that would poten-
tially be slower, the No Project Alternative would ultimately generate the same
quantities of pollutant emissions associated with vehicle operation. However, it
may take a longer time to reach the same emission and pollution levels as pro-
jected in the General Plan Update EIR under this scenario.
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario,no additional vehicular traffic would be
generated within the project areas, and vehicular emissions would remain the
same as present-day conditions.
Transportation and Circulation
No Project
The No Project Alternative would result in traffic impacts similar to those experi-
enced under the Amendment/Merger. The land uses designated in the City's
General Plan would remain the same,and would result in similar traffic volumes
being generated at build out. The No Project scenario would result in slower
growth, delaying the effect of traffic and circulation impacts. This would be
offset by the fact that improvements planned to be funded by the Amend-
ment/Merger would not occur. Over the long-term, the impacts are essentially
the same as for the Amendment/Merger.
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario,traffic conditions would be expected to
remain the same because build out according to the General Plan will continue.
Currently vacant parcels and lower density developments would continue to
produce little or no traffic,while some street improvements would be made with
non-redevelopment related funds.
7/19/96<<I:\RSG630\EMSEC'5-0.WPD» 5-4
r
Biological Resources
No Project
Because the Redevelopment Plans implement the City's General Plan land uses
and because the No Project Alternative does essentially the same but at a slower
pace without tax increment financing and eminent domain, the effects on open
space lots and adjacent resource areas are identical. Under the No Project Alter-
native,impacts to biological resources would be the same as those experienced
under the Amendment/Merger(i.e., less than significant).
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, currently vacant areas would remain
vacant and would serve as urban/disturbed open space. Since no important
biological resources are within the project areas, no significant biological impacts
would be avoided.
Public Healtb and Safety
No Project
The No Project scenario would allow for further development of commercial,
industrial,and residential land uses that may use toxic and hazardous materials
and/or generate hazardous waste. However, as with the Amendment/Merger,
compliance with existing City, County, State, and federal regulations regarding
hazardous materials would reduce potential impacts to below a significant level.
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, petroleum extraction activities would
be allowed to continue. Continuation of oil and gas extraction would prolong
the potential for hazardous materials and soil contamination to occur. The
existing industrial and commercial uses would remain, and would not be re-
placed with residential uses, which generate smaller qualities of hazardous
materials.
Noise
No Project
Under the No Project Alternative,similar volumes of traffic would occur due to
General Plan build out. As a result, significant increases in noise levels will be
expected to occur along specific roadway segments as reported in the General
Plan Update EIR. These increases in ambient noise levels would be comparable
to those resulting from implementation of the Amendment/Merger.
7/19/96«1:\BSG630\EII2`SECI5-0.WPD- 5-5
r
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario,vehicular traffic and associated ambient
noise levels would be incrementally less than those levels reached under the
Amendment/Merger andNo Project scenarios.
Public Services/Utilities
No Project
The No Project Alternative would have relatively the same impact on utilities and
services as the Amendment/Merger,since build out would be the same as under
the General Plan. lack of funding may slow the growth rate to ultimate build
out within the Merged Project Area. Funding for infrastructure improvements
that would be generated by the Amendment/Merger would not be available
under the No Project Alternative. If development did proceed without infra-
structure improvements,increases in the demand for public services and utilities
could potentially exceed the City's ability to supply funding. This will be pre-
vented by General Plan policies requiring provision of adequate public services
and utilities.
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, the demand for public services and
utilities would not increase. Alternative forms of funding would be needed to
correct existing deficiencies.
Visual and Aesthetic Resources
No Project
The No Project Alternative would result in the existing character of the project
areas remaining the same. Continuing the existing pattem of development will
continue the blight and land use conflicts that currently exist within the project
areas. Existing views would remain as they are, and the character and general
appearance of the project areas would not be altered. The visual improvements
that would occur with implementation of the Amendment/Merger would not be
implemented.
No Project/No Build
The No Project/No Build Alternative would also allow the existing conditions of
blight to remain unchanged. Although some views would be maintained, this
would not represent an significantly important benefit.
7/19i9&<I.\RSG630\EM SECI5-0.WPD» 5-6
Cultural Resources
No Project
The No Project Alternative would still allow for build out of land as allowed by
the City's General Plan, and grading for future developments could potentially
disrupt presently unrecorded cultural resources, having the identical potential
impacts as the Amendment/Merger. The potentially historic structures within
the City could still be subjected to the pressures of development, but would
most likely be protected by existing State and federal laws (as with the Amend-
ment/Merger).
No Project/No Build
Under the No Project/No Build scenario, no disruption of cultural resources
would occur.
5.2 ALTERNATIVE 2•ALTERNATIVE FINANCING
This alternative will require the City of Huntington Beach to seek alternative
sources of revenue to fund needed redevelopment improvements and other
projects instead of utilizing Redevelopment Agency funding. The City is in need
of specific public improvements included in the list of public infrastructure,
storm drains and street improvements and public facilities such as the library
expansion,all cited in Chapter 3.0 of this EIR. In order to fund these improve-
ments without Redevelopment Agency participation, other sources of revenue
the City could consider include infrastructure finance districts,industrial devel-
opment bonds, community development block grant(CDBG) funds (which are
declining and are considered unreliable), economic development administration
(EDA) funds, assessment districts, and County, State and federal assistance
programs.
As the primary source for financing the Redevelopment Projects,this alternative
will allow construction of projects only as financing sources are located and
funds become available. The availability of funds would,in turn,be dependent
upon such factors as the source;the marketability of bonds;the political climate
at the time; whether or not local, State or federal agencies have made funds
available;and other issues that may be unknown at this time.
Under this alternative,the current list of projects within the existing Redevelop-
ment Project Areas could be developed slowly or possibly not at all,depending
upon the availability of funds and the success of the City at obtaining the neces-
sary funds. Once funds were obtained,they could be restricted in use,used only
for specific projects, which could affect some of the Redevelopment Projects.
Generally,alternative financing sources are unreliable and rapidly disappearing.
This alternative is very similar to the No Project Alternative. The only difference
is that this alternative provides for alternate funding sources.
7/19i96 1.WG63o\EM\,SECIS-0.WPI)► 5-7
Because one of the primary objectives of the Amendment/Merger is to finance
infrastructure improvements, an infrastructure financing district should be
considered as an alternative. Enacted by California Senate Bill 308 in 1990,the
enabling legislation (Government Code Section 53395,et seq.) authorizes cities
to establish infrastructure financing districts to purchase, construct,expand and
improve infrastructure of"community-wide significance."
Like the Amendment/Merger, an infrastructure financing district will be funded
by property tax increment (although only from certain taxing agencies that
consent to give up their increment), and will be able to issue bonds to finance
infrastructure activities. However, a number of drawbacks make infrastructure
financing districts of limited usefulness.
First, the constitutionality of the districts is uncertain. The Legislative Counsel
(attorney for the California Legislature) opined that the enabling legislation is
unconstitutional because it authorizes tax increment financing without requiring
blight,and because an infrastructure financing district is not a"district"entitled
to allocation of property taxed.
Second, the requirement that taxing agencies must consent by resolution to
donate their tax increment to the district severely limits the funds that can be
obtained, particularly in comparison to the tax increment funds that would be
generated by the Amendment/Merger. In addition, school districts and county
boards of education are not authorized to consent to give up their tax incre-
ments.
Third, the legislative intent to Section 53395 is that infrastructure financing
districts be used only in "substantially undeveloped areas." No portions of the
Redevelopment Projects would qualify as such.
Fourth, the creation of an infrastructure financing district and its issuance of
bonds must be approved by a two-thirds vote of all owners of property within
the district. Obtaining such two-thirds approval would be very difficult.
All of the other revenue sources cited above may have a place in providing
needed construction capital. However, they have several disadvantages such as
availability, allowed use of the funds, and the duration the funds are available.
The use of the above financing methods could result either in the delay of some
or all of the ongoing list of projects in the five Redevelopment Project Areas well
into the future,or in their abandonment.
From an environmental standpoint, this alternative will have impacts similar to
the Amendment/Merger due to similar, but possibly slower, construction im-
pacts and similar, but slower, growth inducing impacts. Alternative financing
methods,if and when obtained,would fund similar but not necessarily the same
Redevelopment Projects as the Amendment/Merger. This would be due to
potential "strings"attached to federal and State funding sources. If this alterna-
tive did not fund affordable housing projects for many years, this alternative
i "Report on Enrolled Bill"dated September 24, 1990•
7119i96«I:\.RSG630\1SECT5-0 WPD* 5-8
could be environmentally inferior to the Amendment/Merger. If this alternative
did not fund needed public works improvements in a timely manner,infrastruc-
ture needs of the City in the Redevelopment Project Areas may not be funded.
With the exception of public services/infrastructure and affordable housing, the
Alternative Financing scenario would have impacts similar to those of the
Amendment/Merger with regards to land use, geology/seismicity, water re-
sources, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, public
health and safety,noise,aesthetics,and cultural resources.
5.3 ALTF-RNATIVE 3 -ALTERNATE PROJECT LOCATION
The key question in determining whether alternative locations need to be con-
sidered is"whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided
or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only loca-
tions that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project need be considered for inclusion in the EIR" (Guidelines, Section 15126
(A) (5) (B). The "rule of reason" and feasibility are also factors to consider in
evaluating off-site or alternative locations.
In order for any area to be considered a Redevelopment Project Area, it must
meet several conditions established by State law. The Redevelopment Law
requires an extensive legal process involving the preparation of several docu-
ments, the formal action of the Agency, the Planning Commission and the City
Council.Prior to City Council adoption of Redevelopment Plans for each of the
five Redevelopment Project Areas, extensive assessments were conducted to
determine whether the areas met the condition of blight as defined by the Rede-
velopment Law,as well as other necessary criteria.
The area within the City of Huntington Beach that is available as an alternative
Redevelopment Project Area is very limited. There is little remaining land within
the City that could be incorporated into a new project area that would satisfy the
objectives of eliminating blight,providing commercial rehabilitation,eliminating
land use conflicts and providing new housing opportunities. The primary areas
within the City that meet the definition of blight, i.e., areas that are in need of
commercial rehabilitation, are already included within the Merged Project Area.
Therefore,there is no suitable alternative location within the City that could be
incorporated into a new Redevelopment Project Area.
Since the principal purpose of the Amendment/Merger is to merge five previ-
ously established Redevelopment Projects to allow an increase in finance limits
and to allow flexibility in expending tax increment on projects within any of the
five areas,an alternative project location would not satisfy the objectives of the
Amendment/Merger. Each of the objectives defined in the project description is
site specific and could not be applied to an alternate location. Abandonment of
the project in order to establish a completely new Redevelopment Project Area
would result in the same situation as the"No Project/No Build"alternative.
7/1"64tI:VtVA30\EM5ECT5-0.WPD» 5-9
5.4 ALTERNATIVE 4-INCREASED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The Increased Development Alternative would result in a Redevelopment Pro-
ject that provides strategies for encouraging new development and redevelop-
ment within the Redevelopment Project Areas to its theoretical capacity (i.e.,
greater than the development intensity allowed under the General Plan). Strate-
gies that could be employed to increase development intensities within the
Redevelopment Project Areas include 1) density bonuses for projects that incor-
porate particular land uses such as affordable housing or public recreation areas,
or 2)transfer of development rights between parcels located within the Redevel-
opment Project Areas. Although encouragement of density in excess of that
allowed under the General Plan will result in larger tax increment revenue,this
development would be inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the General
Plan and would require greater infrastructure improvements than currently
identified in the Amendment/Merger or the General Plan. In direct conflict with
Objective No. 2 (consistency with the City's General Plan) and No. 3 (provision
of funds to assist implementation of infrastructure improvements) of the Amend-
ment/Merger, as outlined in Section 3.4 of this EIR,the alternative fails to meet
the majority of the Amendment/Merger objectives,and is considered infeasible.
5.5 ALTERNATIVE 5-RF-DUCED DEVELOPMF2VT ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Development Alternative would result in Redevelopment Projects
that reduce programs to fund capital improvement projects within the Redevel-
opment Project Areas, and that focus on assistance with building rehabilitation
and construction within the Redevelopment Project Areas. Elimination of capital
improvement funding that corrects existing and planned deficiencies will result
in new and redevelopment projects bearing an increased burden for the costs of
upgrading infrastructure; in some cases, this may require downscaling of pro-
jects or may make them infeasible from an economic prospective. This addi-
tional economic burden is expected to reduce the level of development/
redevelopment that will occur within the Redevelopment Project Areas. .Particu-
lar capital improvement projects that may not be financed include the following:
• Maintenance and refurbishment of infrastructure in Talbert-Beach, in-
cluding necessary replacement
• Storm drain improvements throughout the Redevelopment Project Areas
• Completion of storm drain improvements in Oakview
• Improvements to the interchange,roadways and intersections at Center
Avenue,Interstate 405 and Edinger Avenue
• Completion of a new accessway into the Huntington Center Plaza, di-
rectly across from the Interstate 405 southbound ramp at Center Drive
• Improvements at the Gothard Street/Hoover Street connection
• Completion of the Oakview branch library
• Various other improvements associated with community and neighbor-
hood improvement programs, commercial rehabilitation projects and
economic development.
Without implementation of these capital improvement projects, development
sponsors will be required to shoulder the economic burden for construction of
7/19i96«I:\RSG630\EIRUECT5-0.WPD» 5-10
1
improvements that accommodate not only their incremental demand but also
existing deficiencies in the system. This additional cost may create a hindrance
to economic development within the Redevelopment Project Areas, and may
have a corresponding negative effect on tax increment revenues within the
Redevelopment Project area. This loss of revenue will inhibit the ability of the
Redevelopment Agency to meet the objectives of the Amendment/Merger, as
identified in Section 3.4 of this EIR. In particular, Objective 3 (provision of
funds to assist implementation of infrastructure improvements) could not be
met with this alternative.
Since this alternative would produce development possibly at a slower rate than
expected with implementation of the Amendment/Merger, environmental im-
pacts associated with this alternative are anticipated to be incrementally slower,
but not necessarily fewer,than for the Amendment/Merger andAlternative 1 (No
Project),and greater than the impacts identified for Alternative 1 (No Project/No
Build).
Implementation of Alternative 5 will result in incrementally slower, but not
necessarily fewer, environmental impacts than the Amendment/Merger; how-
ever,this alternative fails to meet one of the main Amendment/Merger objectives
(Objective No.3) and,therefore,is considered infeasible.
5.6 CONCLUSIONS
A reasonable range of project alternatives to potentially reduce significant envi-
ronmental impacts, which would otherwise occur under the Amendment/
Merger,was analyzed in this chapter. These alternatives include the No Project
Alternative,No Project/No Build sub-set Alternative,Alternative Financing,Alter-
nate Location Alternative,Increased Development and Decreased Development.
The No Project/No Build alternative was determined to be infeasible,as it would
not allow for build out of the City's adopted General Plan. While this alternative
would avoid significant increases in ambient noise levels, it would not be envi-
ronmentally superior to the Amendment/Merger overall.
The No Project Alternative would result in environmental effects similar to the
Amendment/Merger, but would not have its beneficial effects on housing and
infrastructure. It is therefore not considered to be environmentally superior.
The Alternative Financing Alternative,if feasible/successful,would have the same
environmental impacts as the Amendment/Merger. However,due to the uncer-
tainty of funding for this Alternative and because it does not reduce significant
environmental impacts,it is not considered an environmentally superior project.
The Alternative Location,Increased Development and Decreased Development
Alternatives were deemed to be infeasible, as they would not achieve Amend-
ment/Merger objectives.
7/19i96<<I.\tSG630\EII;ISECT".WPD» 5-11
r
In conclusion, the AmendmenVMerger would have the fewest environmental
impacts among all the feasible alternatives, and it is considered to be the envi-
ronmentally superior alternative.
7/19i96«I.%RSG630ZRSECT5-0.WPD» 5-12
6.0 LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
This chapter has been prepared in conformance with Sections 15126(e), (f) and
(g)of the CEQA Guidelines,which require EIRs to address long-term effects of a
project. This section also provides a summary and classification of the environm-
ental impacts of the Amendment/Merger, which are identified in analyses con-
tained in Chapter 4 of this EIR.
6.1 E VVLRONMEtVTAL FFFECTS ANALYZED IN THE EIR
6.1.1 Impacts Found Not to Be Sign,)icant
Land Use and Planning;Population and Housing
The impacts associated with land use and planning were determined to not be
significant. Adoption and implementation of the Amendment/Merger will
actually result in positive land use impacts to the City and its residents. It is the
intent of the Amendment/Merger to facilitate the elimination of incompatible
land uses and blight,and to encourage new development that is compatible with
surrounding uses. Additionally, the Amendment/Merger does not propose
changes in the land use designations defined the City's General Plan. and will
not result in land use conflicts or changes in the land use mix nor will it add
substantially to population and housing in the City. The Amendment/Merger
will facilitate future development on a limited number of currently vacant
parcels contained within the Merged Project Area;however,these parcels do not
have significant scenic value,and are designated for development (i.e.non-open
space) in the General Plan.
Earth Resources
As with most development in the region, implementation of the Amendment/
Merger will place future residents at a potential risk due to the potential for
regional seismic activity. However, the effect has been determined to be
insignificant based on modem building codes and foundation requirements used
by the City of Huntington Beach. Implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the General Plan Update EIR (pages 5.6-26 through 5.6-29), now
incorporated into the General Plan as policies,will further reduce the effects of
fault rupture and ground shaking to a less than significant level.
Lands in the vicinity of the Merged Project Area have been known to be subject
to subsidence and/or liquefaction. Also,Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier are within
a Methane Overlay District, where the likelihood of methane gas exposure is
prominent. Adherence to existing geotechnical engineering reporting
requirements, municipal and building codes, State Division of Oil, Gas, &
Geothermal Resource requirements, federal regulations, and the mitigation
measures identified in the General Plan Update EIR will reduce potential impacts
associated with subsidence, liquefaction, and methane to below a significant
level.
7n9A6«I:WG63oE=5ECr6-0.WPD- 6-1
i
Water Quality
The potential impacts to water resources within the City and surrounding areas
were determined to be less than significant. None of the Merged Project Area
currently has or is expected to have land uses or activities that could contribute
to a decline in water quality within coastal waters;bays,estuaries,or man-made
lake features within the City. The Amendment/Merger will not significantly
impact water quality. Policies contained within the Environmental Resources/
Conservation Section of the General Plan are directed specifically at ensuring
that adverse impacts to water quality do not occur.
Transportation and Circulation
Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will result in a marginal increase in
traffic on local and regional roadways. However, the Amendment/Merger will
not result in significant traffic or circulation impacts. Policies contained in the
General Plan will ensure that implementation of the Circulation Plan and
TDWrSM strategies will occur, and therefore the potential impacts associated
with the General Plan build out will be avoided in most cases. Increased traffic
levels on PCH,however,will represent an exception,as discussed in Section 6.2
below.
Biological Resources
Indirect, less than significant effects to biological resources may occur due to
intensification of human usage of open space areas located near the Merged
Project Area. No direct impacts to important biological resources are expected
as a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Public Heakb (Hazards)
The Amendment/Merger may result in further development of commercial,
industrial,and residential lands uses that may use toxic and hazardous materials
and/or generate hazardous waste. However, compliance with existing City,
County,State,and Federal regulations regarding hazardous materials will reduce
potential impacts to below a significant level.
Public Services and Utilities
The impacts associated with public services and utilities were determined to be
insignificant. Build out of the Merged Project Area will increase the_demands
placed on all public services and utilities, including police services, fire and
emergency medical services, schools, parks and recreation, road maintenance,
utility services, water systems, sewage systems, solid waste disposal, storm
drainage,electricity,natural gas,and telecommunications services. Although the
Amendment/Merger will require the addition of facilities and expansion of
i service agencies, the increase in the tax base created by future development,
7/19/96KI_\RSG630XgR�SECT6.0.WPD» 6-2
coupled with fees paid for services, will facilitate the required increases in
services. By expanding the list of infrastructure and public facility projects that
the Redevelopment Agency may undertake, the Amendment/Merger will
improve the City's ability correct existing service deficiencies and provide
adequate services in the future. Implementation of the policies outlined in the
General Plan will further ensure that no significant impacts to public services
and utilities will occur.
Aesthetics
The Amendment/Merger would promote economic development and new
development in a previously developed area. Any potentially negative visual im-
pacts will be reduced with application of standard City setbacks, landscaping,
and design requirements, along with recommended mitigation measures to be
included in future Specific Plans and policies contained in the General Plan.
Overall, the Amendment/Merger is anticipated to have positive and beneficial
aesthetic impacts. The use of tax increment revenue will allow the
Redevelopment Agency to use monies for improving and updating dilapidated
and blighted buildings, ultimately having positive visual impacts.
Noise
Because the Amendment/Merger does not include any changes to the General
Plan land uses,there are no new significant impacts not already reported in the
General Plan Updzte EIR.
Schools
There are no physical impacts to the environment resulting from the small
number of students projected to attend public schools.
6.1.2 Long-Term Impacts Avoided or Lessened By Mitigation
Implementation of proposed mitigation measures will reduce potential
environmental impacts to levels that are less than significant, or may even
produce long-term environmental benefits. Impacts initially found to be
potentially significant but that can be mitigated or lessened to avoid significant
impacts are listed below.
Biological Resources
There are no significant impacts reported to biological resources reported in the
Merged Project Area.
7/19N6 L-\RSG6301E4EC'r".WPD» 6-3
I
Cultural Resources
Grading for development could disrupt presently unrecorded cultural resources.
Analysis of sites at the time subsequent environmental documents are prepared,
as required by CEQA and by mitigation included in this EIR,will result in avoid-
ance of impacts to any unrecorded cultural resources. A list of potential histori-
cal structures is included in Appendix B. Mitigation required in this EIR ensures
that any structure that is a potential historic resource will be assessed to deter-
mine the significance of the resource and provide further mitigation if war-
ranted.
Air Quality
Air pollutant emissions from Merged Project Area projects could result in poten-
tial impacts. Mitigation is included to lessen and avoid these impacts.
6.1.3 EM Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are included in their entirety in two sections of this EIR.
Section 1.0 of this document includes a listing of impacts and mitigation to offset
or avoid these impacts.Section 7.0 is the Mitigation Monitoring Program,which
includes each of the EHVs mitigation measures and implementing actions and
responsibilities. As discussed in each of the impact sections of this EM,compli-
ance with the policies and mitigation measures contained in the General Plan
and General Plan Update EIR, respectively,will serve to mitigate potential im-
pacts that might otherwise occur with implementation of the Amend-
ment/Merger.
6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES THAT WOULD BE
INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE LUPI F EN7ED
Specific mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce or eliminate adverse
impacts associated with the Amendment/Merger. There are no unavoidable
adverse impacts remaining after application of the mitigation measures, as ex-
plained in Chapter 4.
6.3 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
It is the intent of the Amendment/Merger to continue programs of economic
development and specific projects, including infrastructure improvement pro-
jects and housing programs, to alleviate conditions of blight within the Merged
Project Area. Through continuation of these projects and continuing funding of
these projects, the Agency will be improving and upgrading the existing infra-
structure, improving the level of public services, and also increasing the eco-
nomic viability of the Merged Project Area. The Amendment/Merger will con-
tinue and create new economic incentives that will attract commercial,residen-
tial, and industrial development into the Merged Project Area, resulting in em-
7/i9/96<<I.\RSG630\EMNSECT60.WPt»o 6-4
r
in employment opportunities for the local community. A small amount of
additional growth will occur through additional demand for goods,services, and
housing as a result of the new commercial and/or industrial uses on the site.
However, housing demand will be offset by the housing assistance projects
included in the Agency's list of potential projects, enumerated in Section 3.0,
Project Description.
The Amendment/Merger will not change the existing land use designations in
the Merged Project Area as defined in the General Plan. The land use designa-
tions described in the General Plan will remain unchanged, and the Amend-
ment/Merger will implement the General Plan. The adoption and implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger will not result in an increase in development
intensities above General Plan land use designations and, therefore, will not
induce growth causing impacts beyond those accepted by the City with General
Plan build out.
7/19i96«I-.\RSSG630\EIR\SECT6-0.WPD» 6-5
I
7.0 MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
7.1 MrHGA770NMONrrORING REQUMEMF.NTS
Public Resources Code Section 2 108 1.6 (enacted by the passage of Assembly Bill
3180) requires that the following requirements shall apply to all reporting or
mitigation monitoring programs:
"(a) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for
the changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of
project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed
to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those
changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at
the request of an agency having jurisdiction by law over natural re-
sources affected by the project, that agency shah if so requested by the
lead or responsible agency,prepare and submit a proposed reporting
or monitoringprogram.
(b) If there is a project for which mitigation is adopted, a public agency
shall comply with subdivision (a) by, among other things, adopting
mitigation measures as conditions of project approval. Those con-
ditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced documents
which address required mitigation measures.
(c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental
impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency,
or a public agency baying jurisdiction over natural resources affected
by the project, shall either submit to the lead agency complete and
detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would
address the significant effects on the environment identified by the
responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural re-
sources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate,
readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation
measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an
agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the pro-
ject shall be limited to measures wbicb mitigate impacts to resources
which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applica-
ble to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible
agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by
a project with that requirement shall not limit that authority of the
responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural re-
sources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead agency, to
approve, aonditior; or decry projects as provided by this division or any
other provision of law.
(a) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the docu-
ments or other material which constitute the record of proceedings
upon which its decision is based."
7/19i96«I:\RSG630\E=EC17-0.WM>> 7-1
r
7.2 Mitigation Monitoring Procedures
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compli-
ance with Public Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements
and procedures to be followed by the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that
all mitigation measures adopted as part of the Amendment/Merger will be car-
ried out as described in this EIR.
Table 7.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in this EIR, and identi-
fies the party(ies) responsible for implementation and monitoring of each mea-
sure.
7/19/96<<I:\j6G630 rm\.sECTJ-O.vM* 7-2
1
Table 7.A-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
4.2 PopulatIon and 4.2 A The Agency shall relocate any per- Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any
Housing sons or families of low and moder- Director(or designee) ment Director(or project requiring removal
ate income displaced by a redevel- designee) or displacement of hous-
opment project. The Agency shall ing.
adopt and implement a relocation
plan pursuant to Sections 33410
through 33411.1 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The relo-
cation plan ensures that no families
or single persons of low and mod-
erate income are displaced by a
redevelopment project until there
is a suitable housing unit available
and ready for occupancy. Such
housing units shall be available at
rents comparable to those at the
time of displacement. Further,
housing units for relocation are to
be suitable for the needs of the
displaced household,and must be
decent,safe,sanitary,and other-
wise standard dwelling. It is the
Agency's objective that residents be
relocated with the minimum of
hardship.
7/191961,\1tSG630V W$BCT7.O.WPD» 7-3
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
4.5 Air Quality Construction Exhaust Emissions
4.5 A Mitigation for both heavy equip- Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any
ment and vehicle travel is limited. Director(or designee) ment Director(or grading or building permits
However,exhaust emissions from designee) associated with the Merged
construction equipment shall be Project Area.
controlled by the applicant's con-
tractor in a manner that is consis-
tent with standard mitigation mea-
sures provided within the AQMP,
to the extent feasible. The mea-
sures to be implemented are as
follows:
• Use low emission on-site
mobile construction equip-
ment;
• Maintain equipment in
tune,per manufacturer's
specifications;
• Use catalytic converters on
gasoline powered equip-
ment;
• Use reformulated,low-
emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gas-
oline powered equipment
for diesel powered equip-
ment,where feasible;
7/19/96«t:Vtsc630\etRlseCT7-o.wrD» 7-4
Responsible Party for
- Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
• Where applicable,do not
leave equipment idling for
prolonged periods (i.e.,
more than five minutes);
and
• Curtail (cease or reduce)
construction during peri-
ods of high ambient pollut-
ant concentrations (i.e.,
Stage 2 smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the
above measures during normal
construction site Inspections.
Fugitive Dust
4.5-B The applicant shall implement Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of
standard mitigation measures in Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits
accordance with SCAQMD Rules designee) associated with the Merged
402 and 403,to control fugitive Projdct Area.
dust emissions and ensure that nui-
sancc dust conditions do not occur
during construction.These mea-
sures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site,
unpaved roads,and in
parking areas;
• Water the site and equip-
ment In the morning and
evening;
7/1"64(1.\RSG63O\1!M�SEC1I.O.WPD» 7-5
Responsible Party for
` Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Mensure Impleineiitation Monitoring Measure
• Reestablish ground cover
on the construction site
through seeding and wa-
tering;
• Phase grading to prevent
the susceptibility of large
areas to erosion over ex-
tended periods of time;
• Schedule activities to mini-
mize the amounts of ex-
posed excavated soil dur-
ing and after the end of
work periods;
• Dispose of surplus exca-
vated material in accor-
dance with local ordi-
nances and use sound en-
gineering practices;
• Restore landscaping and
irrigation removed during
construction, in coordina-
tion with local public agen-
cies;
• Sweep streets on a daily
basis if silt Is carried over
to adjacent public thor-
oughfares or occurs as a
result of hauling;
7/19/96«I:\RSG630\EI"ECI7A.WPD» 7-6
i
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
• Suspend grading opera-
tions during high winds in
accordance with Rule 403
requirements;
• Wash off trucks leaving
site;
• Maintain a minimum 12
inch freeboard ratio on
haul trucks;and
• Cover payloads on haul
trucks using tarps or other
suitable means.
Volatile O#ganic Emissions
4.5-C The application of paints and coat- Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of
ings and asphalt paving material Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits
will raise significant quantities of designee) associated with the Merged
VOC emissions during their appli- Project Area.
cation.
• Where feasible,emulsified
asphalt or asphaltic ce-
ment shall be utilized. The
use of rapid and medium
cure cutback asphalt
should be avoided when-
ever possible.
7/19/'96«I.\RSG630\EMWCI7A.WPD» 7-7
Responsible Party for
_. Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
• Where feasible,low VOC
paints,primers,and coat-
ings,as well as precoated
materials,shall be speci-
fied.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of
subsurface contamination,a site Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits
assessment will be conducted be- designee) associated with the Merged
fore any construction takes place at Project Area.
that locale. At locations where
spillage of fluids from the petro-
leum extraction process has oc-
curred,the soils will be remediated
using appropriate techniques. Re-
moval of petroleum contamination
will also alleviate the generation of
hydrogen sulfide and its attendant
odor. These activities would fall
under the direction of both local
and State agencies,which would
"sign off'on the remediation effort
upon completion. If unforseen
areas of subsurface contamination
are encountered during excavation
activities,these activities would be
curtailed in this area until the area
could be evaluated and remediated
as appropriate.
7/19/96«I,WG630\EIR�$EC17.0;WPD» 7-8
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished . Community Development Community Develop. Prior to the issuance of
will have an asbestos survey per- Director(or designee) ment Director(or building or grading permits
formed by personnel trained and designee) associated with the Merged
certified in asbestos abatement. Project Area.
Any existing asbestos will be re-
moved and disposed in accordance
with sound engineering practice
and federal regulations. Imple-
mentation of these measures will
reduce potentially significant con-
tamination issues to a level that is
less than significant.
4.12 Cultural 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any
Resources construction that would displace Director(or designee) ment Director (or entire stricture demolition,
or require demolition of poten- designee) grading or building permit.
tially significant resources,a com-
plete assessment shall be prepared
for any of the potentially historic
buildings identified in the present
report within the Merged Project
Area. At a minimum,this assess-
ment shall include the following
documentation:
A) A full description of each
building including archi-
tectural style,roof design,
window design, type of
foundation,exterior wall
treatments,special archi-
tectural features,etc.
7/19i96«I,\RSG630\UIR�SEC17.O.WPD» 7-9
Responsible Party for
_ .. Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
B) Black and white photo-
graphs showing one or
more facades of each
building.
C) A determination of con-
struction date from exist-
ing records such as build-
ing permit record books
on file in the Planning De-
partment at the City of
Huntington Beach. In the
event that records cannot
be located for some of the
buildings,Interviews
should be conducted with
members of the local his-
torical society or other in-
dividuals who may have
relevant data to share.
D) A competent architectural
historian should be con-
sulted prior to the demoli-
tion of any of the poten-
tially historic buildings
identified in the present
study. Additional mea-
sures maybe implemented
as a result,if necessary to
prevent an adverse impact.
7/19/96«IiVtSG630\I!IR�SECT7-0.VPD» 7-10
1
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts,ar- Community Development Community Develop- During demolition and
chaeological resources or Director(or designee) ment Director (or grading associated with the
paleontological resources be un- designee) Merged Project Area.
covered during grading or excava-
tion,a County of Orange certified
archaeologist or paleontologist
shall be contacted by the Commu-
nity Development Director to: 1)
ascertain the significance of the
resource,2) establish protocol
with the City to protect such re-
sources,3)ascertain the presence
of additional resources,and 4) pro-
vide additional monitoring of the
site, if deemed appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil Community Development Community Develop- During demolition and
recognition,fossil recovery and Director(or designee) ment Director(or grading associated with the
heavy equipment monitoring shall designee) Merged Project Area.
be on site during grading opera-
tions.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall Community Development Community Develop- Prior to the issuance of any
be placed in the collection of his- Director(or designee) ment Director(or demolition,grading,or
toric documents on file at the Hun- designee) building permits associated
tington Beach Central Library or with the Merged Project
another suitable local archive. Area.
7/19/96«I:\RSG630\1!iR',SECT7-O.wPD» 7-11
April 16, 1996
To: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties
Subject: Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and
Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project
Attached is a Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on
the proposed amendments and project consolidations to form the Huntington Beach Redevel-
opment Project. The purpose of the Notice of Preparation is to describe the proposed changes
to the already adopted Redevelopment Plans and Project Components, to solicit input regarding
the scope and content of the analysis in the EIR, and to describe the potential environmental
impacts that the EIR will evaluate. It should be noted that the project area amendments and
merger would not add property or delete property from the current Redevelopment Project
boundaries.
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency would appreciate your comments,suggestions or
concerns regarding potential environmental impacts related to the proposed actions. Due to
the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date
but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please submit your comments by May
17, 1996. Written comments regarding the EIR can be sent via regular mail or fax to the follow-
ing:
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Fax: (714) 375-5087
Thank you in advance for any comments. If you have any questions about the proposed
Redevelopment Project, or the environmental review process,please contact Mr.Stephen Kohler
at (714) 536-5582.
Sincerely,
avid Biggs
Economic Development Director
Attachment: Notice of Preparation/Initial Study
04/15/96(1::RSG630\NOP,.COVEKLTR)
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
OF A DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
BACKGROUND
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach activated the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Agency on March 1, 1976. Since that time, the Rede-
velopment Agency has created five (5) redevelopment projects within the
City: Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project; Main-
Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment Project; Talbert-Beach
Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project. Each of
the five existing (Constituent) projects (described in more detail below) is
included in the proposed Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger.
Certain limitations exist with each of the existing redevelopment projects that
hinder the Agency's ability to correct blighting conditions, promote economic
development and facilitate the construction of affordable housing. Thus, a
Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger is proposed by the Agency to
allow the Agency to more comprehensively attain these purposes by expand-
ing the Agency's financial and statutory authority to alleviate conditions of
blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect residential uses and neighbor-
hoods, construct additional public improvements and facilities, and develop
affordable housing.
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project Area is located in the City of Huntington Beach, Orange County,
California. Figure 1 illustrates the regional location of the redevelopment
areas. The Project Area is composed of five constituent Project Areas, total-
ling 619 acres or approximately 3.5 percent of the City acreage. Each of the
five existing redevelopment Project Areas is non-contiguous within the City
boundaries, as shown in Figure 2.
The profile of each of the Constituent Projects is described as follows.
Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project
Established via Ordinance No. 2743 adopted by the City Council on Novem-
ber 26, 1984, the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment
Project encompasses 160 acres of retail and office commercial uses, and is
located in the vicinity of Edinger Avenue, Beach Boulevard, and the San
04/16/96(i:%RSG630\NOP••.NOP.'IXI)
Los Angeles County San Bernardino
County
57 90 Riverside
91 County
91 1
1
5 55 1
1
405 '
♦ Cleveland
♦ National
''•.• .. 1 39
Forest
::: ::
' i
405
55
73�`r`ypc 133
♦` t
� t
t
t
5 1 74
t
Pacific 1 t
t
- San Diego.:
County
,96(RSG630) LEGEND Figure 1
City of Huntington Beach
v
Scale in Miles
° �'r Regional Location
r
.4J 3
O C W W
caLLJ
w y 3
• z
SEAL WESTMINSTER
BEACH Salsa _, o
Y 2 > H m
g o
cc
_.. W=j w
` H EDINGER
---- HELL
_ WARNER FOUNTAIN
VALLEY
405
SLATER
COUNTY OF♦• <TALBEAT FcpF
ORANGE 9iYy.
1 (BOLSA CHICA) 3
......:?.i>v:o:>; �, ;. -EMS ¢ Y
''o::'"•�:��L::<e is l (7 � � �
co
C 3< r GARFIELD
/ADAMS
:q,
LEGEND MS., !.. .N�- J ATLANTA
w
�. City Boundary '�ti-:`�,»>-r...... •,..,.:::;r«.r.
,:, :.y.'....v,.ywwn'v
Huntington Center Commercial District ";,A' '"`�'" }iAMILTON
Redevelopment Project %;~~ y
2 Oakview Redevelopment Project "'"?s'`M`�"M BAM94
r'•:.:!iris....:
COSTA
Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project MESA
Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment j Pro ect ,;:>;:�.:::<•H::.«<.,:.
5® Main-Pier Redevelopment Project
,�•Vv.'r'.:w �.::MIL�`jCV%wrCL.w•..
Source:City of Hunting on Beach.Department of Cotamuaity Development
4/15/%a( SG630) Figure 2
4 .
N
LSh. Sca1e in Miles
0 0.5 1 Redevelopment Project Areas
r
Diego Freeway (1-405). The redevelopment area is shown as Area 1 on Fig-
ure 2. The Huntington Center Commercial District Project Area includes the
existing Huntington Beach regional mall.
Oakview Redevelopment Project
The Oakview Redevelopment Project of 68 acres was initially established on
November 1, 1982, by City Council Ordinance No. 2582. The Oakview Rede-
velopment Project Area is generally located between Warner Avenue and
Slater Avenue, from Oak Lane to Beach Boulevard (Area 2 on Figure 2). On
July 5, 1989, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan for the
Oakview Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 3002 to extend certain
time and financial limits. The Oakview Project Area includes existing general
commercial, medium density and high density residential land uses.
Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project
The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project was established via Ordinance No.
2577 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Talbert-Beach
Redevelopment Project Area is located between Talbert Avenue and Taylor
Drive, west of Beach Boulevard. The Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project
encompasses 25 acres of existing low, medium, and high density residential,
and general industrial land uses (Area 3 on Figure 2).
Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project
The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project was established by Ordinance No.
2576 adopted by the City Council on September 20, 1982. The Yorktown-
Lake Redevelopment Project encompasses 30 acres of existing medium den-
sity residential and public land uses such as the Huntington Beach Civic
Center and Police Department. .The Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project
Area is located in the vicinity of Main Street, Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street,
and Utica Avenue (Area 4 on Figure 2).
Main Pier Redevelopment Project
On September 20, 1982, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2578,
which created the original five block Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
On September 6, 1983, the City Council amended the Redevelopment Plan
for the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project with Ordinance No. 2634, enlarging
the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area to 336 acres. The Main-Pier
Redevelopment Project Area is located along Main Street, between Palm
Avenue and the Huntington Beach Pier, and along Pacific Coast Highway,
between Goldenwest Street and Beach Boulevard (Area 5 on Figure 2). The
Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area includes existing retail, tourist recre-
04/16/96(I:•.RsG630\NOP%NOP.TXT) 4
r
ational, public, and residential land uses, including the Huntington Beach
Pier.
The Amendmentl,ferger does not propose to either add property to, or
delete property from any of these Project Areas.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject Redevelopment Project has been proposed to initiate redevelop-
ment plan amendment/merger proceedings to effect the following.
Merge the Redevelopment Plans for the Constituent Projects into a Single
Redevelopment Plan ("Plan") and Establish the Merged Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project ("Project") and Project Area
The Agency's current redevelopment programs have been frustrated b an
P P 1� Y
u and needs between the Constituent Projects. In
imbalance of resources 7
order to move funding resources between the Constituent Project Areas, the
Agency proposes to merge the Constituent Projects into the single Project.
Establish a New Dollar Limit on the Amount of Tax Increment Revenue the Agency
May be Allocated from the Project
Presently, the Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment Project exceeds its.annual
$250,000 tax increment rap. Given moderate growth projections, it is pro-
jected that the TaIbert-Beach Redevelopment Project will also exceed its tax
increment limit prior to the expiration of the Redevelopment Plan. Without
an increase in the tax increment limits, the additional tax increment revenue
will not be available to the Agency to fund redevelopment projects and pro-
grams.
In conjunction with tax increment revenue limit amendments, bond indebt-
edness limit increases are needed to permit the Agency to raise additional
capital and invest in new redevelopment projects and programs.
Extend the Time Frame Witbrn Wbicb the agency May Incur Indebtedness on Behalf
of the Project and Establish New Time Periods Within Wbicb the Agency May Incur
Debt, Undertake Redevelopment Activities, and Receive Tax Increment
With the exception of the Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelop-
ment Project, generally the Agency is prohibited from incurring debt after
2002; 2004 for the Huntington Center Commercial District. In the event that
the Agency wishes to pursue new projects and/or incur debt after these time
frames, an amendment is necessary.
04/16/96(1:-.RSG630WOP-•.\OP.'IX'n 5
PP
On a Selective Basis, Emend the Time Frame Within Which the Agency May Employ
Eminent Domain Proceedings on Nonresidential Properties in the Main Pier and
Huntington Center Commercial District Area
In order for the Agency to implement redevelopment projects involving land
acquisition, eminent domain authority may be-a useful tool to acquire non-
residential property. Presently, the authority to use eminent domain has
expired in all but the Huntington Center Commercial District and Oakview
Redevelopment Projects. Through the Amendment/Merger, the Agency pro-
poses to establish a new 12 year time frame within which the Agency may
employ eminent domain on nonresidential properties in the Main-Pier and
Huntington Center Commercial District areas only.
Expand the List of Infrastructure and Public Facility Projects That the Agency May
Undertake Within the Project Area
When adopted, the Plan will amend and merge all existing redevelopment
plans for the Constituent Projects, and will guide all future redevelopment
activities, infrastructure and public facility projects and programs in the
Amended/Merged Project Area. However, the Amendment/Merger will not
affect the Agency's outstanding obligations or indebtedness.
CONFORMANCE WITH THE G AERAT PLAN
Redevelopment Land Uses
The land uses permitted in the Project Area are in conformance with the
City's General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and any other state and local building
codes and guidelines as they now exist or are hereafter amended.
Principal Streets
The principal streets within the Project Area include Beach Boulevard, Eding-
er Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Main Street,Yorktown Avenue, Lake Street, Warn-
er Avenue, Slater Avenue, and Pacific Coast Highway. The layout of principal
streets and those that may be developed in the future shall conform to the
Circulation Element of the General Plan as currently adopted or as hereafter
amended.
Existing streets within the Project Area may be closed, widened or otherwise
modified, and additional streets may be created as necessary for proper
pedestrian and/or vehicular circulation provided they are consistent with the
General Plan.
''� 04a6/'96(I:%RSCr630\N0P%N0P.TKI) 6
Proposed Population Densities
Permitted densities within the Project Area shall conform to the General Plan
as currently adopted or as hereafter amended, and shall conform to applica-
ble ordinances and local codes.
Proposed Building Intensities
Building intensity shall be controlled by limits on: 1) the percentage of the
building site covered by the building (site coverage); 2) the ratio of the total
floor area for all stories of the building to the area of the building site (floor
area ratio); 3) the size and location of the buildable area on the building site;
and 4) the heights of the building. The limits on building intensity shall be
established in accordance with the provisions of the General Plan, Zoning
Ordinance, and local codes and ordinances, as they now exist or are here-
after amended.
Proposed Building Standards
Building standards shall conform to the building requirements of applicable
local codes and ordinances. The Agency may consider more restrictive re-
quirements and may incorporate such requirements into the Plan in the
interest of the public health, safety and welfare.
Potential Public Infrastructure and Facilities Projects
Funding of infrastructure improvements and public facilities projects may
occur within the Amended/Merged Project Area. The list of possible projects
would be expanded to include, but not be limited to: 1) maintenance and
refurbishment of infrastructure in the Talbert-Beach area; 2) storm drain
improvements throughout the Project Area; 3) completion of storm drain
improvements in the Oakview area; 4) street improvements, street lights,
signal lights, alley improvements and landscaping in the Oakview area, Cen-
ter Avenue, Interstate 405 and Edinger Avenue, the Gothard Street/Hoover
Street connection, and 5) completion of a branch library. Various other
programs and projects, all competing for a limited amount of revenue gener-
ated by the Redevelopment Project, could be considered in connection with
community and neighborhood improvement programs, commercial rehabili-
tation projects and economic development.
SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The EIR to be prepared for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will
function as a Program EIR, as specified in CEQA Statutes Section 21090. A
Program EIR is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 as applying to
04/16/96(I:%RSG630\NOP••.NOP.TXD 7
r
related or sequential projects or programs that may be environmentally
cleared in one EIR_ The Program EIR concept is further discussed in Section
III of this Initial Study. The EIR will describe the environmental consequenc-
es of the plans, programs, policies and projects contemplated to be carried
out in the Redevelopment Project Area. Subsequent redevelopment projects
will be subject to future review and approval by the City Council, Redevelop-
ment Agency, Planning Commission and other appropriate decision-making
bodies and may require additional environmental review if it is demonstrated
that there are significant environmental impacts not fully documented in the
original Redevelopment Project EIR. After input has been solicited from
affected residents, property owners, businesses, public agencies and other
interested parties, and prior to approval of subsequent projects under this
program, an assessment will be made by the Agency or the City regarding
whether the individual subsequent projects require additional environmental
analysis.
04/16/96(I:••.RSG630\NOP•+NOP.TX2) 8
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors listed below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Transportation/Circulation Public Services
Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy and Mineral Resources Aesthetics
Water Hazards Cultural Resources
Air Quality Noise Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant
impact" or"potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to
applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR,
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
l 1q
Signature Date
Stephen Kohler
Printed Name
04n6/96(I:--.RSG630\NOP--.NOP.TXI) 9
I
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1� A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
,upported by the information sources a Lead Agency cites following each questions. A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A"No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site,
cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational
impacts.
3) "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an
EIR is required.
4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact."
The Lead Agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect
to a less than significant Ievel (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.
Lead Agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references information sources for
potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the .
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached. Other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? — X
SOURCE(S):
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
SOURCE(S):
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X —
SOURCE(S):
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts X
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)? SOURCE(S):
04/16r96(i:--.RSG630\NOP%NOP.TX) 10
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an i X _
established community(including a low-income or
minority community)? SOURCE(S):
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections? SOURCE(S):
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or s X
indirectly(e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? SOURCE(S):
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? i X
SOURCE(S):
III. GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? SOURCE(S): X _
b) Seismic ground shaldng? SOURCE(S): X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X _
SOURCE(S):
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? SOURCE(S): X _
e) Landslides or mudflows? SOURCE(S): X
f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil X _
conditions from excavation,grading, or fill? SOURCE(S):
g) Subsidence of the land? SOURCE(S): X _
h) Expansive soils? SOURCE(S): X _
i) Unique geologic or physical features? SOURCF(S): X _
IV. WATER Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns, or the _ X _
rate and amount of surface runoff? SOURCE(S):
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards _ X
such as flooding? SOURCE(S):
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of X _
surface water quality(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity)? SOURCE(S):
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X _
body? SOURCE(S):
e) ' Change in currents,or the course or direction of water _ _ X _
movements? SOURCE(S):
f) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through _ X _
direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
SOURCE(S):
04/16/96(I:••.RSG630\NOP••.NOP.TXD 11
r
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ies and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
g) Altered direction or rate of How of groundwater? X _
SOURCE(S):
h) Impact to groundwater quality? SOURCE(S): X _
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X _
otherwise available for public water supplies?
SOL'RCE(S):
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an X
codsdng or projected air quality violation? SOURCE(S):
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? SOURCE(S): X _
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,or cause X _
any change in climate? SOURCE(S):
d) Create objectionable odors? SOURCE(S): X
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result
in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? SOURCE(S): X _
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X _
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.
farm equipment)? SOURCE(S):
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? _ X _
SOURCE(S):
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
SOURCE(S):
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X _
SOURCE(S):
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
SOURCE(S):
g) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? SOURCE(S): X
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in
impacts to.
a) Endangered,threatened or rare species or their habitats _ X _
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,animals,
and birds)? SOURCE(S):
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? _ X _
SOURCE(S):
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g.oak forest, X
coastal habitat, ctc.)? SOURCE(S):
d) Wetland habitat(e. . marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X _
g Pin l�)
SOURCE(S):
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? SOURCE(S): X _
04/16/96(I:%RSG63"0P-,NOP.TXI) 12
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Issues and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
SOURCE(S):
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X
manner? SOURCE(S):
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X _
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State? SOURCE(S):
DC HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X _
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? SOURCE(S):
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X _
emergency evacuation plan? SOURCE(S):
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X
hazard? SOURCE(S):
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X
health hazards? SOURCE(S):
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, _ _ X
grass, or trees? SOURCE(S):
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? SOURCE(S): X _
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? SOURCE(S): X
XI_ PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,
or result in a need for new or altered government services in
any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? SOURCE(S): X
b) Police protection? SOURCE(S): X _
c) Schools? SOURCE(S): X
d) Maintenance of public facilities,including roads? _ X _
SOURCE(S):
e) Other governmental services? SOURCE(S): X
MI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal
result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? SOURCE(S): X
b) Communications systems? SOURCE(S): X _
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution _ X _
facilities? SOURCE(S):
d) Sewer or septic tanks? SOURCE(S): X _
e) Storm water drainage? SOURCE(S): X `
04A 6/96(L•%FSG630\NOP•.NOP.TXT) 13
r
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
ies and Supporting Information Sources: Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
f) Solid waste disposal? SOURCE(S): _ _ X _
g) Local or regional water supplies? SOURCE(S): _ _ X _
)III. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? SOURCE(S): X _
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? _ _ X _
SOURCE(S):
c) Create light or glare? SOURCE(S): X
)IV CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? SOURCE(S): _ X _
b) Disturb archaeological resources? SOURCE(S): _ X _
c) Affect historical resources? SOURCE(S): X _
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which _ X _
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? SOURCE(S):
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area? SOURCE(S):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks _ _ X _
or other recreational facilities? SOURCE(S):
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? SOURCE(S): X _
XVI. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. (Section 15063(c)(3)(D).) In this
case a discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Not applicable.
04/16/96(I:•P-%630\NOP,.NOP."IXI) 14
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Not applicable
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are"Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"describe, on attached
sheets, the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
Not applicable
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact
XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the — X — —
environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major proceeds of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the — X — —
disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but — X _ —
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means
that the incremental effects of a project arc considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects
of other current projects,and the effects of probable future
projects.)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause — X — —
substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or
indirectly?
04/16/96(I:•,RSG630\NOP•.NOP.TXT) 15
III. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND CONSEQUENCES
The Redevelopment Agency has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required to assess the environmental effects of the Redevelop-
ment Project, and to identify mitigation measures that will lessen or avoid
potentially significant impacts. The EIR to be*prepared for the Redevelop-
ment Project is a Program EIR, wherein all public and private activities or
undertakings pursuant to or in furtherance of the Redevelopment Plan consti-
tute a single project (CEQA Statues, Section 21090). A Program EIR is a type
of EIR designed to address a series of related actions that are: 1) logical
parts of a chain of contemplated actions; 2) related geographically; 3) a plan,
set of regulations, or a set of contemplated actions that are part of a continu-
ing program; or 4) individual activities carried out under the same authoriz-
ing authority (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15168). The proposed Redevelop-
ment Plan is a program made up of various components that include poli-
cies, land use plans, public infrastructure improvements, construction of
public facilities, development of affordable housing, and actions to promote
commercial rehabilitation and promote economic development. The pro-
posed Redevelopment Project qualifies as a "Program" as defined by the
CEQA Statutes and is consistent with all categories summarized above, and as
fully described in Guidelines Section 15168.
The following explanation of environmental effects of the Redevelopment
Project is provided to help guide the analysis in the forthcoming EIR docu-
ment. Because the project being discussed is a "Program" that includes
various plans, policies and projects as described above, the discussions below
are not specific to any individual subsequent project, but are addressed to
the "Program" as a whole.
This section provides the reasoning underlying the findings and conclusions
identified in the Environmental Checklist Form. The discussions below also
provide direction to the EIR preparers during the EIR preparation period.
The conclusions are based upon a preliminary assessment of the proposed
Redevelopment Project as described in the Preliminary Plan for the Hunting-
ton Beach Redevelopment Project.
The Environmental Checklist identifies four categories of project impact:
"potentially significant impact", "potentially significant unless mitigation
incorporated", "less than significant impact" and "no impact". A response of
"potentially significant impact" indicates that there is the potential for signifi-
cant impact resulting from the proposed project. "Potentially significant
unless mitigation incorporated" applies where incorporation of mitigation
measures could reduce an effect from a "potentially significant impact" to a
"less than significant impact." A response of"less than significant" appears if
there is substantial evidence that the potential effect of the project is below a
level of significance. A response of"no impact" indicates that the project will
not have any significant impact on the environment.
04n6/96(1:•-.RSG630\N0P••.N0P.TX ) 16
I
REFERENCES USED IN COMPLETING THE ENVIROIVAIENTAL CHECKLIST
The following documents were used in completing the Environmental Check
list/Initial Study and the discussion provided below, and are available for
review at the City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Develop-
ment, Fifth Floor, 2000 Main Street. Where -appropriate these reference
documents have been cited in the explanation of checklist responses.
1. City of Huntington Beach Draft General Plan and Draft EIR, as amend-
ed, December 12, 1995.
2. Final Huntington Center Commercial District Redevelopment Project
Area EIR (EIR 84-4).
3. Preliminary Plan for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
L LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.
a) Conflict u*b general plan designation or zoning?
No impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amendment/Merger con-
forms to the City's General Plan and by extension to the zoning, which is
generally consistent with the General Plan. The Redevelopment Project
proposes land uses, streets, highways and public facilities consistent with the
existing General Plan and the proposed General Plan, and has provisions that
make it consistent with future amendments. Because the project is consis-
tent with the General Plan and, in turn, the underlying zoning, there are no
specific environmental impacts associated with the project.
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopt-
ed by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
No impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project conforms to the existing
policies and environmental plans pertaining to the Project Area, either in
their existing form or as may be amended hereafter. The EIR will address the
potential compatibility aspects of the Amendment/Merger with relevant juris-
dictional policies and plans.
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated The programmatic
components of the proposed Redevelopment Project will not directly physi-
cally affect existing land uses in the vicinity of the Constituent Projects. The
EIR will analyze the potential for land use incompatibilities, and will deter-
mine the need for mitigation that would reduce or eliminate land use im-
pacts from the future specific redevelopment proposals within the Constitu-
ent Project areas.
04/16/96(1:%RSG630\NOP,.NOP.TXT) 17
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., impacts to
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)?
No impact. Some agricultural land uses are still active in Huntington Beach;
however, to a large extent, they have been replaced by residential, commer-
cial and industrial development and related infrastructure. A total of 69.1
acres of land is currently under agricultural production, representing less
than one percent of the City's total acreage (General Plan Draft EIR, Decem-
ber 12, 1995). None of the areas currently in agricultural production are
within or adjacent to the Constituent Project Areas comprising the Redevel-
opment Project Area. Therefore, the proposed Redevelopment Plan will not
affect existing agricultural resources or operations, nor propose incompatible
land uses in the existing agricultural production areas.
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established
community (including a low-income or minority community)?
Less than significant impact. The Constituent Project Areas (existing Rede-
velopment Areas) were created based on the desire to improve blighted
conditions that prevail in those areas. The proposed Redevelopment Project
is intended to facilitate the Redevelopment Agency's ability to correct blight-
ed conditions, finance infrastructure improvements, foster rehabilitation and
economic growth and construct affordable housing. The proposed merger of
the Constituent Projects under one Redevelopment Plan and other program-
matic components do not include any large-scale infrastructure improve-
ments or major reconfiguration of streets or roadways that are typically
associated with division of communities. In addition, the land uses and
infrastructure improvements will be consistent with the City's General Plan
and zoning, and would not disrupt the arrangement of established communi-
ties. The EIR shall describe the potential physical changes resulting from
implementation of project components and address the issues of those physi-
cal changes that could potentially effect land use arrangements.
H. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed o,fficial regional or local population pro-
jections?
No impact. The programmatic components of the proposed Redevelopment
Project do not include substantial development of either housing or commer-
cial uses that would bring about substantial change in population or employ-
ment. The land uses, and by extension the growth anticipated for the Project
Areas, are the same as included in the City's General Plan. Because the
incremental growth within the Project Area is the same as is planned within
the City's General Plan, the population/employment projections for the
Project Area are included within City wide projections, which form the basis
04/16/96(Ir•.RSG630\NOP••.NOP.TXI) 18
for regional projections. The Redevelopment Project is designed to improve
existing commercial areas, thereby improving the vitality of businesses and
supporting local economic growth. Subsequent gains in employment oppor-
tunities may draw workers from surrounding communities, but would not
result in a significant influx of permanent residents to Huntington Beach.
Because there are no specific development projects included in the Redevel-
opment Plan that would affect housing availability or creation of significant
numbers of jobs, there are no significant population increases, overcrowding,
or other population impacts anticipated from project implementation. Poten-
tial population increases due to build out of General Plan designated land
uses are addressed in the City's General Plan EIR. This will be addressed in
the EIR
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indi-
rectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or exten-
sion of major infrastructure)?
Less than significant impact. Redevelopment Project improvements include
expansion of limited infrastructure and incentives programs designed to
induce economic growth. Because the programs and projects included in
the Redevelopment Project are distributed between housing, commercial
rehabilitation, economic development, and infrastructure including sewer,
storm drains, alley improvements, street improvements and landscaping,
incremental improvement of entire project areas is anticipated. The project
would not induce substantial growth. The EIR shall address the effect of
induced growth of implementation of infrastructure in the project area in
conjunction with planned infrastructure development to determine whether
there are potentially significant impacts that require mitigation.
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
Less than significant impact. The proposed project will establish new 12-
year eminent domain provisions within the Huntington Center Commercial
District and Main-Pier development areas. However, these proposed provi-
sions are restricted to nonresidential properties and therefore will not result
in the displacement of existing housing. The EIR will address the potential
effects of Redevelopment Project implementation on housing and affordable
housing.
Z GEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
04n6/96(I:••.RSG630\NOP%NOP.TXr) 19
r
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
J) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditionsfrom
excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land?
b) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
The following explanation responds to the geologic topics listed above (III a-
i):
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amend-
ment/Merger will not affect geologic conditions within the Project Area. As
with any other development in the City, Redevelopment projects will be
required to conform to the Uniform Building Code and other applicable
soils, grading and structural foundation requirements, codes and ordinances
such that any potential geologic impacts are reduced to less than significant
levels. The EIR will identify the existing geologic conditions within the
Project Area and will determine the potential effects on programmed and
possible future redevelopment proposals.
N. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Cbanges in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface rungf7
Potentially significant unless mitigation implemented. The proposed Rede-
velopment Project will not substantially alter existing drainage patterns or
runoff absorption rates except those areas affected by infi tructure projects
that include storm drain reconstruction or alteration. Certain specific storm
drain projects and unknown drainage projects can be anticipated to be pro-
posed within the Constituent Project areas. The EIR will evaluate the poten-
tial for those and other specific redevelopment projects to affect stormwater
runoff volumes, rates and drainage patterns.
The Huntington Center, Oakview and Main-Pier Constituent Redevelopment
Areas are subject to flooding (Draft General Plan EIR). The Redevelopment
Project EIR will address potential flooding impacts in these areas.
04n6/96(I:••.RSG630\NOP%NOP.TXI) 20
r
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such
as flooding?
looding?
c) Discharge into surface water or other alteration of surface
water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?
e) Change in currents, or the course or direction of water move-
ments?
) Change in the quality of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aqui-
fer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impact to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise
available for public water supplies?
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project/Amend-
ment/Merger will not physically affect water resources within the Project
Area. The EIR will identify the existing hydrologic conditions in the Project
Area and the vicinity, and determine, at a programmatic level, the potential
for their modification by implementation of specified infrastructure improve-
ments and of future potential redevelopment proposals. Future redevelop-
ment projects will be required to conform to City standard conditions for
flood control and for provision of adequate storm drain facilities to serve
projected projects. The EIR will address the potential effects of the Redevel-
opment Project upon existing water resources, groundwater aquifers and
subsidence within the Main-Pier area Given that the redevelopment project
areas are currently developed, and that redevelopment will conform to exist-
ing General Plan, zoning ordinance and other jurisdictional plans or pro-
grams, or as otherwise amended in the future, less than significant impacts to
these resources are anticipated from the facilitation of redevelopment pro-
cesses.
V.' AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
04/16/96(I:--.RSG6301,NOP•-.NOP.TXT) 21
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any
change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?
The following response addresses checklist items V a) through d):
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project will not
increase land use intensities beyond those allowed by the City of Huntington
Beach General Plan, as amended. Any potential impacts to air quality related
to growth, including increased vehicle emissions, are addressed in the envi-
ronmental documentation in the General Plan EIR. The project does not
propose creation of incompatible land uses that could subject sensitive re-
ceptors to pollutants or objectionable odors. These issues will be further
discussed in the EIR
V1. TRANSPORTATTON/CIRCULATTON. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
Potentially significant impact. The programmatic components of the pro-
posed Redevelopment Project will not physically affect the number of trips
on the local or regional circulation network. The EIR will evaluate the po-
tential for increased trip generation, on a general Project Area basis, within
the Constituent areas in conjunction with reasonably foreseeable future
redevelopment projects. Mitigation measures may be required to ensure that
future redevelopment adheres to city standard levels of service and operating
capacities.
b) Hazards to safety from design features (eg. sbarp curves or
dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.farm equip-
ment)?
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insuff'u lent parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
J) Conflicts s with adopted policies supporting alternative transpor-
tation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
The following response addresses checklist items VI b) through f):
Less than significant impact. Precise identification of impacts from future
redevelopment projects is speculative at this program level. However, the
04/16/96(L••.RSG630\NOP%NOP.'IXT) 22
EIR will state that future redevelopment proposals will be required to comply
with the City's existing General Plan land use designations and zoning ordi-
nance, or as amended in the future. Specific mitigation related to significant
traffic generation and Ievels of service impacts on roadway segments and
intersection will be determined in subsequent environmental analyses for
specific redevelopment projects. General development within the Redevelop-
ment Project Area will be described and potential traffic impact will be identi-
fied based on the analysis provided in the Draft General Plan EIR.
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
No impact. No impacts to rail, water or air traffic are foreseen by the pro-
posed Redevelopment Project in that the project proposes to facilitate com-
mercial rehabilitation,housing opportunities,street improvements and public
infrastructure projects within the constituent Redevelopment areas, and the
project will not create specific physical effects on these transportation facili-
ties. Because the Redevelopment Project and infrastructure projects, in
particular street improvements, are consistent with the City's General Plan,
there are no effects beyond those discussed in the Draft General Plan EIR.
This discussion will be included in the Redevelopment EIR.
VU BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to.
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (in-
cluding but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and
birds)?
Less than significant impact. According to the Draft General Plan EIR, the
areas that include valuable biological resources are not included in the pro-
posed Redevelopment Project Area (Figure BR 1). The Redevelopment Pro-
ject EIR will describe those areas of biological resources and discuss poten-
tial effects, should they exist, within these resource areas. Visual reconnais-
sance of the Constituent Areas will be performed to determine the condition
of properties in the Redevelopment Project Area and to provide indicators of
the pressure (or absence) of sensitive species habitats.
b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)?
Potentially signifzcant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais-
sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A
discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR.
04/16/96(I:•.RSG630\NOP•,NOP.TXT) 23
c) Localty designated natural communities (e.g., oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais-
sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A
discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR
d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. A visual reconnais-
sance will be conducted to determine the presence of designated species. A
discussion of project effects will be included in the EIR
e) Wildlife dispersal or mitigation corridors?
Less than significant impact. Each of the five Constituent Redevelopment
Areas are currently developed and are located within a central development
spine of the City. No significant wildlife movement corridors are located
within the combined Project Area. The Program EIR will address potential
impacts of redevelopment on wildlife and wildlife habitat; however, signifi-
cant impacts are not anticipated.
YILl. ENERGYAND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
Less than significant impact. Due to the programmatic nature of the project
and the known list of infrastructure, housing and public facilities projects
included in the Redevelopment Plan, there are no known projects that would
potentially conflict with such plans. This issue will be further explained and
addressed in the EIR
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
Less than significant impact. As with a) above, there are no projects con-
templated in the Redevelopment Plan that would cause an impact on non-
renewable resources.
04/16/96(I:,.RSG630\NOP-•.NOP.TXT) 24
r
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of future value to the region and the residents of
the State?
Less than significant impact. The only known resource in the City is oil and
gas production. Due to the decline in active fields in Huntington Beach,
properties that were formerly producing fields are converting to other uses.
This issue will be addressed in the EIR.
IZ HAZARDS Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous sub-
stances (including, but not limited to: oil,pesticides, chemicals
or radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or em-
ergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas w th,flammable brush, grass, or
trees?
The following is an explanation of responses to checklist items IX a) through
e)-
Less than significant impact. The Redevelopment Project does not propose
changes in land uses that would result in a significant exposure of the public
to hazardous materials or other potential health hazards. The project will
facilitate future improvement of residential and commercial areas within the
Constituent Project areas. The financing large-scale industrial dperations that
typically handle hazardous substances is not proposed as part of the project.
Future buildings constructed within the Constituent Project areas will be
required to comply with existing State and local requirements for emergency
evacuation plans.
There is one known hazard that would affect potential development projects
within the Redevelopment Areas. Methane gas migration hazards will be
discussed in the EIR for Talbert-Beach, Main-Pier and Yorktown-Lake project
areas.
04/16/96(1:,.RSG630\NOP••.NOP_TXT) 25
X NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
The following is an explanation of responses to checklist items X a) and b):
Potentially significant impact. The EIR will address the potential for in-
creased noise generation through future redevelopment of the constituent
project areas. Both short-term construction noise and long-term operational
noise effects will be evaluated from a general qualitative perspective. Specific
construction-level noise analysis cannot be conducted until redevelopment
plans are submitted for review after the proposed Redevelopment Pro-
ject/Amendment/ Merger is adopted by the City. The EIR will include miti-
gation that future construction projects will need to conform to City noise
ordinances that delineate thresholds for the various land use types that are
proposed as part of redevelopment.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need
for new or altered government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Scbools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
The following response addresses items XI a) through e).
Less than signicant impact. The Project Area is currently within the
service areas of the City police and fire departments, and is within several
school districts. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts to public services
and school districts in the Project Area from future redevelopment programs.
XU. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new
systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities.
a). Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
04n6/96(l.,.RSG630\NOP••.NOP.I'XT) 26
r
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
1) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
The following response addresses items MI a) through g).
Less than significant impact. The Project Area is already served by public
utilities and related infrastructure. The proposed Redevelopment Project
does not project significant population or employment increases within the
constituent project areas. There is potential for needed improvements in
certain areas where deficiencies are identified in the Draft General Plan EIR.
Any such deficiencies for service to the future redevelopment plans will be
addressed by Redevelopment Agency funding and the list of infrastructure
and public facilities improvements in the Preliminary Plan. The EIR will
address the potential impacts to public utilities and systems and/or the ability
to provide adequate service to future redevelopment areas.
XIII AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Potentially significant impact. There are significant scenic vistas and scenic
corridors at and near the beach in the Main/Fier area. The EIR shall address
this important resource and the potential effects of the project on this re-
source.
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
Less than significant impact. One of the primary objectives of the Redevel-
opment Project is the elimination of blight and rehabilitation of commercial
properties. This will have a positive effect on the overall Redevelopment
Project Area.
c) Create light or glare?
Less than significant impact. There are no specific proposals in the Redevel-
opment Project Preliminary Plan that would create light or glare. Therefore,
this issue will not be further discussed.
CW16196(1_••.RSG630\NOP•.NOP.ZXI) 27
XW. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
The following response addresses checklist items XIV a) through e).
Less than significant impact. The Redevelopment Project Area is primarily
built out or has been highly disturbed due to urban development and human
activity. However, as reported in the Draft General Plan EIR, there are histor-
ic structures and other potential historic and cultural resources within the
Redevelopment Project Area. An historical and cultural resources records
check and visual survey will be performed to identify potential sensitive
resources. This issue will be addressed in the EIR
XV. RECREAMN. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
Less than significant impact. The proposed Redevelopment Project is a
programmatic project and includes no specific housing or commercial devel-
opment proposals for evaluation. The EIR will analyze the potential for
future redevelopment activities to increase the demand for recreational facili-
ties based on projected land uses and density of development included in the
Redevelopment Plan, as also reflected in the Draft General Plan EIR Signifi-
cant population increases are not anticipated with the redevelopment of
these areas in that possible future development proposals are intended to be
in conformance with the adopted City General Plan and associated jurisdic-
tional plans and ordinances, or any future adopted amendments thereto.
This issue will be further addressed in the EIR
b) A,,t9`ect existing recreational opportunities?
Less than significant impact. The EIR will evaluate, at a program level, the
potential for future redevelopment within the constituent project areas. The
locations of existing recreational facilities will be described in the EIR, and
04/16/96(I:••.KSG630\NOP-•.NOP.TXT) 28
potential effects Rill be described. The Preliminary Redevelopment Plan does
not include an;- c-acroachment on recreational sites or potential physical
effects on any p° ic recreational site.
XYl. FAR LER ANALYSES
No earlier analyses have been utilized to prepare this Initial Study. Please
see the references cited in the introduction to this section.
04n6/96(I:•.RSG63W;OP•+NOP.TXT) 29
STATE OF CALIFORNIA PETE WILSON.Governor
"FORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION v ROBERT C.HIGHT,Executive 0jJr1cer
owe Avenue,Suite 100 South (916)5741800 FAX(916)5741810
,4
mento,CA 95825-8202 .California Relay Service From TDD Phone 1-800-735-2922
_ from Voice Phone 1-800-735-2929
Z.-
Contact Phone:(916)574-1892
Contact FAX.- (916)574-1925
July 1, 1996
File Ref: PRC 6616/SD 96-05-07.7
W 503.1699
RECEIVED BLA 84
Stephen V. Kohler
Project Manager J U L $ 1996
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation for Environmental Impact Report (EIR)on the
Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to
Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Staff of the State Lands Commission (SLC)has reviewed the subject NOP. Under the
California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA),the City's Redevelopment Agency is the Lead
Agency and the SLC is a Responsible and/or Trustee Agency for any and all projects which
could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands,their accompanying Public Trust resources or
uses,and the public easement in navigable waters. We apologize for the lateness of our
comments and would appreciate their consideration by the City.
The SLC has jurisdiction and management authority over all ungranted tidelands,
submerged lands, and the beds of navigable rivers,sloughs,lakes,etc. (e.g.Public Resources
Code §6301.) All tide and submerged lands,granted or ungranted,as well as navigable rivers,
sloughs, etc.,are impressed with the Common Law Public Trust.
The Public Trust is a sovereign public property right held by the State or its delegated
trustee for the benefit of all the people. This right limits the uses of these lands to waterborne
commerce,navigation,fisheries,open space,recreation,or other recognized Public Trust
purposes. A lease from the Commission is required for any portion of a project extending onto
State-owned lands which are under its exclusive jurisdiction.
The proposed redevelopment project,specifically the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project,
includes: (1)the Huntington Beach Pier,located on sovereign lands under the jurisdiction of the
SLC,and under lease (PRC 6616)to the City; (2) an area up coast of the pier subject to
Stephen V. Kohler
July 1, 1996
Page Two
Boundary Line Agreement 84 dated November 17, 1966,which fixed the boundary between
public and private land; and(3) an area southeast of the pier subject to an implied dedication for
public access and recreation use,and an express restriction of land uses found in a deeded
easement for public recreational uses held by the City of Huntington Beach in trust for the
statewide general public since 1932, as stipulated in the case of City of Huntington Beach v.
Huntington Beach Co., San Diego County Superior Court Case#65537,recorded in Book 432,
page 537, Official Records of Orange County. The City,as trustee of these lands for all the
people of the State, has an obligation to maintain public access and recreational rights acquired
by or granted to the public. The City has an obligation to ensure that any uses proposed for the
area described in (3) above are consistent with the land use restrictions on the property.
With regard to the Huntington Beach Pier,our file reflects that Lease PRC 6616 was
issued in 1984, and also authorized three subleases for the Tackle Box,Neptune's Locker,and
Captain's Galley. In 1990,the SLC authorized the demolition and reconstruction of the pier to
include restrooms and lifeguard stations,and the termination of the three subleases. No other
construction was authorized at that time. It does not appear that the amendment approved by the
SLC was ever executed by either the SLC or the City.
In 1994,the City applied for a coastal development permit(#5-93-294)to construct a
restaurant, snackshop, and bait and tackle/snackshop on the pier. SLC authorization was not
obtained. Any development and/or sublease(s)proposed for the pier other than that authorized
by the SLC in 1984 and 1990 will require SLC authorization and an amendment to Lease PRC
6616. Please advise as to the present status of pier development.
If you have any questions,please contact Jane E. Smith,Public Land Management
Specialist,at(916) 574-1892.
Sincerely,
MARY G GGS
Environm tal Services
Division of Environmental
Planning and Management
cc: Dwight E. Sanders
Jane E. Smith
1
VJ V VJ.ULla: 11.V14 VI. IAI1,I I VV17 ru/
`mu of Csitf"a THE RESOURCES AWNCY OF CAUFORNiA
Memorandum
To : Mr. Stephan Kohler, Project Manager Data : May 22, 1996
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
From : Dapwvrw t of Cormwvetlon.DIVW*m of Op.Gas,and Geothermal 1i»owoaa•lent'BaCh
Ed Santiago
subject: NOP for Environmental Impact Report on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment
Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (Division)
has reviewed the NOP for the proposed project and submits the following comments for your
consideration.
The project is located in Huntington Beach oil field. Our records show that there are active and
abandoned oil wells within or in close proximity to the project's boundaries. To ensure proper
review of building projects within the subject area, the-Division has available an informational
packet entitled, "Construction Project Site Review and Well Abandonment Procedure." The
packet outlines the information that a project developer must submit to the Division for review.
Developers should contact the local building department for a copy of the site review packet.
If any structure is to be located over or in the proximity of a previously abandoned well, there
is the possibility that the well may need to be plugged and abandoned to current Division
specifications. Section 32W.1 of the Public Resources Code authorizes the State Oil and Gas
Supervisor to order the reabandonment of any previously abandoned well when construction of
any structure over or in the proximity of the well could result in a hazard. The cost of
reabandonment operations is the responsibility of the owner of the property upon which the
structure will be located.
Although the possibility for future problems from oil and gas wells that have been plugged and
abandoned or seabandoned to the Division's current specifications are remote, we, nevertheless,
suggest that a diligent effort be made to avoid building over any abandoned well. If construction
over an abandoned well is unavoidable, we suggest that an approved Sas venting system be
placed over tht well.
Because the proposed development is located in an oil field, development of this area will
remove available surface land needed to recover oil resources. Therefore,provisions should be
made to designate and set aside an adequate amount of land for future drilling sines so that both
shallow and deep oil resources can be recovered. Please refer to Division publication TR31,
"Land Use Planning in Urban Oil Producing Areas", before making land use planning decisions
i
i
r
i
E
f
Ub-Li-yb UM2N, r-ROM DISTRICT 1 DOG PO4
NOP on Amendments and Merger for
Huntington Beach Projects Areas
Page two
The Division is mandated by Section 3106 of the Public Resources Cc&(PRC) to supervise the
drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells for the purpose of preventing: 1)
damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; 2) damage to underground and surface
waters suitable for irrigation or domestic use; 3) loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and 4)
damage to oil and gas deposits by infiltrating water and other causes.
Furthermore, the PRC vests in the State Oil and Gas Supervisor the authority to regulate the
manner of drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells so as to
conserve, protect, and prevent waste of these resources, whie at the same time encouraging
operators to apply viable programs for the purpose of increasing the ultimate recovery of oil and
gas.
No building intended for human occupancy should be located near any active well unless suitable
safety and fire protection measures and setback are approved by the local fire department. Also,
there should be adequate clearance and access to the active wells for well workover equipment.
The roads for the well workover equipment should have a minimum 12-foot width of clearance,
and be desigrxt for heavyweight use.
The developer must provide adequate clearance and access to the wells for well workover
equipment. The wells should be provided with safety shut down devices. Also, we recommend
that all wells and associated equipment, within the project site, be enclosed by an 8-foot, block
wall with barbed wire on the inside at the 7-foot level. Suitable gates should be provided which
are capable of allowing large workover equipment access into the well sites. The grade within
the enclosed areas should be constructed so that potential spillage will be confined to the
enclosure. To restrict access, the placement of climbable landscaping around the perimeter of
the oil field facility should be avoided.
Methane gas car, accumulate beneath developed areas where concrete and asphalt surfaces
prevent the natural migration of the methane gas to the atmosphere. If this occurs, and a crack
develops in the concrete or asphalt at some time later, the gas could migrate into the interior of
the overlying structure and create the potential for an explosion or fire. T hercfore, it may be
necessary to include a study of the area to determine the likelihood of this type of occurrence.
If the study indicates that gas accumulation is a possibility, it may be necessary to drill some
shallow, pressure-relief wells within, or adjacent to the site. Also, gas detectors, gas migration
barriers, or venting systems should also be considered. '
It is possible that during excavation, old wells, methane gas, or oil seeps may be encountered.
If any unrecorded wells are uncovered or abandoned wells dazaaged during excavation or
grading,remedial plugging operations may be required. If wells are uncovered or damaged, the
Division's district office in Long Beach must be contacted to obtain information on the
requirements for and approval to perform remedial operations. Please consult with the
Huntington Beach Fire Department for specific recommendations for this area.
z
U�-Z1-yO U3:UZ?R ifUK DISIRICT 1 DOG P03
NOF on Amendments and Merger for
Huntington Beach Projects Areas
Page three
Written approval from the Supervisor is required prior to drilling, reworldng, injecting into,
plugging and abandoning any well. Therefore, we recommend that prior to commencing
operations the project applicant should consult with the Division district office in Long Beach
to obtain information on the wells located within or adjacent to the project area and for the
requirements and approval to conduct any of the work mentioned above.
If you have any questions regarding this information,please contact Richard X. Baker or Edward
Santiago at 245 W. Broadway, Suite 475, Long Beach, CA 90802; or telephone 3 101590-53 1 1.
I
i
I
i
i
TE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
PETE VALSON, GOVemor
:PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - - — - - -
'RICT 12
i PULLMAN STREET
aA ANA, CA 92705 May 20, 1996 I"ifs! IG
Stephen Kohler File: IGR/CEQA
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency SCH # none
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648
Subject: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Dear Mr. Kohler:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Preparation for
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. The proposed project is to merge 5 redevelopment
plans into a single Redevelopment Plan. In respect to this Notice of Preparation, Caltrans District
12 is a reviewing agency and has the following comments for your consideration:
District 12 requests the Program Environmental Impact Report contain a detailed traffic
study report that includes existing and future average daily traffic volumes, traffic generation
(including peak hour), and traffic distribution along Beach Boulevard and Pacific Coast Highway
(PCH). Also, District 12 requests that future individual, sequential projects be made available
for future review and comment.
Finally, if any work is required within the State right of way, an Encroachment Permit
from Caltrans will be required.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this document. If you have any questions
concerning these comments, please contact Aileen Kennedy on (714) 724-2239.
Sincerely,
Robert F' Joseph, Chief
Advance Planning Branch
cc: Tom Loftus, OPR
Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning
Tom Persons, HDQTRS Traffic Operations
T.H. Wang, Traffic Operations
Judy Heyer, System and Public Transportation
I
4 O U NTY O F MICHAEL M.RUANE
DIRECTOR,EMA
— — THOMAS B.MATHEWS
s 3 RAN Ca E _ DIRECTOR OF PLANNING
LOCATION:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N.FLOWER ST.
a; --- PLANNING THIRD FLOOR
SANTA ANA,CA
MAILING ADDRESS:
MAY 17 1996 P.O.BOX 4048
NCL 9 6—3 7 SANTA ANA,CA 92702-4048
TELEPHONE:
(714)834-46Q
FAX x:834-2771
DPC:834-4772
Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: NOP to Amend & Merge Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Dear Mr. Kohler:
The above referenced item is a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a draft
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency.
The proposed project would merge five existing non-contiguous redevelopment
projects (totaling 619 acres) to more comprehensively attain the ability to
correct blighting conditions, promote economic development and facilitate the
construction of affordable housing. The County of Orange had reviewed the NOP
resulting in the following comments.
1. Section XV. RECREATION should address recreational programs, including
opportunities for riding and hiking trail facilities, and on-road and
off-road bikeways.
2. The Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) identifies a regional
Class I (paved off-road) bikeway along the railroad right-of-way easterly of
Gothard Street. The EIR draft should address this bikeway, which will
connect Golden west College, Huntington Center, Old world Center, and Park &
Ride facilities to residential areas. It will also link at least three of
the five redevelopment areas.
3. It is also suggested the City consider a greenway (linear recreation
corridor) along the railroad right-of-way. Greenways typically include
bikeways and riding and hiking trails. Greenway corridors are an important
amenity for communities with redevelopment areas.
s
r
Mr. S. Kohler
Page 2
4. The CBSP also identifies a regional Class I bikeway along the west
side of Pacific Coast Highway within the pier section of Redevelopment Area
#5.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the NOP. Please send one complete
set of the draft EIR to Charlotte Harryman at the above address when they become
available. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call Ms.
Harryman at (714) 834-2522.
Very truly yours,
R-51 A
George ritton, Manager
Environmental & Project Planning Division
E
CH:sf
6051508244629
i
I
f
I
I
I
i
i
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
7 Sa>. 20451 Craimer Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach.California 92648 (714)964-8888
P4
D OF TRUSTEES
May 17, 1996
n E.Rechsteiner
President
3rian Garland Stephen P. Kohler
Clerk Project Manager
3hirley Carey HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Member 2000 Main Street
+ert Mann,Ed.D. Huntington Beach,California 92648
Member
ierine McGough SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
Member on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas
to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area.
-INISTRATION
Scope and Content Comments from the
A.Dishno,Ed.D. Huntington Beach City School District
iperintendent
'asmussen,Ed.D. Dear Mr.Kohler.
Superintendent
-ducational
.es HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") is in receipt of
-.chanan the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Environment Impact Report ("EIR") of the
nt Superintendent Amendments and Merger of existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the
istrative Services Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project") dated April 16, 1996.
Huntington Beach City School District has reviewed the proposed Project, and is prepared
to provide public hearing testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning
Commission ("Planning Commission"), City Council ("City Council"), and
Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") in order to protect and preserve the District's
administrative and legal remedies,to provide the City of Huntington Beach ("City") with
information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Project on the District,
and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate in the Project adoption
and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's response to the
NOP.
The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5.,Definitions,
Section 21069,and the CEQA Guidelines,in that the District is a public agency,other than
the Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out)
public services (education) and facilities (schools) for a portion of the area within and
directly affected by the Project. Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the
process for a Responsible Agency including its role in Response to Consultation.
Section 15096
Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall respond to consultation by the
Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental
d6curnents for the project- By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the
documents it will use will comply with CEQA.
"We Are An Equal opportunity Employer"
(2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 30 days after receiving a Notice of
Preparation from the Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written reply by
certified mail or any other method which provides the agency with a record showing that
the notice was received. The reply shall specify the scope and content of the environmental
information which would be germane to the Responsible Agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. The Lead Agency shall include
this information in the E1R (emphasis added)
The District emphasizes that the use of the word "shall" identifies a mandatory element
which all public agencies are required to follow according to Section 15005 of the CEQA
Guidelines. Therefore,the City must include the scope and content specified by the District
in the EIR..
The District is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation regarding a Draft Environmental
Impact Report("DE1R")for the proposed Project. Pursuant to the Notice,the District may
provide a response to the Notice within 30 days after receipt of the Notice. The Notice was
received by the District on April 17, 1996.
In order to facilitate the District's early response to the Notice of Preparation,even though
the District believes that the Notice of Preparation is invalid,the District hereby submits and
presents the following list of scope and content for mandatory inclusion into the DEIR:
1) The average building square footage and type(i.e.,single family detached homes,
townhomes,apartments,mobile homes,etc.)of anticipated typical dwelling units
and the total building square footage and type(i.e.,retail,office,industrial,
regional mall,etc.)of projected non-residential uses shall be identified.
2) The phasing of development(residential and non-residential)over time from the
present to buildout of the Project shall be identified with appropriate,incremental
intervals(preferably not greater than five(5)years).
3) The location of all existing school sites,school bus stops, student pedestrian
movement patterns to the school sites,bus routes,etc., (located within the District
whether in the City or County) shall be identified and mapped.
4) The anticipated designation of schools that will be attended by students generated
based upon present District attendance areas shall be identified
5) The District's existing conditions relative to the location,size,quality,and
condition of all existing schools,administrative,and operation facilities(within and
outside of the City) shall be discussed.
6) The District's past and present enrollment trends,and present enrollment,including
facility utilization and capacity of permanent and r+elocatable facilities,shall be
identified.
7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis shall be prepared identifying
vehicular movement and volumes,and potential conflicts with school pedestrian
and bicycle movement,school transportation, and busing activities.
8) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis shall be prepared identifying any
noise sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms,and
outdoor school areas.
9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis shall be prepared identifying
any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of
students to various schools within and outside the District as a result of
overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies.
10) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated residential
development potential on the District,including projected enrollments,student
generation factors,projected space requirements,projected busing requirements,
projected teacher/staffing requirements,projected required interim facilities,
projected required support facilities(MOT,Administration,etc.,) and traffic and
noise impacts shall be identified.
11) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated non-residential
development potential on the District,including projected enrollments,student
generation factors,projected space requirements,projected busing requirements,
projected teacher/staffing requirements,projected squired interim facilities,
projected required support facilities(MOT,Administration, etc.),and traffic and
noise impacts shall be identified Of particular importance is the conversion of non-
residential square footage to projected employees who will reside in existing and
new residential units,and the effect the estimated non-residential development
potential will have on inducing,facilitating,and/or accommodating residential
growth within the District,and the impacts such residential growth will have on the
District.
12) The physical impact as represented by the fiscal costs to the District,including
projected cost of land acquisition,school construction,and other facilities,shall be
identified;present and projected capital facility,operations,maintenance,and
personnel financing and funding sources shall be analyzed; and personnel,
operational,and maintenance costs shall be identified
13) Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures
shall be identified,including a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation
measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code,as follows:
a) Chapter 22(commencing with Section 17700)of Part 10 of the Education
Code.
b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785)of Part 10 of the Education
Code.
c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870)of Part 10 of the Education
Code.
d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327)of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the
Education Code.
e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
f) Chapter 2.5(commencing with Section 53311)of Division 2 of Title 5 of
the Government Code.
g) Chapter 4.7(commencing with Section 65970)of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the Government Code.
Additionally,the decisions of Mira.Hart.and Murrieta shall be discussed as
vehicles for impact mitigation consideration.
14) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No.'s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12
shall be identified and discussed. All plarined,projected,and approved projects
proposed within the jurisdiction of the District,along with an analysis of the
buildout under the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange General
Plans shall be included in the cumulative analysis and should be identified by
development name,unit size,timing and location.
15) Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be
addressed,particularly as they relate to the quality, quantity, and present and future
condition of the District's enrollments,space utilization,curriculum,financial and
fiscal condition,transportation,operational and maintenance activities,
administrative activities,and asset management activities.
16) An estimate of the amount of development fees to be generated by estimated
development potential in accordance with implementation of the Project shall be
made using the Districts 61% share of$1.84($1.12)per square foot for residential
uses and$0.30($0.18)for non-residential uses(inflated according to State Law
over time).
17) The nominal and net present value of statutory tax increment revenues to be
provided to the District under A.B. 1290 shall be identified.
18) The amount of physical space and the resultant cost for provision of capital facilities
to accommodate new students shall be identified and expressed in a per student and
per square foot format.
19) The shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated and
the cost for provision of capital facilities shall be identified.
20) The impact of the project on the District in terms of the public use of school
facilities and grounds for recreation(parks)and open space purposes(i.e.,for uses
other than District directed educational activities)caused by a shortage of City
owned facilities and open space shall be assessed.
In particular,existing quantities of City owned park,recreation,and open
space lands shall be identified and the degree of satisfaction of the General Plan
level of service standards for City owned and non-City owned land shall be
determined.The implications of any General Plan policies or implementation of the
Project on school district facilities shall be discussed and mitigated if significant:.
21) The adequacy of the existing infrastructure,including sewer,water,gas,electricity,
cable television,and telephones serving existing schools shall be determined and
r
considered before recommendations for increasing student loading at any existing
school is made.
22) A site feasibility analysis identifying the nature and extent of all existing facilities
(permanent and relocatable),existing and proposed site utilization,and impacts on
curriculum and operational activities,shall be performed prior to the
recommendation for the addition of relocatable facilities on any school as a
mitigation measure.
23) An analysis and presentation of mitigation measures shall be identified in relation to
measures set forth in Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code.
24) Appropriate alternative projects,including,but not limited to: a)the inclusion of
blighted school properties and facilities within the project area; b)the Agency's
financial assistance towards the improvement,modernization,and expansion of
existing school facilities which serve the project area;and c)the Agency's financial
assistance towards the acquisition of property and the construction of new school
facilities required to serve the project area,should be considered and evaluated,and
the items and issues set forth herein as No.'s 1 through 22 should be determined
for each alternative.
25) If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the
District's development utilization,physical,and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or
unmitigated impacts,the text of the statement,along with quantitative and
qualitative substantiation,shall be identified and made available for public
inspection.
The substantiation shall also provide a comparison to the mitigation of other public
services and facilities(such as police,fire,water supply,sewer services,etc.) with
schools,with detailed explanations should there be differences in the level or types
of mitigation proposed.
26) Inclusion of those topics with regards to the Projects re-evaluation pursuant to the
provisions of Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code.
The District further understands that 20% of the annual tax increment generated from the
proposed Project is required to be used within the Project Area or elsewhere in the
community for the purpose of increasing, improving, or preserving the community's
supply of low and moderate income housing.'The Agency's expenditure of such revenues
would have an impact on the District,particularly if the expenditures resulted in increasing
the number of low and moderate income residential units within the community.
Experience has provided evidence that affordable housing units, units which are
specifically set aside for families which are low or moderate income, and subsidized
housing for many times minority and/or certain ethnic groups,result in households which
generally have larger family sizes with higher student generation rates than other market
rate housing types. Therefore, the DEIR should specifically address the Agency's intent
and commitment towards the expenditure of the housing set-aside funds, identify the
impacts on the District, and provide appropriate mitigation measures to off-set the impacts
to the District from these activities.
Based upon the significance of the impacts of the Project,designation and/or dedication of
school site(s)and specific mitigation measures which provide for the full impact mitigation
of the developments' which will occur following the adoption of the Proposed
Redevelopment Plan,such as an Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement between
the City and the District,may have to be made part of the mitigation measures identified in
the DEIR.
The District is prepared to provide additional information and review any materials as may
be prepared as a part of the environmental process. We further hereby request that all
notices and documentation with regard to this Project be specifically mailed to the following
representatives of the District:
Dr.Duane Dishno
Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
Post Office Box 71 -
Huntington Beach,California 92648
. Mr.Jerry Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent,Administrative Services
Huntington Beach City School District .
Post Office Box 71
Huntington Beach,California 92648
and
Marshall B. Krupp,President
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
730 El Camino Way,Suite 200
Tustin,California 92680
Should you require any additional information at this time or during the preparation of the
DEIR,or if we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call either the District or
Community Systems Associates,Inc.
The adequacy and accuracy of the existing setting,project impacts and their significance,
and the mitigation of impacts resulting from the Project as they relate to Huntington Beach
City School District are of extreme importance to the District: Therefore,we will be more
than happy to provide you with any materials you may need to assist you in the preparation
of an adequate environmental analysis of the Project.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
Jerry Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent,Administrative Services
oc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Marshall B.Krupp,President
r
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
Superintendent James R.Tarwater,Ed-D. Board of Trustees Charles Osterlund,President
Pam Walker,Clerk
1• Carol Kanode,Member
Tracy Pellman,Member
Nancy Stuever,Member
'INQUEST 17200 PINEHURST LANE•HUNTINGTON BEACH •CALIFORNIA.-92647•714/847-2551 • FAX 714/847-1430
EXCELLENCE" We are An Equal Opportunity Employer.This District does not discriminate on the basis of age,gender or handicap.
May 16, 1996
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Response to Notice of Preparation of EIR on Amendments and Merger of Existing
Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project;
Our file 5400.1.000
Dear Mr. Kohler:
The Ocean View School District has reviewed the Notice of Preparation of EIR and proposed
project information, and conclude that the EIR must address the impact any commercial and
residential development might have within the Redevelopment Project Area. Our reasons are
set forth below.
The project, which is described as a merger, contemplates commercial and residential
development of substantial magnitude in areas located within the District's boundaries. Each
of the five projects to be merged included these uses; in fact two are all residential uses. The
checklist included with the notice of determination states that the impact on schools will be "less
than significant".
Recently the Ocean View School District adopted an increase in the fees that it may impose on
new development pursuant to Government Code section 53080. The Board has concluded that
new development will generate at least 55 new students, for which the District has no facilities.
The•District's share of the maximum statutory fee that it may collect (61% of $1.84) will
produce far less than the approximately $3.00 per square foot of assessable new construction
(residential) required to provide sufficient housing for these students. The District invites the
Agency to confer regarding its needs in these areas.
I
Stephen V. Kohler -2- May 16, 1996
Project Manager
Redevelopment Agency of the
City of Huntington Beach
Because of the impact of any new development on the District's ability to provide the facilities
necessary for students who will be generated by housing development in the Redevelopment Plan
Area, the District believes that the impact should be considered "significant" and that appropriate
mitigation should be called for.
Very truly yours,
ames R. Tarwater,
District Superintendent
Ocean View School District
JRT:gb
7. 7 7 77 '7.
Board of Trustees:
Bonnie Bruce
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION g r3
Bonnie Castrey
..... Barbara Johnson
C, HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
7 Curt Jones
Michael Simons
10251 Yorktown Avenue - Huntington Beach,California 92646-29�99- r•------
V14)964-3339FAX(714)963-7684 bavid J. Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools
ON c,0
May 15, 1996 VIA FAX AND CERTEFICED MAIL
Stephen P. Kohler
Project Manager
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
SUBJECT: Response to Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
on the Amendments and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas
to create the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area.
Scope and Content Comments from the
Huntington Beach Union High School District
Dear Mr. Kohler:
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") is in receipt of
the Notice of Preparation ("NOP") for the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") of the
Amendments and Merger of existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project Area ("Project") dated April 16, 1996. Huntington Beach Union
High School District has reviewed the proposed Project and is prepared to provide public hearing
testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"),
City Council ("City Council"), and Redevelopment Agency ("Agency") in order to protect and -
preserve the District's administrative and legal remedies, to provide the City of Huntington
Beach ("City") with information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Project
on the District, and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate.in the Project
adoption and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's response
to the NOP.
The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5., Definitions,
Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines, in that the District is a public agency, other than the
Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out) public
services (education) and facilities (schools) for a portion of the area within and directly affected
by the Project. Section 15096 of the CEQA Guidelines outlines the process for a Responsible
Agency including its role in Response to Consultation.
7ze mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and
focused educational progranz which develops responsible, productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership.
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 2
Section 15096
Response to Consultation. A Responsible Agency shall respond to consultation by the
Lead Agency in order to assist the Lead Agency in preparing adequate environmental
documents for the project. By this means, the Responsible Agency will ensure that the
documents it will use will comply with CEQA.
(2) As soon as possible, but not longer than 30 days after receiving a Notice of
Preparation from the Lead Agency, the Responsible Agency shall send a written
reply by certified mail or any other method which provides the agency with a
record showing that the notice was received. The reply shall specify the scope
and content of the environmental information which would be germane to the
Responsible Agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed
project. The Lead Agency shall include this information in the EIR. (emphasis
added)
The District emphasizes that the use of the word "shall" identifies a mandatory element which
all public agencies are required to follow according to Section 15005 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Therefore, the City must include the scope and content specified by the District in the EIR.
The District is in receipt of the Notice of Preparation regarding a Draft Environmental Impact
Report ("DEIR") for the proposed Project. Pursuant to the Notice, the District may provide a
response to the Notice within 30 days after receipt of the Notice. The Notice was received by
the District on April 17, 1996.
In order to facilitate the District's early response to the Notice of Preparation, even though the
District believes that the Notice of Preparation is invalid, the District hereby submits and
presents the following list of scope and content for mandatory inclusion into the DEIR:
1) The average building square footage and type (i.e., single family detached homes,
townhomes, apartments, mobile homes, etc.)of anticipated typical dwelling units and the
total building square footage and type (i.e., retail, office, industrial, regional mall, etc.)
of projected non-residential uses shall be identified.
2) The phasing of development (residential and non-residential) over time from the present
to buildout of the Project shall be identified with appropriate, incremental intervals
(preferably not greater than five (5) years).
3) The location of all existing school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement
patterns to the school sites, bus routes, etc., (located within the District, whether in the
City or County) shall be identified and mapped.
4) The anticipated designation of schools that will be attended by students generated based
upon present District attendance areas shall be identified.
5) The District's existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of
all existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities (within and outside the City)
shall be discussed.
i
I
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 3
6) The District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including
facility utilization and capacity of permanent and relocatable facilities, shall be identified.
7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis shall be prepared identifying vehicular
movement and volumes, and potential conflicts with school pedestrian and bicycle
movement, school transportation, and busing activities.
8) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis shall be prepared identifying any noise
sources and volumes which may affect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school
areas.
9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis shall be prepared identifying any air
quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to
various schools within and outside the District as a result of overcrowded conditions and
the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies.
10) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated residential development
potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student generation factors,
projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing
requirements, projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities
(MOT, Administration, etc.,) and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified.
11) The Redevelopment Plan's utilization impact of the estimated non-residential development
potential on the District, including projected enrollments, student generation factors,
projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing
requirements, projected required interim facilities, projected required support facilities
(MOT, Administration, etc.), and traffic and noise impacts shall be identified. Of
particular importance is the conversion of non-residential square footage to projected
employees who will reside in existing and new residential units, and the effect the
estimated non-residential development potential will have on inducing,facilitating,and/or -
accommodating residential growth within the District, and the impacts such residential
growth will have on the District.
12) The physical impact as represented by the fiscal costs to the District, including projected
cost of land acquisition, school construction, and other facilities, shall be identified;
present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing
and funding sources shall be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs
shall be identified.
13) Appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures shall
be identified, including a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set
forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows:
a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code.
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 4
b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code.
c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code.
d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the
Education Code.
e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the
Government Code.
g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the
Government Code.
Additionally, the decisions of Mira., Hart., and Murrieta shall be discussed as vehicles for
impact mitigation consideration.
14) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No.'s 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall
be identified and discussed. All planned, projected, and approved projects proposed
within the jurisdiction of the District, along with an analysis of the buildout under the
City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange General Plans, shall be included in
the cumulative analysis and should be identified by development name, unit size, timing
and location.
15) Unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be
addressed, particularly as they relate to the quality, quantity, and present and future
condition of the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal
condition,transportation,operational and maintenance activities,administrative activities,
and asset management activities.
16) An estimate of the amount of development fees to be generated by estimated development
potential in accordance with implementation of the Project shall be made using the
Districts 39% share of $1.84 ($0.72) per square foot for residential uses and $0.30
($0.12) for non-residential uses (inflated according to State Law over time).
17) The nominal and net present value of statutory tax increment revenues to be provided to
the District under A.B. 1290 shall be identified.
18) The amount of physical space and the resultant cost for provision of capital facilities to
accommodate new students shall be identified and expressed in a per student and per
square foot format.
19) The shortfall or excess between the estimated development fees to be generated and the
cost for provision of capital facilities shall be identified.
r
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 5
20) The impact of the project on the District in terms of the public use of school facilities
and grounds for recreation (parks) and open space purposes (i.e., for uses other than
District directed educational activities) caused by a shortage of City owned facilities and
open space shall be assessed.
In particular, existing quantities of City owned park, recreation, and open space lands
shall be identified and the degree of satisfaction of the General Plan level of service
standards for City owned and non-City owned land shall be determined. The
implications of any General Plan policies or implementation of the Project on school
district facilities shall be discussed and mitigated if significant.
21) The adequacy of the existing infrastructure, including sewer, water, gas, electricity, cable
television, and telephones serving existing schools shall be determined and considered
before recommendations for increasing student loading at any existing school are made.
22) A site feasibility analysis identifying the nature and extent of all existing facilities
(permanent and relocatable), existing and proposed site utilization, and impacts on
curriculum and operational activities, shall be preformed prior to the recommendation for
the addition of relocatable facilities on any school as a mitigation measure.
23) An analysis and presentation of mitigation measures shall be identified in relation to
measures set forth in Section 33352 of the Health and Safety Code.
24) Appropriate alternative projects, including, but not limited to: a) the inclusion of blighted
school properties and facilities within the project area; b) the Agency's financial
assistance towards the improvement, modernization, and expansion of existing school
facilities which serve the project area; and c) the Agency's financial assistance towards
the acquisition of property and the construction of new school facilities required to serve
the project area, should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth
herein as No.'s 1 through 22 should be determined for each alternative.
25) If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District's
development utilization, physical, and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated
impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation,
shall be identified and made available for public inspection.
The substantiation shall also provide a comparison to the mitigation of other public
services and facilities (such as police, fire, water supply, sewer services, etc.) with
schools, with detailed explanations should there be differences in the level or types of
mitigation proposed.
26) Inclusion of those topics with regards to the Project's re-evaluation pursuant to the
provisions of Section 33354.6 of the Health and Safety Code..
r
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 6
The District further understands that 20% of the annual tax increment generated from the
proposed Project is required to be used within the Project Area or elsewhere in the community
for the purpose of increasing, improving, or preserving the community's supply of low- and
moderate-income housing. The Agency's expenditure of such revenues would have an impact
on the District, particularly if the expenditures resulted in increasing the number of low- and
moderate-income residential units within the community. Experience has provided evidence that
affordable housing units, units which are specifically set aside for families which are low- or
moderate-income, and subsidized housing, result in households which generally have larger
family sizes with higher student generation rates than other market rate housing types.
Therefore, the DEIR should specifically address the Agency's intent and commitment towards
the expenditure of the housing set-aside funds, identify the impacts on the District, and provide
appropriate mitigation measures to offset the impacts to the District from these activities.
Based upon the si.-nificance of the impacts of the Project, designation and/or dedication of
school site(s) and specific mitigation measures which provide for the full impact mitigation of
the developments which will occur following the adoption of the Proposed Redevelopment Plan,
such as an Impact i'}iitigation and Reimbursement Agreement between the City and the District,
may have to be made part of the mitigation measures identified in the DEIR.
The District is prepared to provide additional information and review any materials as may be
prepared as a part of the environmental process. We further hereby request that all notices and
documentation with regard to this Project be specifically mailed to the following representatives
of the District:
David Hagen, Ed.D.
Superintendent
Huntington Beach Union High School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92646
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Huntington Beach Union High School District
10251 Yorktown Avenue
Huntington Beach, California 92646
and
Marshall B. Krupp
President
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
730 El Camino Way, Suite 200
Tustin, California 92680'
r
Stephen P. Kohler
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
May 15, 1996
Page 7
Should you require any additional information at this time or during the preparation of the
DEIR, or if we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call either the District or
Community Systems Associates, Inc.
The adequacy and accuracy of the existing setting, project impacts and their significance, and
the mitigation of impacts resulting from the Project as they relate to Huntington Beach City
School District are of extreme importance to the District. Therefore, we will be more than
happy to provide you with any materials you may need to assist you in the preparation of an
adequate environmental analysis of the Project.
The District appreciates the opportunity to work with the Agency to ensure the mutual benefits
that have ensued from the other joint activities.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
cc: David Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Marshall B. Krupp, President
j COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
KHBMerger.Red
f
I
i
I
i
STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50
Long Beach, California 90802
(310) 590-5113Vi
May 14, 1996
V �J
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Dear Na. Kohler:
Notice of Preparation of Draft Environmental Impact Report
Amendments and Merger of fisting Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Orange County
The Department of Fish and Game (Department) appreciates this opportunity to
comment on the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. To
enable Department staff to adequately review and comment on the proposed project, we
recommend the following information be included in the draft Environmental Impact Report:
1. A complete assessment of the flora and fauna within and adjacent to the project area,
with particular emphasis upon identifying endangered, threatened, and locally unique
species and sensitive habitats.
a. A thorough assessment of rare plants and rare natural communities, following
the Department's May 1984 Guidelines for Assessing Impacts to Rare Plants
and Rare Natural Communities (Attachment 1).
b. A complete assessment of sensitive fish;wildlife, reptile, and amphibian
species. Seasonal variations in use of the project area should also be addressed.
Focused species-specific surveys, conducted at the appropriate time of year and
time of day when the sensitive species are active or otherwise identifiable, are
required. Acceptable species-specific survey procedures should be developed in
consultation with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
C. Rare, threatened, and endangered species to be addressed should include all
those which meet the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) definition
(see CEQA Guidelines, § 15380).
r
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
May 14, 1996
Page Two
d. The Department's California Natural Diversity Data Base in Sacramento should
be contacted at (916) 327-5960 to obtain current information on any previously
reported sensitive species and habitat, including Significant Natural Areas
identified under Chapter 12 of the Fish and Game Code.
2. A thorough discussion of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely
affect biological resources, with specific measures to offset such impacts.
a. CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a), direct that knowledge of the regional setting is
critical to an assessment of environmental impacts and that special emphasis
should be placed on resources that are rare or unique to the region.
b. Project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats.
Specifically, this should include nearby public lands, open space, adjacent
natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of
wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in
adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided.
C. A cumulative effects analysis should be developed as described under CEQA
Guidelines, § 15130. General and specific plans, as well as past, present, and
anticipated future projects, should be analyzed relative to their impacts on
similar plant communities and wildlife habitats.
3. A range of alternatives should be analyzed to ensure that alternatives to the proposed
project are fully considered and evaluated. A range of alternatives which avoid or
otherwise minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources should be included.
Specific alternative locations should also be evaluated in areas with lower resource
sensitivity where appropriate.
a. Mitigation measures for project impacts to sensitive plants, animals, and
habitats should emphasize evaluation and selection of alternatives which avoid
or otherwise minimize project impacts. Off-site compensation for unavoidable
impacts through acquisition and protection of high-quality habitat elsewhere
should be addressed.
b. The Department considers Rare Natural Communities as threatened habitats
having both regional and local significance. Thus, these communities should be
fully avoided and otherwise protected from project-related impacts (Attachment
2).
C. The Department generally does not support the use of relocation, salvage,
and/or transplantation as mitigation for impacts to rare, threatened, or
endangered species. Department studies have shown that these efforts are
experimental in nature and largely unsuccessful.
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
May 14, 1996
Page Three
4. If the project has the potential to adversely affect species of plants or animals listed
under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), either during construction or
over the life of the project, a CESA-Memorandum of Understanding (CESA-MOU)
must be obtained under § 2081 of the Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOU's are issued
to conserve, protect, enhance, and restore State-listed threatened or endangered species
and their habitats. Early consultation is encouraged, as significant modification to a
project and mitigation measures may be required in order to obtain a CESA-MOU.
a. Biological mitigation proposals should be of sufficient detail and resolution to
satisfy the requirements for a CESA-MOU.
b. A Department-approved Mitigation Agreement and Mitigation Plan are required
for plants listed as rare under the Native Plant Protection Act.
5. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or
conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent
or perennial, must be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve.
the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife
populations.
a. The Department has direct authority under Fish and Game Code § 1600 et seq.
in regard to any proposed activity which would divert, obstruct, or affect the
natural flow or change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.
Early consultation is recommended, since modification of the proposed project
may be required to avoid or reduce impacts to fish and wildlife resources.
b. A discussion of potential adverse impacts from any increased runoff,
sedimentation, soil erosion, and/or urban pollutants on streams and watercourses
on or near the project site, with mitigation measures proposed to alleviate such
impacts must be included.
Thank you for this opportunity to comment. Questions regarding this letter and further
coordination on these issues should be directed to Mr. Scott Harris, Wildlife Biologist, at
(310) 590-5100.
Sincerely,
Patricia Wolf
Acting Regional Manager
Region 5
Attachments
cc: See attached list
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
May 14, 1996
Page Four
cc: Mr. Scott Harris
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California
Mr. Ray Ally
Department of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California
Mr. Richard Nitsos
Department.of Fish and Game
Long Beach, California
Mr. Jim Dice
Department of Fish and Game
San Diego, California
Ms. Terri Dickerson
Department of Fish and Game
Laguna Niguel, California
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carlsbad, California
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles, California
r
State of California
THE RESOURCES AGENCY
Department of Fish and Game
May 4, 1984
GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSING THE EFFECTS OF PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENTS ON RARE AND ENDANGERED PLANTS AND PLANT COMMUNITIES
The following.recommendations are intended to help those who prepare and review environmental
documents determine when a botanical survey is needed, who should be considered qualified to conduct
such surveys, how field surveys should be conducted and what information should be contained in the
survey report.
1. Botanical surveys that are conducted to determine the environmental effects of a proposed
development should be directed to all rare and endangered plants and plant communities. Rare and
endangered plants are not necessarily limited to those species which have been 'listed" by state
and federal agencies but should include any species that, based on all available data, can be shown
to be rare and/or endangered under the following definitions.
.A species, subspecies or variety of plant is 'endangered" when the prospects of its survival and
reproduction are in immediate jeopardy from one or more causes, including loss of habitat, change
in habitat, over-exploitation, predation, competition or disease. A plant is 'rare' when, although
not presently threatened with extinction, the species, subspecies or variety is found in such small
numbers throughout its range that it may be endangered if its environment worsens.
Rare plant communities are those communities that are of highly limited distribution. These
communities may or may not contain rare or endangered species. The most current version of the
California Natural Diversity Data Base's Outline of Terrestrial Communities in California may be
used as a guide to the names of communities.
2. It is 3pprop:iate to conduct a botanical field survey to determine if, or the extent that, rare plants
.wili oe affected by a proposed project when:
a. Based on an initial biological assessment, it appears that the project may damage potential
rare r.!3nt habitat;
b. Rare plants have historically been identified on the project site, but adequate information for
irnpact assessment is lacking; or
C. No initial biological assessment has been conducted and it is unknown whether or not rare
pants or their habitat exist on the site.
3. P -Tenica► -_onsv'-c!nts should be selected on the basis of possession of the following qualifications
Un order cf importance):
a. Experience as a botanical field investigator with experience in field sampling design and
field methods;
I
b. Taxonomic experience and'a knowledge of plant ecology;
i
C. Familiarity with the plants of the area, including rare species; and
d. Famil;arity with the appropriate state and federal statutes related to rare plants and plant
collecting.
r
4. Field surveys should be conducted in a manner that will locate any rare or endangered species that '
may be present. Specifically, rare or endangered plant surveys should be:
a. Conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both 'evident'
and identifiable. Field surveys should be scheduled (1) to coincide with known flowering
periods, and/or (2) during periods of phenological development that are necessary to
identify the plant species of concern.
r
b. Floristic in nature. "Predictive surveys" (which predict the occurrence of rare species based
on the occurrence of habitat or other physical features rather than actual field inspection)
should be reserved for ecological studies, not for impact assessment. Every species noted
in the field should be identified to the extent necessary`to determine whether it is rare or
endangered.
C. Conducted in a manner that is consistent with conservation ethics. Collections of rare or
suspected rare species (voucher specimens) should be made only when such actions would
not jeopardize the continued existence of the population and in accordance with applicable
state and federal permit regulations. Voucher specimens should be deposited at recognized
public herbaria for future reference. Photography should be used to document plant
identification and habitat whenever possible, but especially when the population cannot
withstand collection of voucher specimens.
d. Conducted using systematic field techniques in all habitats of the site to ensure a
reasonably thorough coverage of potential impact areas.
e. Well documented. When a rare or endangered plant (or.rare plant community) is located, a
California Native Species (or Community) Field Survey Form or equivalent written form
should be completed and submitted to the Natural Diversity Data Base.
5. Reports of botanical field surveys should be included in or with environmental assessments,
negative declarations, EIR's and EIS's, and should contain the following information:
a. Project description, including a detailed map of the project location and study area.
b. A written description of biological setting referencing the community nomenclature used
and a vegetation map.
C. Detailed description of survey methodology.
d. Dates of field surveys.
e. Results of survey (including detailed maps).
'. An assessment of potential impacts.
a. Discussion of the importance of rare plant populations with consideration of nearby
populations and total species distribution.
h.. Recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid impacts.
i. List of all species identified.
j. Cupies of all Califomia Native Species Feld Survey Forms or Natural Community Field
Survey Forms.
k. Name of field investigator(s).
1. References cited, persons contacted, herbaria visited, and disposition of voucher
specimens.
2
r
ATTACHMENT 2
Sensitivity of Top Priority Rare Natural
Communities in Southern California*
Sensitivity rankings are determined by the Department of Fish and Game,
fornia Natural Diversity Data Base and based on either number of known
rrences (locations) and/or amount of habitat remaining (acreage) . The
e rankings used for these top priority rare natural communities are as
ows:
Less than 6 known locations and/or on less than 2 , 000 acres of habitat
remaining
Occurs in 6-20 known locations and/or 2, 000-10, 000 acres of habitat
remaining
Occurs in 21-100 known locations and/or 10, 000-50, 000 acres of habitat
remaining
The number to the right of the decimal point after the ranking refers to
degree of threat posed to that natural community 'regardless of the ranking.
example:
S1.1 = very threatened
S2.2 = threatened
S3.3 = no current threats known
Sensitivity Rankings (February 1992)
k Community Name
1 Mojave Riparian Forest Southern Dune Scrub
Sonoran Cottonwood Willow Riparian Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub
Mesquite Bosque Maritime Succulent Scrub
Elephant Tree Woodland Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
Crucifixion Thorn Woodland Southern Maritime Chaparral
Allthorn Woodland Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Arizonan Woodland Great Basin Grassland
Southern California Walnut Forest Mojave Desert Grassland
Mainland Cherry Forest Pebble Plains
Southern Bishop Pine Forest Southern Sedge Bog
Torrey Pine Forest Cismontane 'Alkali Marsh
-Desert Mountain White Fir Forest
-2-
Sensitivity Rarikinas (Cont. )
Community Name
Southern Foredunes
Mono Pumice Flat
Southern Interior Basalt Fl. Vernal Pool
Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh
Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub S. Arroya Willow Riparian Forest
Riversidean Upland Coastal Sage Southern Willow Scrub
Scrub
Riversidean Desert Sage Scrub Modoc-G.Bas. Cottonwood Willow Rip.
Sagebrush Steppe Modoc-Great Basin Riparian Scrub
Desert Sink Scrub Mojave Desert Wash Scrub
Mafic Southern Mixed Chaparrel Engelmann Oak Woodland
San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal P. Open Engelmann Oak Woodland
San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal P. Closed Engelmann Oak Woodland
Alkali Meadow Island Oak Woodland
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh California. Walnut Woodland
Coastal Brackish Marsh Island Ironwood Forest
Transmontane Alkali Marsh Island Cherry Forest
S. Interior Cypress Forest
Bigcone Spruce-Canyon Oak Forest
2 Active Coastal Dunes
Active Desert Dunes
Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Dunes
Stab. and Part. Stab. Desert Sandfield
Mojave Mixed Steppe
Transmontane Freshwater Marsh
Coulter Pine Forest
S. California Fellfield
Write Mountains Fellfield
3 Bristlecone Pine Forest
Limber Pine Forest
ELEMENT RANKING
.............................................................................................
CLQSAL PLANKING
T�i P'9bil�ent IC-tankl Is a reflection e!the evoraff condit;on of sn efsm•nt throvphout he plabd rsnos.
ttFC1Ei LtVE2. ,
C1. Lots than 6 viable too OR less than 1000 Ind v4dvafs OR#*to
%han 2000 acres.
C2« 6.20 lot OR 1000-3DOO;AeV+d1iJ1 OR 2000-10,000 acres.
C3« 21.100 E01 OR 3000-10,000 1nd.Y;dwts OR 10.000-50.000 acres
Ca« Arparant!y iocvre:th;s rank is tfearly tartar than C3 but
!actors exist to cause somt concern:Ls.there is torn*
th,o&t,or somay.het narrow habitat.
C� Pcpufst;on demonstrably securo to ;neradicoble dvt to losing
torrv-nonJy found in the world.
SUtS►ECiEt LEVEL
tvbspoCss rsce;vs a T-rank &,ached to the G•r&hk. With the subspoc;st,tM G-r&nk reflects the condition e!the ontirs
-tr4s,whereas the T•rahk tstsocts the globs'situation of Pat the tvbrpteiex.
For sxomVlo: CAorZrsAtA♦tvbvite war.AarrwopiF-
This guest is tenked G2T1. The C-tonk tafers to tM whole Spoc;os tonpe of CAorillnrAe rabvsto. The T-tank refers erify to
the gtobs'condition of war,hartwepr.
STATE RANXINC
i
The stare ran) is ass7pnae much the tams way as the VOW rohL.except state ranks to CeLforris *hen also come;,• rest i
PWR%ber attached to the S-ran -
Lost than B LOt OR toss then 1000 individuals OR less than 2000 acres
t 1.1 a wry threatened
t1:2 • thraatoned
t 1.2 . no cWrtent threats known :
4-20 ED% OR 1000.3000 individvsls OR 2000-10.000 acre
. L2:
t2.1 « very threatened
92.2 « Vveatoned
$2.3 a no tvrront threats known
21-100 EDe OR 3000.10.000 ihd;Yidvs!s 09 10,000-S0.000*crag
« 93: t3.1 « very threatened
$3.2 « threatened -
93.3 . no current threats known
it Ar;#reedy secvrc w;th;r.Catiforrrs:th;s rank h clearly lower Ikon$3 but factors exist to eaves sores concern;there
is some thrsat-or Somewhat narrow haWiat. 140 THREAT NUMBER,
SS Demonstrably socvrs to ineradicable in Corforti&. NO TKREAT NUMBER.
. r
Ndetoo:
r
W tiottinty abovt the tank of an efement is expressed in Othot atfrnbols:
lets!,ajar.•ors:
by sxpross;np the raAk at a rangt of voiv*g: i.e. am Ai$;to$aro-hktwics%the ot.n+eRt kes net been
9293 Mosn%the rank is se►r494n=►otwoen'192 Soon for at twat 20 yogtg tint a+Jtab+e A01+4e1 at;n
gin l t3. exists ttH « As Cat "a tits►•rs N91014calt.
aX Alf*;cos are exttrrat•!;this olorwewt is oxvnct iA the
By*ddinp a'I'to the tank: sad t1X • As GXforr`s 6446 ate ostitfateQl. .
i.o- 12s Tt.s topresonts triers tarta;nty than CXC [xt;nct in the"ad;es;ets in alsl+s>ier+-
t2T3. Cie The stem*nt is vsyr tare.NA that*is a t*xewerwrc
l�+e t lien as 10,68 tad with It.
.mry¢o Twnun,'ies R-S Fsb.1992
Top Pslorlty Rare NaturaI•Communhios
•'`• Fsom Region Five
:acme N rber L=tonv Frrr Petards Nun*
31.1 Rank:
!1330 Cis Soe.wm Dine Scrub
31200 Cis Sovthern Coastal Blu"Snub
324X Gs Maritime Su:-dent Scrub
32720 Gs FLvarvdean IUl;trat Fan Save Snub
37CW Cis Y Sovu.-Om Wantrne Crtape ml
42110 Cis Vl ley Net-,"9;•ass G-:sstand
t3000 Des Y Great Basin Grassland
A3777 Des Y Majays Desan Grassland
A=X; Cis Pebble Plains
51177 Cis Y So►.wrm She Bog
b2310 Cis Cis.=nta�a A;kati marsh
61700 Des Mojave Ryarfan Forest
61E10 Des Sonoran Cottona:od W dlow Rpaiun
n Des Mesqu.4 80sque
0 Des Y Elephant Tree Woodland
.03 Des Y Gum lx=Thom woodland
7:u3x Des Y AIWIC'n Woodland
7s4x Des Y /lrizxun.WotQtand .
81600 Cis Swtham Calitomia Walnut Forest
a t 82D Cis Y Mainland Ch ry Forest
'y31,22 Cis Y Svivwn S"p Pine Forest t
93140 Cis Torrey Pine Fcrost
E5333 Des Y Desan L4,-.t+tah WA:1e Fir Forest
S 12 Rank:
2123D Cis SvjTl*m Forodumes
3 54 10 Des Wrto Purrioe Fiat
4.4310 Cis Soutt+am Interior Basalt Fl.Ventral Pool
52 1 Hank:
32300 Cis Y Vanturan Coastal Saps Scrub
22S00 Cis Aepan Coastal Sage Swb
327:0 . Ces Y Rive.sidian Upland Coastal Sap#Scr.
S2730 Cis Y flivem doan Dow Saps Scrub
Des Y 6apelxush Steppe
i612v Des Y- C*sen Snk Scrub
27122 • m Y Mara Soutt»rn Mixed Chaparral
4.R.321 Cis Ban Diapo*met&hardpan Vernal P.
44= Cis San Dalo Mew Ctaypan Vernal P.
t5310 Des /that Meadow
d2120 Ca toutx,em Coastal San Marsh .
92320 Cis Coastal&ackish Marsh
92410 Des Tmnsrnonlane Akal Marsh
'cod*d as 0ftr,sr cis(tor CsrnGntarle)or dea Ow doeen)
NAB rare a�rrYruntvas 145 Fsb.1P92
W2i2
Co60 fai7t . Lo WIV Fa+v Fwcrxslt tins
$2410 `• Cis Coara'and Yaltey Freshwater rah
61320 Cis S.ArroyoWitow Rputan Forest
63320 Cis So%•t'*m Willow S=ub
61610 pas Modx-G Sag Cottonwsod WLtbw PUP.
E3500 Des Y 10�dxdsrsat Basin riparian Scrub
63700- pas Y M.o;avt Des an Wash Stub
71180 Cis Y Enge;.•nann Oak Woodland
71181 Gs Y 0;*n ErV''nann Oak Woodland
7132 C4 Y Clcsad Engthriann Oak Woodland
711P0 Cis Y Et:and Oak Woodland
71210 C:t CCKDmiia Wairntt woodland
61700 Cis Y k'and Irornwood Forest
61a10 Css Wand Cherry Forest
S3230 Cis S.Interior Cypress Foust
$4150 Cis Y Sp ute-Canyon Oak Est
52.2 Flank:
21100 Cis Y Az. vt Coartat Dimas
22100 Des A-1;vt Deser Dunes
22.200 Dos Stab.and Par.Sub.Dess-!Duns
22300 Des Y Sub and Part Stab.Desert Sandf+eld
34220 Des Y M:ave Mixed Steppe
52420 Des Y Tranrnonta-it Fvshwaterbtarah
$i 140 Cis Y Coulter Psw Forett
?1130 Cis Y S Cat;fwraa Feltheld
P1140 Des Y WRRe Mocmtains Fatlfield
86400 Des Bi-sVe=na Pine Forest
66700 Des Y Limber Pak Forth
A
'czoded as aaher6t (tor otmonw*)w dta(tor 60"11)
i
IRICTS
COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
7 77-
?;
May 1, 1996
phone:
14)962-2411 Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
ifing address: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
�0.Box 8127 2000 Main Street
twin Valley.CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648
9272&8127
'reef address: SUBJECT: Preparation of Environmental Impact Report for Huntington Beach
4 Ellis Avenue
tain Valley,CA Redevelopment Project
92708-701 B
This is in response to your notice dated April 16, 1996 that the City of Huntington
Beach will prepare an Environmental Impact Report for amendments to and merger
Member of five redevelopment projects within the city: Huntington Center Commercial District
Agencies Redevelopment Project; Main Pier Redevelopment Project; Oakview Redevelopment
0 Project; Talbert-Beach Redevelopment Project; and Yorktown-Lake Redevelopment
Cities Project. The areas are within County Sanitation District Nos 3 and 11.
Anaheim
Brea You are requested to calculate the expected sewage to be generated from the
-a Park proposed development and compare it to the Districts' previous plans. For your
caress
i Valley calculations, use flow coefficients of.
Fullerton
ingron Beach
lr%dne
La Habra - 100 gallons per day per acres (gpd/acre)for estate density residential
La Palma (1-3 d.u./acre);
Los Alamitos
,*part Beach - 1615 gpd/acres for low density residential (4-7 d.u./acre);
Orange - 3880 gpd/acre for median density residential (8-16 d.u./acre);
Placentia
Santa Ana - 5880 gpd/acre for medium-high density residential (17-25 d.u./acre)
Seal Beach - 7945 gpd/acre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre);
Stanton - 3230 gpd/acre for commercial;
Tustin
Villa Par* - 4520 gpd/acre for industrial;
Yorba Linda - 200 gpd/1,000 sq.ft. gross floor area (GFA)for high intensity office or
-y of Orange high-rise commercial;
- 150 gpd/room for hotels and motels;
ary Districts - 50 gal./seat for restaurants, and
Costa Mesa - 200 gpd/acre for recreation and open space usage.
warden Grove
Midway City
iter.Districts Wastewater generated within the Districts' service area is processed at treatment
plants located in Fountain Valley and Huntington Beach. The Districts operate under
Irvine Ranch
an NPDES permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the United States Environmental Protection Agency. This permit has a set discharge
limit for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids (SS), which are
affected by the flow received for treatment. Increases in flow require additional,
costly increases in pumping energy, secondary treatment and solids disposal.
Industrial users should take on-site measures to reduce the load strength of the
A Public Wastewater and Environmental Management-Agency Committed to Protecting the Environment Since 1954
�pig aic rs oa n
`o
c
•y `F
olF�rMG iNE Ea`>`ap�
Stephen V. Kohler
Page 2
May 1, 1996
sewage. Commercial users should incorporate all practical and mandated water
conservation measures. All users should use ultra-low flow water fixtures to reduce
the volume of sewage to the system.
Other regulations such as those adopted by the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) pursuant to the Air Quality Management Plan
(AQMP) may also impact the proposed project. Therefore,you should also review
th' ject in light of the rules and requirements of other regulating agencies.
A. u in, E.
Director of Engineering
TMD:dl
Eng\tmd\042596.11
I
April 23, 1996 M_' ' r
APR 1 s 1993
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency _
Attention: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUBJECT: City of Seal Beach response to "Notice of Preparation of a Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project", dated April 16, 1996
Dear Mr. Kohler:
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed the above referenced NOP and has several areas
of concern which should be more thoroughly discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) for the proposed project.
The first concern is that the NOP does not clearly indicate that the following areas of
concern have been identified as having a "Potentially Significant Impact":
Transportation/Circulation; Noise; and Aesthetics. To the casual reader of the document, this
oversight may lead individuals to believe that the project does not have many potentially
significant impacts which would be discussed in the DEIR.
Secondly, the following concerns should be addressed in the discussion regarding the
following environmental area of concerns:
■ Transportation and Circulation
The DEIR should clearly set forth "Impact Significance Criteria", which would
set forth criteria for both "Roadway Segments" and "Intersections". The above
discussed impact significance criteria should be utilized to insure that all
identifiable impacts are mitigated. Said analysis should extend from the project
D:\WP51\RDAMNOPGIR.LTR\LW\04-22-96
NOP-Merger of Huntington Bead:Redevelopment Project Areas
C'Gry of Seal Beach Response Letter
April 23, 1996
areas along all major transportation/circulation routes until the significance
criteria are no longer exceeded.
A "Percent Trip Distribution Map" should be provided, indicating percentage of
project generated trips allocated to various roadway segments. A "Project Trip
Generation Summary" should also be provided, which would summarize the
following information:
■ Project Element
■ Number of Units and/or Acreage of Project Element Facilities
■ Estimated number of Daily Trips per Analysis Unit
■ AM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total
■ PM Peak Hour Vehicle Trips, In, Out, and Total
The potential for extreme congestion in the area, coupled with the increased
traffic generation from the Bolsa Chica Project and other residential projects in
Huntington Beach should be carefully explored and discussed in the DEIR.
Congestion Management criteria should be incorporated into this analysis.
■ Noise
The DEIR needs to discuss the concern of exposure of people to severe noise
levels. The major construction-related impacts of the proposed project, including
demolition operations, need to be adequately analyzed as to the potential impacts
upon both construction workers on the subject site and workers of adjoining
employment sites, and residents on adjoining residential sites.
Thank you for your consideration of the comments of the City of Seal Beach. Please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Lee Whittenberg, Director of Development Services, at telephone
(310)431-2527 if you have any questions regarding this matter. In addition, please provide five
(5) copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Report to his office for distribution to the City
Council when it is available. We look forward to reviewing the DEIR in detail when it is
available for public comments.
D\WP511RDAUMNOPER.LTRILVA04-M-96 2
NOP-Merger of Huntington Brach Redevelopment Project Areas
City of Seal Beach Response Letter
April 23, 1996
Sincerely,
ce Has ngs
Mayor, City of Seal Beach
cc: City Council City Manager
Planning Commission Director of Development Services
Environmental Quality Control Board
D:\WP51WAUMNOPEM.L'IR\LW\04-22-96 3
i -
APPENDIX B
CULTURAL RESOURCES
7n9i960KI.\RSG6309M;L\TOC.WPD»
M Associates,Inc.
Appendix B -Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address Est. Date Description/Comments
602 7th Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
616 7th Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
Main,Palm&7th intersect. 1930S? I Smith's Mortuary
619 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow
617 Main Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
609 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow
607 Main Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
605 Main Street 1930s Iresidence-Spanish Revival
603 Pecan Street 1930s Iresidence-Spanish Revival
523 Pecan Street 1940s? residence-"ranch"style
519 Pecan Street 1930s? (residence-"farm"style
515 Pecan Street 1930s residence-"farm"style
' 509 Pecan Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
501 Pecan Street 1920s residence-bungalow
417 6th Street 1940s Iresidence-bungalow
415 6th Street 1930s (residence-bungalow
411 6th Street 1930s I residence-bungalow
409 6th Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
410 6th Street I Church,const. 1906(BBGP)
323-327 6th Street 1930s Iapartment row
317 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow
313 6th Street 1930s I residence-bungalow
301 6th Street 1930s (residence-"farm"style
225 6th Street 1940s? (residence-"ranch"style
217 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow
211,211 1/2 6th Street 1930s duplex,2-story
Walnut&6th intersec. 1940s? commercial
1216th Street 1930s residence-bungalow,2-story
119 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow
6th St.&PCH intersec. ? restaurant
520 Pacific Coast Hwy 1950s? commercial
128 6th Street 1930s Helm-Worthy House,const. 1880s (HBGP)
220 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow
308 6th Street 1930s residence-bungalow
310 1/2,312 1/2 6th St. 1930s duplex-bungalow style
328 6th Street 1930s Iresidence-bungalow
5th&Orange intersec. 1930s IbungAlow,no address visible
321 5th Street iconsuucted 1905 (HBGP)
317 5th Street (constructed 1910 (HBGP)
313 5th Street 1930s residence-bungalow
311 5th Street constructed 1930s (HBGP)
7118196(I.•1RSG 301F.1R1HIST7I APJ 1
LSAAmciates,Inc.
Appendix B-Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address Est. Date Description/Comments
309 5th Street ? Iresidence
305 5th Street 1930s-40s? residence
5th&Olive intersec. ? Icommercial brick building
215 5th Street ? I2-story residence
213 5th Street ? Irestaurant
211A-211C 5th Street 1940S Istucco apartments
205 5th Street 1930s residence,bungalow
201 5th Street I residence,"ranch"style
502, 506, 510 Walnut 1930s (apartments
513,517 Walnut Helm House Furnishing Co.,const. 1904 (HBGP)
508 Pacific Coast Hwy 1930s restaurant
204 5th Street Shank House,const. 1912 (HBGP)
210 5th Street 1930s? commercial,2-story
218,218 1/2,220 5th St Ciry Hall&Jail,const. 1918 (I-MGP)
commercial,2-story,perhaps the H.B.
470 Pacific Coast Hwy 1920s I Company/Exchange
401 Main Street 1950s? Icommercial
217 Main Street Pioneer Feed and Fuel,const. 1904(HBGP)
215 Main Street 1920s-30s Icommenial, 2-story
213, 213 1/2 Main St. H.B.Sheet Metal,const. 1919 (BBGP)
211-201 Main Street 205 Main St.,H.B.News,const. 1904 (HBGP)
207 Main St.,Princess Theater,cons. 1910 (HBGP)
127 Main Street 1930s commercial
123 Main Street Huntington Cafe,const. 1906(HBGP)
121 Main Street 1930s icommercial
119, 119 1/2 Main St. 1930s Icommercial
117 Main Street 1930s commercial,2-story
116, 1161/2 Main St. ? commercial
120 Main Street ? commercial
122 Main Street Pacific City Hall,const. 1903 (I-MGP)
124 Main Street Obarr Drugs,const. 1910 (BBGP)
126 Main Street Standard Drugs,const. 1928(HBGP)
316 Olive Street U.S.Post Office,const. 1936(HBGP)
411 (?)Olive Street Dr.Hawes Medical Bldg. ,const. 1936(BBGP)
316.328 Main Street 1930s-40s? commercial
410 Main Street 1940s? commercial,2-story
424 Main Street 1940s? commercial
419 Main Street 1940s commercial
Terms Garage,const. 1933(BBGP)wooden
610 Main Street warehouse in rear
533 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow
529 lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow
7118196(I.'1RSG6301EDZVWS7UST.APP) 2
LSAAnnciate.,Inc.
Appendix B -Visual Survey Results for the Merged.Project Area
Street Address Est. Date Description/Comments
lake&6th St. intersec. "Brewsters Ice, 1945-1995"
505 Lake Street Higgins House,const. 1915 (HBGP)
201, 203, 205 Pecan St. 1930s triplex
343 Pecan Street 1930s residence-bungalow
431-435 Lake Street Poss.const. 1915 (HPDF)
A small complex of(5)bungalow-style buildings,
421A,421B,421C Lake 1925 const. date e) (BYD17
409 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow
407 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow
405 Lake Street 1930s residence-bungalow
401 Lake Street 1930s-40s residence-bungalow
310 Orange Street 1930s residence-bungalow
220 Walnut Street 1940s? 2-story apartments
? Walnut Street 1940s commercial
216 Walnut Street 1940s commercial
214 3rd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
218 3rd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
211,217 Olive Street 1930s-40s duplex
302 3rd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
306 3rd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
? 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow
318 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow
320 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow
322 3rd Street 1930s? residence-bungalow
324-328 3rd Street 1930-40s (5)-plex
325 Orange Street 1930s residence-bungalow
400 3rd Street 1930-40s residence-bungalow
?3rd Street 1930s-40s residence-bungalow
321 2nd Street 1940s-50s residence
317 2nd Street 1940s-50s Iresidence
313, 315 2nd Street 1940-50s duplex
309 2nd Street 1940-50s residence
305 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
215 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
112-116A 2nd Street 1930s? (3)duplexes,bungalow-style
117 Walnut Street ? residence
121 Walnut Street 1930s residence-bungalow
208 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
222 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
230 2nd Street const. 1940 (LLPD17
302 2nd Street ? residence
71.18196(I:FSG630TMZ%H75T=-4PP) 3
LSAA=ciates,Inc.
Appendix B -Visual Survey Results for the Merged Project Area
Street Address Est. Date Description/Comments
304 2nd Street 1930s? (residence-bungalow
308 2nd Street 1930s residence-bungalow
310 2nd Street 1940s? Iresidence-bungalow
316, 318 2nd Street ? Iduplex
106 Olive Street 1930s? !residence-bungalow
321 1st Street prob.1950s i
110 Pacific Coast Hwy I const. 1910 (HPDF)
114 Pacific Coast Hwy I Garner House,const. 1905 (F:BGP)
Store faces street, (2)bungalows are situated
508,510 PCH 1930s behind(north of)the store
17201 Ash Street 1920s-30s (residence-bungalow
17171 Ash Street 1930s I residence-Spanish Revival
17142 Ash Street 1920s-30s residence-bungalow
17132 Ash Street 1920s-30s I residence-bungalow
17131 Ash Street 1920s-30s residence-bungalow
7761 Sycamore 1920s-30s residence-bungalow
7822 Sycamore 1920-30s residence-bungalow
7842 Sycamore 1920s-30s residence-bungalow
?Sycamore 1920s-30s residence-bungalow, no address visible
17061 Elm 1930-40s residence-bungalow
17113 Elm ? residence-bungalow
17141 Elm 1930s? residence-bungalow
17221 Elm 1930s? residence-bungalow
residence, style,house and associate
17242 Elm ? buildings are hidden behind a tall fence
7772 Cypress 11930s residence-bungalow
? Cypress 1930s residence-bungalow,no address visible
7862 Cypress 1930s? residence-bungalow
7622 Warner St. 1930s? Church and"farm"style residence
7642 Warner 1930s residence-bungalow
17038 (or 17028?) Oak 1930s residence-bungalow
1802 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow,const. 1927 OUDF)
1812 Main Street 1930s residence-bungalow
1816 Main Street 1930s Craftsman style bungalow,const. 1917(HPDF)
1837 Park Street 193040s? residence-bungalow
1817 Park Street ? residence-Spanish Revival
1815 Pine Street 1930s residence-"farm"style
1718 Alabama 1930s residence-bungalow
2311 Florida Street ? residence-"farm"style
2307 Florida Street 1930s residence-bungalow
7118196g..-WSG6301EIR BTWTAM 4
RF
Cal;famia Regional Information Center eye cFi�'F
Wmaic
Resotam Ins Aagdes Osage.Vmtnra Cocatia
�.. 5799
6
May 9, 196
Deborah McLean
LSA Associates, Inc.
One Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92714
RE:Records Search for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project, Orange County, CA
Dear Ms McLean,
As per your request of May 8, 1996, we have conducted a records search for the
above referenced project. This search includes a review of all recorded historic and
prehistoric archaeological sites within the project area as well as a review of all known
cultural resource survey and excavation reports. In addition, we have checked our file of
historic maps, the National Register of Historic Places, the California State Historic
Resources Inventory, the California Points of Historical Interest, and the listing of
California Historical Landmarks in the region. The following is a discussion of our
findings for the project area.
PREHISTORIC RESOURCES:
Four prehistoric sites have been identified within a one-quarter mile radius of the
project areas (see enclosed map). These are: CA-ORA-276, CA-ORA-296, and CA-
ORA-359. One prehistoric site, CA-ORA-149, is located within the project area. This
site record is enclosed.
HISTORIC RESOURCES:
No historic archaeological sites have been identified within a one-quarter mile radius
of the project area.
Inspection of our historic maps — Las Bolsas (1896 and 1941) and Santa Ana (1894
and 1901) 15' series — indicates that by the turn of the century the community of
Huntington Beach consisted of a light street grid pattern. The area surrounding Bolsas
Creek, to the west of Huntington Beach (on the Seal Beach Quad), was a marsh. Many
intermittent streams,two intermittent lakes, and Bolsas drainage ditch were also present
in this area. A primary road ran east-west to the north of the project areas on the Seal
Beach Quad. The eastern part of the project area along the coast of Huntington Beach
consisted of a submerged marsh. The Southern Pacific Railroad, Smeltzer Branch, had
been constructed following the coast (between Newport Beach and Huntington Beach)
and traveling away from the coast to Las Bolsa, Talbert and Smeltzer. Light street grids
and scattered structures were concentrated around Talbert, Smeltzer, and Wintersburg. A
marsh was also present in the Wintersburg area. By 1941, the coastal area of Huntington
Beach consisted of a moderately dense street grid pattern. US 101, Pacific Coast
Highway, had been constructed. The.Pacific Electric Railroad had been constructed
following the coast Reservoir Hill had been named.
South Ceutml CoisW Infom-mdon Center-UCLA Institute of Archaeologv•Fn-1,,yr„<., c r^..i ..,,v: -..t ,- _�__ r•..•- _.
The National Register of Historic Places lists one property within a one-quarter mile
radius of the project areas. This is NR, 89001203, Huntington Beach Municipal Pier,
Main St. and Ocean Ave., Huntington Beach, declared 8/24/89.
The California State Historic Resources Inventory lists numerous properties within a
one-quarter mile radius of the project areas. A copy of the listing is enclosed. Properties
that fall within the one-quarter mile radius of the project areas are highlighted. Most of
these fall within the radius of the project area in downtown Huntington Beach, in the
vicinity of the coast.
The listings of -the California Historical Landmarks of the Office of Historic
Preservation, California Department of Parks and Recreation, indicate that there are no
California Historical Landmarks within a one-quarter mile radius of the project area.
The California Points of Historical Interest identifies no properties within a one-
quarter mile radius of the project area.
PREVIOUS ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS:
Five surveys and/or excavations have been conducted within a one-quarter mile
radius of the project areas (see enclosed map and bibliography). Two, 0-880 and 0-998,
are located within the project areas.
Please forward a copy of any reports resulting from this project to our office as soon
as possible. Due to the sensitive nature of site location data, we ask that you do not
include record search maps in your report. If you have any questions regarding the
results presented herein,please feel free to contact our-office at(310) 825-1980.
Invoices are mailed approximately two weeks after records searches. This enables
your firm to request further information under the same invoice number. Please reference
the invoice number listed below when making inquires. Requests made after invoicing
necessitate the preparation of a separate invoice with a$15.00 handling fee.
Sincerely,
Scarlett Hite
Staff Archaeologist
Enclosures:
(� Map
(� Bibliography
( ) Site list
M Site records
( ) Survey reports
(� Confidentiality Form
( ) Invoice 9 6131
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7l18i96<:WG630\TM:(\T0C.WPD»
Appendix C-Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach
Element Name Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment "
NATURAL COMMUNITIES
Southern Foredunes Along PCH between Beach Blvd. High Some natural re-establishment occurring along
and the Santa Ana River, Hunting- PCH;restoration efforts in effect for mitigation for
ton Beach Wetlands widening of PCH by Caltrans.
Southern Dune Scrub Babbitt Island in Bolsa Chica, High Very little left in the region as suitable habitat is also
Huntington Beach Wetlands prime development land.
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh Present at Bolsa Chica and Hun- IIigh Protection and restoration efforts are on-going in
tington Beach Wetlands the City.
Southern Mixed Riparian Forest Extirpated because of channeliza- Low Restoration of this community would require exten-
tion sive changes to the flood control facilities of the
City.
PLANTS
Los Angeles Sunflower last seen in Orange County in Low Species likely extinct because of modification of
Hellanthus nuttalll!parish!! 1933 habitat.
Ventura marsh milk vetch Listed in"La Bolsa", not recorded Low Likely extinct,small possibility that it is on the Seal
lanosissimus in recent surveys (last seen 1882) Beach Weapons Station.
Salt marsh bird's-beak All known Orange County popula- Moderate While surveys have not found this species,the salt
Cordylanthus m. maritlmus tions at Newport Back Bay marsh habitat restoration projects offer opportunity
for its reintroduction.
* Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
6/28/96«Is\RSG630V'.WIOLOGY.APP» 1
Appendix C -Sensitive Elements of Biologicaa uiversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach, Continued
Element Name Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment
aphanisma Not seen in Orange County since Moderate While not seen,potential for occurrence in the
Aphanlsma blitoldes 1932 coastal bluffs of the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.
Gambel's bittercress In"swampy sites"of Huntington Low Extirpated from Orange County. Unlikely candidate
Rorlppagambelll Beach,last seen in 1908 for reintroduction.
Orange County Turkish rugging Known from Newport Beach Low Lack of suitable habitat in the City for this species.
Chorlxanthe staticoldes chrysacantha
Southern spikeweed Known from flood control chan- Moderate Although habitat has been destroyed by channeliza-
Hemixonla panyl australis nels,mouth of the Santa Ana tion there is a potential for this species to occur in
River,formerly in Westminster the Bolsa Chica Wetlands and elsewhere in the City.
and Garden Grove
Southwestern spiny rush Found in Bolsa Chica,and else- High Threatened by reduction of habitat by urbanization.
funcus acutus lopaoldll where in the City
Gairdner's yampah,Squaw root Formerly found near the Bolsa Low Presumed extirpated from Orange County.
PerideHdiag.galydneri Chica Gun Club (1932)
Sanford's arrow-head Freshwater areas of Huntington Moderate Least seen in 1975,chance that with preservation of
Saglttarla sandfordll Beach and East Garden Grove- habitat,the plant will be maintained.
Wintersburg channels
Estuary sea-blite Present at Bolsa Chica Salt Marsh High Threatened by reduction of habitat by urbanization.
Suaeda esteroa
* Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
6/28/96«I.\RSG630\LIR\13I0LOGY.APP» 2
Appendix C-Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach, Continued
Element Name Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment
crown-beard Found near Arch Beach (outside N.A. Without further studies as to whether plants are
Verbesina dissita Planning Area) found in the Planning Area,the level of concern is
unknown.
ANIMALS
Monarch butterfly Roost trees found in the vicinity of High Proposed development of Bolsa Chica may threaten
Danausplexippus Bolsa Chica roost trees.
Oblivious tiger beetle Bolsa Chica High Proposed restoration projects may create short
Cicindela lateslgnata obliviosa term disruptions during implementation,but in-
creases in habitat are beneficial.
Gabb's tiger beetle Locational information sup- High Proposed restoration projects may create short
Cicindelagabbi pressed,but likely in coastal term disruptions during implementation,but in-
saltmarsh habitats. creases in habitat are beneficial.
Gravid tiger beetle Only known location has been High Proposed restoration projects may create short-
Cicindela hirticollisgravida extirpated; may occur in other term disruptions during implementation,but in-
saltmarsh habitats. creases in habitat are beneficial.
Frost's tiger beetle "Huntington Beach"Salt Marsh High Proposed restoration projects may create short-
Cicindela senilfs frost! (exact location suppressed by Cal- term disruptions during implementation,but in-
ifornia Fish and Game) creases in habitat are beneficial.
California brackishwater snail Shells collected in Bolsa Chica High Threatened by habitat modification,either by devel-
Ttyonia Imitator Wetlands and at Bolsa Chica opment or flood control projects.
Beach
* Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
6/28/96«I.\RSG630\LMIOLOGY.APP» 3
Appendix C -Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach, Continued
Element Name Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment
tidewater goby Found in shallow areas of bays, Moderate Potential candidate for introduction as part of wet-
Eucyclogloblus newberryi lagoons and estuaries. Unknown land restoration projects.
If populations extirpated or ex-
isted in the past.
San Diego coast horned lizard No recorded occurrence in the Moderate Probable resident in the upper mesa areas (Sea-
Phrynosoma coronatum blalnvlllei Planning Area,found from clifl),Seal Beach and West Seal Beach
Ventura County to lower Califor-
nia
Silvery[California)legless lizard Not recorded in the Planning Area Moderate Because of the existence of suitable habitat(sand
Aniella p.pulchra dunes) may be a resident.
Great blue heron Common forager at Bolsa Chica, High While there are no rookery areas,threats to forag-
Ardea herodlas no known rookery sites in the ing areas by development are possible.
Planning Area
Snowy egret Foraging at Bolsa Chica and Santa High While there are no rookery areas,threats to forag-
Bgretta thula Ana River ing areas by development are possible.
Black-crowned night-heron Foraging in Talbert Lake area Moderate Restoration of the freshwater marsh and riparian
Nycticorax nyctlorax areas near Central Park may provide new foraging
areas,but nesting unlikely.
Cooper's hawk Common fall transient Moderate The Planning Area lacks nesting habitat;but this
Acclpiter cooped species can use the grassland and marsh areas to
forage.
* Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
6/18/96«I:VtSG630\EIMIOLOGY.APP» 4
of rnnrern for the. City of 1-luntint�,ton peach:
Appendix C-Sensitive Elements of Biological Diversity Reported from or Potentially Occurring in the
City of Huntington Beach, Continued
Element Name Level of
Common Name/Scientific Name Occurrence Concern* Comment
Bank swallow Last seen in the Seacliff area in Low Unlikely except as a migrant
Riparia riparia 1918
black swift Seen regularly in the Planning Moderate Unlikely except as a migrant
Cypselo ides niger. Area as transient
least Bell's vireo No known occurrence in the Plan- LOW Unlikely except as a migrant
Vireo belli pusillus ning Area
California gnatcatcher No known occurrence in the Plan- Low No suitable habitat in the Planning Area
Polioptila californica ning Area
western yellow-billed cuckoo No known occurrence in the Plan- Low Unlikely except as a migrant
Coccyxus ameHcanus occidentalis ning Area
Belding's savannah sparrow Nesting areas in pickleweed High Threatened by changes in tidal regimes in wetlands
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi marsh of Bolsa Chica,Huntington areas from channelization and stream inflow regula-
Beach Wetlands,and Talbert tion. Restoration projects may create new habitat.
Marsh
Pacific pocket mouse Believed extirpated north of the Low Habitat maybe present; however,large-scale resto-
Perognatbus longimembrispacificus San Joaquin Hills in southern Or. ration would be required to reintroduce this spe-
ange County cies.
V
* Level of concern for the City of Huntington Beach:
High: Policies and actions by the City should be used to preserve the element.
Moderate: There are potential occurrences of an element or for its restoration within the Planning Area; policies should
support preservation/restoration activities.
Low: Unlikely any City action useful in preservation/restoration of the element.
6/28//96(d:\RSG630\EW10L0GY.APP» 6
i
Huntington Center Proposal Analysis Matrix i
ATTAC H M ,E N T #5'
F-2
I '
I
1
HUNTINGTON CENTER PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
Burlinaton Coat Factory . Montgomery Wards
1. Identification of Developer
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse of
Huntington Beach Huntington Center Associates, LLC Montgomery Wards Development, LLC
i. Name, address,telephone Montgomery Wards Development, LLC
&fax number. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse c/o Ezralow Company, LLC c/o Loren H. Hohman, Director of Real
Corporation 23622 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 100 Estate
1830 Route 130 Calabasas, CA 91302 535 West Chicago Ave.
Burlington, NJ 08016 (818)223-3535 Fax(818)223-3536 Chicago, IL 60671
(609)387-7800 (312)467-6241
ii. Organization of Developer Not specified Delaware limited liability company
Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse and other subsidiaries managed by Delaware limited liability company
Corporation Bryan Ezralow
managed by Montgomery Wards ,LLC
2. Leases
No leases presented other than
No proposed leases other than its own potential tenants mentioned at
lease with the owners of the HB Center various meetings with representatives No lease presented
of Ezralow and the leases on
existing tenants at the HB Center
3. Redevelopment Concert for Site No development concept presented, Extensive development proposal (78
other than their interest to continue to pages)in the form of a Specific Plan Limited proposal to only renovate store
lease the property proposal
i. Description of proposed land uses No proposed description of land uses Specific Plan proposal describes in No proposal of land uses other than the
other than their desire to lease the detail the land uses anticipated for store which Montgomery Wards occupies
property as is currently the case the property and the auto center which it operates
ii. Number and size of structures Specific Plan describes in detail the
number of structures proposed,their Proposal to renovate store only
No description of structures proposed square footage, their design and describes the materials to be used, their
color scheme and improvements desired
tentative uses
Page 1 of 3 -
1
HUNTINGTON CENTER PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
Burlinaton Coat Factory Ezralow Montaomery
iii. Breakout of total cost of proposed
redevelopment Project program was submitted under Financial investment$4 to$.5 million.
prior correspondence. Proposed Requesting financial assistance from
No cost proposal was included development in $125 to$150 million center developer or Agency. Assistance
range. Requested subsidy in the $15
undetermined at this point in time
to$17 million range.
iv. Schedule of performance
No schedule of performance submitted Indicates that demolition of center is
as Burlington has no plans to perform to begin in the fall, perhaps inOctober-60 days for demolition. No performance schedule submitted
any form of redevelopment Construction to take 12 to 16 months
4. Financial Capability
i. Copy of certified financial statement No financial statement provided.
Only the financial statement of their
No financial statement was submitted financial partner provided, Sun No financial statement provided
America;American International
Group, Inc.
ii. Copies of annual reports No annual report provided.
Submitted marketing brochure and No annual report provided. Privately held
No annual report provided the financial report for 1998 for Sun
America,American International company
Group
iii. Statement indicating finance
redevelopment No financing plan provided other than
No financing plan provided a statement that Ezralow has the No financing plan submitted
capacity to tap the capital markets
iv. Banking references
No banking references submitted Banking references submitted-City No banking references submitted
National Bank
I
N Page 2 of 3
Qo
N
1
HUNTINGTON CENTER PROPOSAL ANALYSIS
NBurlinaton Coat Factory Ezrallow Montgomery
w
S. Development Experience
i. List of development projects
No list of development projects were Ezralow provided a brochure of the No list of prior projects submitted
submitted company and some of its projects
ii. Descriptions and illustrations of
projects Ezralow provided a brochure of the
No brochures or descriptions or company and some of its projects. No descriptions or illustrations of prior
illustrations of projects submitted This includes illustrations and projects submitted
pictures of some of its projects
iii. Developers experience in ownership Ezralow submitted a(company
and management Burlington did not submit any brochure indicating experience in No description of the company's
description of the company's ownership and management of real ownership record and property
experience in owning and managing estate properties including shopping management experience submitted
shopping centers
centers
6. Additional Information
Ezralow submitted three additional
pieces of information to supplement
their proposal. This included their No additional information submitted other
No additional information submitted experience in working with the retail than to indicate that Montgomery Wards
other than the lease to its current store industry, the enumeration of the would vigorously defend its position
various leases, ownership and should the Agency and Ezralow seek
easements, as well as the indication "condemnation of its property
of its lease with Burlington Coat
Factory
Page 3 of 3 .,,.,
APPENDIX A
NOP/INITIAL STUDY/COMMENT LETTERS
7/19i96<.NFS"3ojMZ\roc.WPrn►
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
The following persons contributed to the preparation of this EIR.
ZSA ASSOCIATES, INC.
Project Manager Rob Balen
Cultural/Scientific Resources Steve Conkling
Bill McCawley
Staff Bill Mayer
Carolyn Lobell
Rick Harlacher
Julie Cho
John Staight
Todd Brody
Eric Rubery
Michael Amling
ROSFNOW SPEVACEK GROUP EVC.
Project Manager Frank J.Spevacek
Associate Jim Simon
CTIY OFHVA=GTON BEACH
Department of Economic Development David Biggs
Stephen V. Kohler
Michael Hennessey
Department of Community Development Linda Niles
Julie Osugi
7/18N6KIAPSG630NEMSECT".WPD» 8-1
r
9.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
The following organizations and persons were consulted in the preparation of
the Draft EIR:
Organization Person Consulted/ritle
General Telephone and Electric Mr. Robert Mazzola
(GTE) Engineer-Telephone Operations
Huntington Beach Public Library Mr. Ron Hayden
System Library Services Director
The Gas Company Mr. Robert S.Warth
Technical Supervisor
Southern California Edison Co. Mr.Wayne Pitzer
Supervising Engineer
Time Warner Mr. Michael McDonald
Vice President Technical Operations
Municipal Water District of Orange Mr. Stanley Sprague
County General Manager
Orange County Transportation Mr. Stan Oftelie
Authority Chief Executive Officer
Metropolitan Water District of Mr.John Wodraska
Southern California General Manager
Orange County Water District Mr.William R.Mills,Jr.
General Manager
Huntington Beach City School Mr.Jerry Buchanan
District Asst. Superintendent of Administra-
tive Services
Orange Coast Community College Ms. Nancy A.Pollard
District President,Board of Trustees
Ocean View Elementary School Dr.James Tarwater
District Superintendent
Westminster Elementary School Ms.Barbara Wmars
District Deputy Superintendent
Huntington Beach Union High Dr.Patricia Koch
School District Asst.Superintendent of Business
Services
City of Huntington Beach Bruce Gilmer
Department of Public Works
7/1S/g64(I:\RSG630,1M6EC19-0.WPD» 9-1
10.0 REFERENCES
Bean, Lowell J. 1974. Social Organization in Native California. In 'Antap:
California Indian Political and Economic Organization, edited by
Lowell John Bean and Thomas King,p. 13-34. BP AP No. 2,Lowell John
Bean,series editor. Ballena Press,Ramona, California.
Bean, Lowell J. and Charles R. Smith. 1978. Gabrielino. In California, edited
by Robert F.Heizer, pp. 538-549. Handbook of North American Indians,
vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,D. C.
Bean, Walton. 1968. California:An Interpretive History. McGraw-Hill, New
York. (Reprinted, McGraw-Hill,New York, 1973)• :
Bolton, Herbert Eugene. 1927. Fray Juan Crespi.Missionary Explorer on the
Pacific Coast, 1769-1771. University of California Press, Berkeley.
(Reprinted,AMS Press, New York, 1971).
Boscana, Father Ger6nimo. 1933. Chinigcbinich: A Revised and Annotated
Version of Alfred Robinson's Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana's
Historical Account of the Beliefs, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies
of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano Called the
Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. (Reprinted, Malki
Museum press, Banning, California, 1978.)
Buchanan Associates. 1995. Huntington Beach Union High School District
1995 Master Plan.
Cleland, Robert Glass. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern
California 1850-1880. The Huntington Library, San Marino California.
(Revised edition with a preface by Robert G.Cleland, 1951).
Clevenger, Joyce M. 1986. Archaeological Investigations at CA ORA-287: A
Multicomponent Site on Newport Bay. WESTEC Services, Ms. on file,
Ogden Environmental Services,Inc.
Community Systems Associates,Inc. 1996. Development Fee Findings Report of
the Huntington Beacb Union High School District.
Community Systems Associates,Inc. 1996. Development Fee Findings Report of
the Huntington Beacb City School District.
Community Systems Associates, Inc. 1994. Feasibility Study for Year Round
Education in Huntington Beacb City School District.
Cowan, Robert G. 1956. Ranchos of California: A list of Spanish Concessions
1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822-1846. Academy Library Guild,
Fresno,California. (Reprinted,Historical Society of Southern California,
Los Angeles, 1977).
7/iSY96«I:\RSG630\En;�SECnO-O.WPD» 10-1
r
Crownover, C. Scott, Beth Padon and E.Jane Rosenthal. 1989• Archaeological
Investigations at CA-ORA-121, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman
Associates. Ms.on file, South Central Coastal Archaeological Information
Center,UCLA, Los Angeles, California.
Demcak, Carol R. 1981. Fused Shale as a Time Marker in Southern California:
Review and Hypothesis. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of
Anthropology, California State University, Long Beach.
Drover, Chris E., Henry C. Koerper and Paul Langenwalter II. 1983• Early
Holocene Human Adaptation on the Southern California Coast: A
Summary Report of Investigations at the Irvine Site (CA-ORA-64),
Newport Bay, Orange County, California. Pacific Coast Arcbaeological
Society Quarterly 19(3&4):1-84.
Elsasser, Albert B. 1978. Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In
California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 37-57. Handbook of North
American Indians,vol.8,W. C. Sturtevant,general editor.. Smithsonian
Institution,Washington,D. C.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin. 1922. San Juan Capistrano Mission. The Standard
Printing Company, Los Angeles.
1927a. San Gabriel Mission and the Beginnings of LosAngeles. Franciscan
Herald Press, Chicago.
1927b. San Fernando Rey: The Mission in the Valley. Franciscan Herald
Press, Chicago.
Envicom Corporation. 1995. City of Huntington Beach General Plan Update
Draft Environmental Impact Report and Technical Appendices.
Huntington Beach, California. Copy on file at City of Huntington Beach
Planning Department.
Envicom Corporation. 1995. City of Huntington Beach General Plan.
Huntington Beach, California.
Hall, Matt C. 1988. For the Record: Notes and Comments on "Obsidian
Exchange in Prehistoric Orange County." Pacific Coast Arcbaeological
Society Quarterly 24(4):34-48.
Harrington, John P. 1933• Annotations. In Cbinigcbinicb: A Revised and
Annotated Version ofAlfred Robinson's Translation ofFatber Geronimo
Boscana's Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and
Extravagancies of the Indians of this Mission of San Juan Capistrano
Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana. (Reprinted,
Malki Museum Press,Banning, California, 1978.)
1942. Culture Element Distributions: = Central California Coast.
University of California Antbropological Records 7(1):1-46
7n8/9&<I.WG630\EM�SEcno-o.VPD» 10-2
1986. John Harrington Papers, Vol. 3: Southern California/Basin.
Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives,Washington.
Microfilm edition,Kraus International Publications, Millwood,New York.
Hudson,Dee Travis. 1971. Proto-Gabrielino Patterns of Territorial Organization
in South Coastal California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society
Quarterly 7(2):51-76.
Koerper, Henry C. 1979. On the Question of the Chronological Placement of
Shoshonean Presence in Orange County, California. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 15(3):69-84.
—. 1981. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Newport Bay Area and
Environs, Orange County, California. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
California, Riverside. University Microfilms International, Ann Arbor,
Michigan.
Koerper, Henry C.and Chris E.Drover. 1983. Chronology Building for Coastal
Orange County, the Case from CA-ORA-119A. Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of
American Ethnology Bulletin 78, Smithsonian Institution,Washington, D.
C. (Reprinted,Dover Publications,New York, 1976.)
MacLeod, Kaye H. And Barbara Milkovich. 1988. Huntington Beach. In: A
Hundred Years of Yesterdays: A Centennial History of the People of
Orange County and Their Communities. The Orange County
Centennial,Inc., Santa Ana.
Mason,Roger D.,Nancy A.Whitney-Desautels and Mark L.Peterson. 1987. Test
Plan for National Register Evaluation of Archaeological Sites on the
Coyote Canyon Sanitary Landfill Property, Orange County, California.
Scientific Resource Surveys. Ms.on file, Orange County Integrated Waste
Management Department.
Mason,William M. 1975. Fage's Code of Conduct Toward Indians, 1787. The
Journal of California Anthropology 2(1):90-100.
McCawley,William. 1996. The First Angelinos. The Gabrielino Indians of Los
Angeles. Malki Museum Press and Ballena Press,Banning, California.
Merriam, C. Hart. 1968. Village Names in Twelve California Mission Records.
University of California Archaeological Survey Report 74. Berkeley.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Arcbaeology. Academic Press, Orlando,
Florida.
Oxendine,Joan. 1983. The Luiseno Village During the Late Prehistoric Era.
Ph.D.dissertation,University of California,Riverside.
7riS/96«I:\RSG630\En;%SSEMO-O.WPD» 10-3
r
Padon, Beth. 1987. A Cultural/Scientific Assessment of the Waterfront Project,
City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange. On file, South Central
Coastal Information Center,UCLA Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles.
Rosenthal,E.Jane and Beth Padon. 1986. Archaeological Research Proposal for
CA-ORA-123 and ORA-221/222. Ms. on-Me, LSA Library and Caltrans
District 7.
Rosenthal,Jane, Patricia Jertberg, Steven Williams and Susan Colby. 1991. CA-
ORA-236, Coyote Canyon Cave Data Recovery Investigations, Coyote
Canyon Sanitary Landfill, Orange County, California. Larry Seeman
Associates, Inc. Ms. on file, South Central Coastal Archaeological
Information Center,UCLA,Los Angeles.
South Coast Air Quality Management District,April 1993. 1993 CEQA Air Qual
ity Handbook.
STA Planning Incorporated. 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Report, City of
Huntington Beach EIR No. 8944, State Clearinghouse No. 89060711. On
file, South Central Coastal Information Center, UCLA Institute of
Archaeology,Los Angeles.
Strudwick, Ivan H. 1986. Temporal and Areal Considerations Regarding the
Prehistoric Circular Fishhook of Coastal California. Unpublished M. A.
thesis, Department of Anthropology, California State University, Long
Beach.
Wagner, Henry R. 1941. Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo:Discoverer of the Coast of
California. California Historical Society,San Francisco.
Wallace, William J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California
Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11(3):214-
230. (Reprinted in The California Indians:A Source Book,edited by R.
F.Heizer and M.A.Whipple,pp. 186-201. University of California Press,
Berkeley, 1971).
—. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archeology,9000 to 2000 B.C. In California,edited
by Robert F.Heizer,pp.538-549. Handbook of North American Indians,
vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,D. C.
Warren, Claude N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the
Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University
Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-4.
White, Raymond C. 1963. Luiseiio Social Organization. University of
California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology
48(2):91-194.
Wright,Doris Marion. 1977. A Yankee in Mexican California:Abel Stearns 1798-
1848. Wallace Hebberd,Santa Barbara,California.
7/18i96<<I:\RSG63a�E=ECT10-0.WPD» 10-4
r
Young,Pamela,Loretta Berner and Sally Woodbridge. 1989• Historic Structures
Report: Overview Chronology of Alterations, Ranch House and
Outbuildings. Master Planning Program for Rancho Los Alamitos. Report
on file, Rancho Los Alamitos Historic Ranch and Gardens.
7118/95«l.\RS ,63a\En;�SEcno-o.WPD► 10-5
RESOLUTION NO. 279
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(NO. 96-2)FOR THE HUNTINGTON
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN PREPARED,
CIRCULATED AND COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND
STATE GUIDELINES FOR CEQA AND THAT THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED THEREIN
WHEREAS,the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California(the
"Agency") as Applicant has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report(the"Final EIR") for
the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
The Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and the State
Guidelines for CEQA; and
A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 19, 1996, at which
time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
The Final EIR,which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during
the review period and at the public hearing,has been prepared pursuant to said statute and
Guidelines; and
The City Council as Lead Agency certified the Final EIR on October 7, 1996 (Resolution
No. 96-63); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach, California as follows:
Section 1. The Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies that the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared,
circulated and completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and
applicable regulations.
Section 2. The Redevelopment Agency certifies that the information contained in the
Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
has been reviewed and considered by the Redevelopment Agency Members.
1
SF/s:PCD:Reso1ution:Agen96-2
11/5/96-#2
RLS 96-806
r
a 79
Section 3. The Redevelopment Agency hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete
and adequate in that it addresses all environmental effects of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and the Guidelines
for CEQA. The Final EIR is composed of the following elements:
a. Draft EIR and appendices; and
b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments.
All of the above information has been and will be on file at the City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, 92648,
and with the City Clerk.
Section 4. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Final EIR has identified all
significant environmental effects of the project and that there are no known potential
environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
Section 5. The Redevelopment Agency finds that the Final EIR has described all
reasonable alternatives to the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project
(including the No Project Alternative), even when these alternatives might impede the attainment
of project objectives and might be more costly. Further,the Agency finds that a good faith effort
was made to incorporate alternatives in the preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable
alternatives were considered in the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the
project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington
Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th day of November , 1996.
Chairman
AT TE APPROVED AS TO FORM:
11 IL
Agency Clerk �a/ Agency Attorney
REVIEWED.�DROVED: INITI O
Executive Director or o con c Develop ent
E 2
SF/s:PCD:Resolution:Agen96-2
11/5/96-#2
RLS 96-806
Res. No. 279
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Huntington Beach, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the
foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Redevelopment Agency of the City
of Huntington Beach at an adjourned regular meeting of said Redevelopment
Agency held on the 18th day of November, 1996 and that it was so adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Members:
Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff, Green
NOES: Members:
None
ABSENT: Members:
Garofalo
Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Huntington Beach, Ca.
G/resoluti/resUpg2/Res.279
RESOLUTION NO. 9 6-9 3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THAT THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (NO. 96-2) FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT HAS BEEN
PREPARED, CIRCULATED AND COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE
WITH CEQA AND STATE GUIDELINES FOR CEQA AND THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE
INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California (t�e "City")
as Lead Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (the "Final EIR") for the
proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
WHEREAS, said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State Guidelines for implementation of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA, and
the State Guidelines for CEQA; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held by the City on August 19, 1996, at
which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns
raised during the review period and at the public hearing, has been prepared pursuant to said
statute and Guidelines; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California as follows:
1. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report
for the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project has been prepared,
circulated and completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act and applicable regulations.
2. The City Council certifies that the information contained in the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project has been reviewed and considered by the City Council
Members.
i
cega96/s1/jn/9/30/96
r
3. That the City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as complete and adequate
in that it addresses all environmental effects of the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, and fully complies with the requirements of CEQA and
the Guidelines for CEQA. The Final EIR is composed of the following
elements:
a. Draft EIR and appendices; and
b. Comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comments.
All of the above information has been and will be on file at the City of
Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, California, 92648, and with the City Clerk.
4. That the City finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant
environmental effects of the project detailed in Environmental Impact Report
No. 96-2, together with proposed mitigation measures to mitigate such effects
(see Exhibit A, attached hereto), and that there are no known potential
environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR.
5. That the City finds that the Final EIR has described all reasonable alternatives to
the project that could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project
(including the No Project Alternative), even when these alternatives might
impede the attainment of project objectives and might be more costly. Further,
the City finds that a good faith effort was made to incorporate alternatives in the
preparation of the Draft EIR, and all reasonable alternatives were considered in
the review process of the Final EIR and ultimate decisions on the project.
6. The Planning Director is hereby authorized and directed to file with the Office
of the County Clerk and the State Office of Planning and Research a notice of
determination for Environmental Impact Report No. 96-2, as required by
Section 15094 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
I
cega96/s1/jn/9/30/96
96-93
i
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 7th day of October ,
1996.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ems' Z4
City Clerk City Attorney
11 Jo-5&
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Administrator Dir for of Economic Development
3
cega96/s1/jn/9/30/96
96-93
L --11-3
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MEASURES
4.2 POPULATION AND HOUSING
4.2.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate
income displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt and
implement a relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of
the California Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no
families or single persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a
redevelopment project until there is a suitable housing unit available and
ready for occupancy. Such housing units shall be available at rents
comparable to those at the time of displacement. Further, housing units for
relocation are to be suitable for the needs of the displaced household, and
must be decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise standard dwelling. It is the
Agency's objective that residents be relocated with the minimum of
hardship.
4.5 AIR QUALITY
4.5.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
The following recommendations will assist in reducing air quality impacts resulting
from future development and redevelopment within the Merged Project Area. The
Recommended mitigation measures are as follows:
Construction Exhaust Emissions
4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However,
exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the
applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation
measured provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures
to be implemented are as follows:
• Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment;
• Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications;
• Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment;
• Use reformulated, low-emissions diesel fuel;
• Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered
equipment, where feasible;
• Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods
(i.e., more than five minutes); and
I
• Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient
pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the above measure during normal construction
site inspections.
Fugitive Dust
4.5-13 The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance
with SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and
ensure that nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction.
These measures may include the following:
• Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening;
• Reestablish ground over on the construction site through seeding and
watering;
• Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of larger areas to erosion
over extended periods of time;
• Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods;
• Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices;
• Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in
coordination with local public agencies;
• Sweep streets on a daily basis is silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling;
• Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with Rule
403 requirements;
• Wash off trucks leaving site;
• Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
• Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
4.5-C The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise
significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application.
f
• Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized.
The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided
whenever possible.
• Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
i
precoated materials, shall be specified.
I
t
I
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site
assessment will be conducted before any construction takes place at that
locale. At locations where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction
process has occurred, the soil will be remediated using appropriate
techniques. Removal of petroleum contamination will also alleviate the
generation of hydrogen sulfide and its attendant odor. these activities
would fall under the direction of both local and State agencies, which would
"sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion. If unforeseen areas of
subsurface contamination are encountered during excavation activities,
these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area could be
evaluated and remediated as appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by
personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing
asbestos will be removed and disposed in accordance with sound
engineering practice and federal regulations. Implementation of these
measures will reduce potentially significant contamination issues to a level
that is less than significant.
4.12 CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
4.12.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
The following mitigation measures will assist to reduce impacts to cultural
resources in the Merged Project Area. Although specific project level impacts
cannot be identified at this time, future specific development and redevelopment
projects will comply with the mitigation measures.
4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or
require demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete
assessment shall be prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings
identified in the present report within the Merged Project Area. At a
minimum, this assessment shall include the following documentation:
A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof
design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments,
special architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of each
building.
C) A determination of construction date from existing records such as
building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at
the City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be
I
PPS. 7 6-?3
located for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted
with members of the local historical society or other individuals who
may have relevant data to share.
D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to the
demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the
present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result,
if necessary to prevent an adverse impact.
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological
resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Orange
certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the
Community Development Director to : 1) ascertain the significance of the
resource, 2) establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3)
ascertain the presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional
monitoring of the site, if deemed appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment
monitoring shall be on site during grading operations.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall be placed the collection of historic
documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another
suitable local archive.
Res. No. 96-93
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 7th of October, 1996 by the
following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff,
Garofalo, Green
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/resoluti/resbkpg
Statement of Overriding
Considerations for Environmental
Impact Report No. 96-2 and
Resolution No. 96-100,
November 18, 1996
ATTACHMENT # 11
City of Huntington Beach
2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Office of the Director 536-5582
Housing 536-5542
Redevelopment 536-5582
Fax (714) 375-5087
September 26, 1996
To: Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Commentors
Subject: Response to Comments Document for Environmental Impact Report on the
Amendment and Merger of Existing Redevelopment Project Areas to Create the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Thank you for providing a response to Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR)
Number 96-2 for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project. Per Section 21092.5 of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Response to Comments document is
attached for your review.
You are invited to attend the next City Council hearing on October 7, 1996, at which time
the Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will be
considered for certification. The hearing is scheduled for 7:00 p.m. at the City Council
Chambers, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648.
Again,thank you for responding to the Draft EIR. If you have any additional questions about
the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project or the Draft EIR,please contact Ms.
Linda Niles at (714) 536-5271 or Mr.Stephen Kohler at (714) 536-5582.
Sincerely,
��
David Biggs
Economic Development Director
Attachment: Response to Comments Document
9R 6i96«I:\RS G 630%E IR\RTCCO VER.LTR»
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DRAFT EIR NO. 96
September 26, 1996
Prepared by:
The City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
Attn: Linda Niles
TABLE OF CONTENTS/LIST OF COMMENTORS
PAGE
GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPACITY ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . 1
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY . . . . . . 18
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 20
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DMSION OF OIL, GAS,AND
GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 22
ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
THE GAS COMPANY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
ATTACHMENT A: REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13
926i964(1-.WG630\EMT,ESPONSE.D00), ii
r
GENERAL RESPONSE REGARDING SCHOOL CAPAC11YISSUES
This response is provided to address a general issue brought up in each of the
school districts' comment letters. This general issue involves the methodology
used by the City to determine school capacity and the assessment of impacts of
the adoption of the Amendment/Merger on school district capacity. The school
districts commented that the methodology.used in the Draft EIR was flawed in
that the impact assessment failed to take into consideration the variable class-
room loading that the districts have to provide for such classes as science labs,
special education, shop and other education programs that had smaller class-
room sizes. The effect of these comments, in general, is to seek a lower average _
number of students per classroom than the student average employed in the
Draft EIR.
As indicated in several of the responses to individual comments, specifically
HBU-4, OV-3, and HBC-9, the Drab EIR for the Amendment/Mi erger used school
district reports and personal communication with district facilities planning
staff to determine school capacity and student loading figures. The capacity
and loading averages for each school took into consideration the smaller class-
room size demanded for labs, shop and other special programs, as well as
classrooms that hold larger classes such as physical education, band, and choir.
This led to the use of an average class size in calculating capacity for each
school. The school districts did not include school capacity alternatives in their
comments. The City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure pro-
vided earlier by school district staff and in their district's facilities master plans,
because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and be-
cause of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity.
The City wishes to cooperate with the school districts in finding solutions to
overcrowding. In the recently adopted General Plan (May, 1996), the Council
adopted policies to assist the school districts to offset impacts from new devel-
opment. The General Plan and EIR acknowledge cumulative citywide impacts
to schools from new development, and mitigate these impacts as development
occurs. These policies apply to all projects within the City and also within the
Redevelopment Project Area. Because these policies were adopted by the City
Council with input from the school districts and because they mitigate impacts
of growth for each subsequent project and for cumulative impacts related to
future growth, the impacts of new development have been determined in the
General Plan Update EIR to be mitigated. Future development projects will be
subject to these General Plan policies, and will be subject to separate California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) scrutiny that will more specifically analyze
project impacts.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-_
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOO> 1
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
HBU-1
The comment is introductory to the body of the letter. The comment requests
that the City consider a comment on one school to be applicable to all schools
in the Huntington Beach Union High School District (HBUSD). The City agrees
that this request is reasonable and agrees to the requested approach. However,
only HBU-6 specifically addresses one of the schools. Because the comment
does not include any specific environmental concern, no further response is
necessary.
HBU-2
The Draft EIR describes State allowed fees and other possible programs that
school districts may use to offset impacts resulting from increased student
attendance generated by new development. The discussion was not meant to
be exhaustive, but only to provide the reader with relevant background regard-
ing non-fee alternatives that districts have at their disposal to address increased
student load in a school or district. The City acknowledges other programs to
address increases in student enrollment brought up in the comment, including
purchase or lease of portable classrooms, remodeling or construction of perma-
nent facilities and transportation of students. However, because there are
existing City adopted General Plan policies designed to mitigate growth impacts
of new development and because there is no construction authorized by the
proposed Amendment/Merger beyond that is identified in the General Plan and
General Plan Update EIR, there is no need to implement additional mitigation
measures as a part of the Amendment/Merger.
HBU-3
As stated in Response HBU-2, there is no development authorized by the
Amendment/Merger program beyond the development levels identified in the
General Plan and analyzed and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. It is
the conclusion of the City that, regardless of the potential secondary effects
resulting from the minor increased student enrollment brought up in the
comment, there is no physical impact on the environment associated with
increased student enrollment that can be fairly argued to be caused by the
proposed Amendment/Merger program.
There is a limited amount of discussion of the secondary effects of increased
student enrollment in the Draft EIR. As stated above in HBU-2, a school district
may employ a variety of responses to address additional students enrolling in a
particular school or within a school district. Many of these activities involve
changes to educational programs, schedules, utilization of existing space and
the use of portable classrooms. Most of these actions involve no physical
changes or are exempt from CEQA because they are judged to have minor or
9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\FMPONSE.DOCN 2
no environmental impacts (e.g., placement of portable classrooms is generally
considered exempt from CEQA).
- It is not the role of the City through this EIR process to choose a school dis-
trict's response nor can the City guess which response the school Districts
might make to house additional students. Because of the range of student
placement options, class size alternatives, -transportation alternatives, space
utilization decisions, boundary changes and classroom construction options,
any attempt by the City to formulate an appropriate educational program
would be speculative. As pointed out in the comment, reliance on existing
portable classrooms may not take into consideration refurbishment needs of a
particular building at a particular school, and reliance on year-round schooling
may not take into consideration the nuances brought up in the comment re-
garding scheduling and additional miscellaneous costs. The comment, how-
ever, does not provide the City with information or evidence that the HBUSD
will take any one of the actions mentioned above to alleviate possible future
school overcrowding.
See HBU-4 and HBU-5, below,for additional response.
HBU-4
The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per
classroom that the average employed in the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR uses an average of 30 to 33 students per classroom. This is not
meant to be an absolute number; rather, it is a conservative estimate based on
input from the HBUSD. In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant sur-
veyed each school district, including HBUSD, to determine student loading
factors and available classroom space. In correspondence to the consultant,
HBUSD directed the consultant to the District's 1995 Master Plan. The consul-
tant used the range of student classroom capacity or loading factors recom-
mended in the Master Plan, reported on page 14 of that document. The Draft
EIR includes the range of 30 to 33 students per classroom to determine capac-
ity. This range is also within the lower end of the range used by the District for
calculating student loading for laboratories and shops,which is reported in the
District's Master Plan to be between 28 and 36 students per classroom. It is
also noted in this same HBUSD report that the District "staffs the schools at
31.8 students per teacher."
The City has relied on the District's own report for the calculations presented in
the Draft EIR, as recommended by HBUSD staff in correspondence from the
District dated May 16, 1996, on file in the City's Community Planning Depart-
ment. The City agrees that there are cases where classrooms have more than 30
students (e.g., band, physical education, choir) and that there are classrooms
with fewer than 30 students, as is pointed out in the comment (e.g., physics
labs, chemistry labs and industrial arts). The City's calculations do not assume
100 percent use of class space, only that the average is between 30 and 33
students per classroom. The use of this average is deemed to be conservative.
9R6i96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.D00� 3
The Drab EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac-
ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide
new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the
claim that the Drab EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity.
Therefore, the City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided
by school district staff and in the District's 1995 Master Plan, because it contin-
ues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence
of another feasible method of verifying capacity.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrunity that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
HBU-5
The City acknowledges the effect that cumulative development has on a school
District's capacity, and agrees with the State Legislature that development
impact fees should be collected to offset the effects of new development. It is
the City's position also that cumulative effects from citywide development
should be addressed by new development as it occurs, subject to the provisions
of CEQA. The City's policies regarding new growth and school-impacts are
included in the recently adopted General Plan. These policies are included in
revised EIR Section 4.13,which has been updated with the policies as adopted
by City Council. Attachment A is revised EIR Section 4.13. As development is
proposed in the Redevelopment Project Area, it will be reviewed for specific
impacts on the appropriate school and/or school district.
HBU-G
The decision to refurbish existing portable classrooms or to replace existing
structures is a matter for HBUSD to resolve. The City is not in a position to
judge the useful life of classrooms, although it is the understanding of the City
that these classrooms are being utilized, and that the classrooms mentioned in
the comment are occupied by students. New students generated by develop-
ment should not affect utilization of these older classroom spaces.
Because of the extensive utilization of portable classrooms of the site, within
the District and throughout the State, use of "Permanent Capacity" would
significantly understate actual school capacity.
9/26i96«I:\RSG630\EIRW-SPONSE.DO(> 4
HBU-7
As indicated in Response to Comment HBU-4, the City based school capacity on
school district reports and input from each school district's facilities planning
staff. The opinion of the commentor is noted and will be forwarded to the
decision makers for consideration. See Response to Comment HBU-4 for more
discussion.
HBU-8
As indicated in Responses to Comments HBU-4 and HBU-7, school capacity
calculations are based on input from each school district. The City has no
authority over the year-round school decision, but only points out that school
capacity can be increased by up to 25 percent if such a strategy is used. Please
see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4, which discuss this issue fur-
ther.
Regarding the use of older portable classrooms in calculating capacity, please
see Response to Comment HBU-6.
Regarding the cost of additional portable classrooms to house students gener-
ated by growth resulting from new development, please see Responses to
Comments HBU-3, -4, -6, -9, -12, and-13.
i
As stated above, the City's General Plan policies and future environmental
review required for each subsequent project subject to CEQA will be assessed
to determine whether there is a significant environmental impact on schools.
HBU-9
The statement in the Draft EIR is correct. State law enacted in 1986 (AB 2926)
provided a comprehensive school facilities program. This legislation amended
the School Facilities Act and consolidated the assessment of developer fees into
a single body of law and authorized school districts themselves to impose
school impact fees. The legislation set monetary limits on these fees. The
legislation expressly stated that this was to be the exclusive method of raising
local financing for permanent school facilities. Although these fees have been
set by State legislation, other mitigation for environmental impacts can be
required, as noted below.
School districts in the State now operate under an amended version of the
School Facilities Act and case law mentioned in the comment. This case law
helps further define the School Facilities Act.
• Mira(1988) held that a local agency could deny a zone change if signifi-
cant impacts resulted from that action.
926i96<<I:\RSG630\EIRNRESPONSE.DOO> 5
• Hart (1991) held that legislative acts (General Plan Amendments, Spe-
cific Plans, etc.) were excluded from the Schools Facilities Act, which
applied only to administrative or quasi-judicial project approvals.
• Murrieta (1991) held that the School Facilities Act did not prohibit
CEQA mitigation measures for legislative land development approvals
that caused school overcrowding.
In consideration of the above and acknowledgment that new development may
contribute to overcrowding in the future, the City's General Plan, adopted May
13, 1996, includes policies that mitigate the cumulative impacts identified in
the General Plan Update EM The City will implement this mitigation for each
new development within the Merged Project Area. See Response to Comment
HBU-5 for additional discussion regarding General Plan policies to mitigate
school impacts.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
HBU-10
The issues related to cumulative impacts are addressed in Responses to Com-
ments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-9, and HBU-12.
HBU-11
The Draft EIR did not include the final wording of the General Plan as adopted
by the City Council. Revised EIR Section 4.13, included as Attachment A of this
Response to Comments document, includes the policies as adopted. See also
Response to Comment HBU-5.
HBU-12
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EMNMPONSE.D00> 6
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
As stated in Responses to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5 and HBU-11, citywide
cumulative impacts have been acknowledged in the General Plan Update EIR,
and General Plan policies have been adopted that offset those impacts. Note
that all General Plan policies, including the policies applicable to schools, are
applicable to individual private projects within the proposed Merged Project
Area and any Redevelopment Agency sponsored development. These policies,
applicable to all redevelopment projects, mitigate impacts to school Districts.
Additional mitigation is not warranted in this EIR but may or may not be deter-
mined necessary during the entitlement process.
HBU-13
The City has responded to each comment, and has revised Draft EIR Section
4.13 to address the concerns brought up by the HBUSD comment letter.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth-allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
9/16/96<<I:\RSG630\.EM\RESPONSE.DOO> 7
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
PR-1
Comment noted. No response necessary.
9/26064<I:\,RSG630\EMNRESPONSE.DOCN 8
ORANGE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
TA-1
Comment noted. The recently adopted General Plan includes policy CE 3.2.1,
which requires developers to include transit facilities, bus benches, shelters,
pads and turnouts in development plans. The City's Transportation Demand
Ordinance also includes these provisions. Any project carried out under the
proposed Amend menVMerger must comply with the General Plan policy and
the Transportation Demand Ordinance.
9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.D00> 9
OCEAN VIEW SCHOOL DISTRICT
O V-1
The commentor requested extension of the comment period to September 6,
1996. The City denied the request due to the availability of the Draft EIR to the
Ocean View School District for the full 45* day review period, as required by
CEQA.
OV-2
The statement is an introduction to the comment letter stating that legal coun-
sel to the Ocean View School District has reviewed the Draft EIR, and finds that
the Draft EIR fails to adequately address impacts on the Ocean View School
District. The City respectfully disagrees with the comment. The Draft EIR
thoroughly analyzes impacts to the District utilizing classroom loading charac-
teristics and student generation factors provided by District staff to LSA in a
letter dated May 16, 1996. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-4 through
HBU-12 for a discussion of General Plan policies that mitigate future projects
with the Redevelopment Project Area.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/imerger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
Ova
The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per
classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR
In preparing the Draft EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district,
including OVSD, to determine student loading factors and available classroom
space. Through personal communication on June 18 and June 20, 1996, Mr.
James Tarwater, Superintendent, provided the consultant with the District's
classroom loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable class-
rooms at each school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 34
students per classroom to determine capacity. The classroom capacity number
provided via telephone was slightly higher than that indicated in Mr. Tarwater's
written response of May 29, 1996. However, the City chose to use the lower
classroom capacity figure to provide a more conservative approach.
9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOG> 10
As stated in Response to Comment OV-2, Section 4.13 has been revised to
include the District's statement that there will be an overburden of 55 students
districtwide. Section 4.13 also indicates that there are General Plan policies in
place that offset impacts on school districts. The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable
and substantiated average classroom capacity for figuring potential impacts to
schools. The comment does not provide.new data or succeed in providing
additional information to substantiate the claim that the Draft EIR should uti-
lize a lower average classroom capacity. The City will continue to rely on the
average capacity figure provided by District staff, because it continues to believe
its assumptions to be well supported and because of the absence of another
feasible method of verifying capacity. Because there is no development autho-
rized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the City's
adopted General Plan, the Atnendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the
effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR
for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General PIan policies
that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan. See r'evised Draft EIR
Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts. Therefore, the finding in the Drab
EIR that there will be no significant impacts remains valid. See also Responses
to Comments HBU-2, HBU-3, and HBU-5 for additional discussion of these
points.
OV-4
This comment raises the same issues as were raised in Responses to Comments
HBU-2 and HBC-8. See Responses to Comments HBU-2 and HBC-8 for a re-
sponse to these issues.
OVS
i
The City agrees with the points brought up in the comment that: 1) an EIR
should consider enrollment capacity impacts of a project; 2) impacts can occur
to both the "natural environment and man-made conditions;" 3) significant
impacts to schools should be mitigated; and 4) socioeconomic effects of a
project that lead to physical impacts should be considered in an EIR. The City
believes that the Draft EIR addresses these issues to the extent applicable to the
Amendment/Merger. Regardless of these issues, the comment does not provide
a basis for the conclusion that the proposed Amendment/Merger will cause a
significant impact on the environment, either natural or man-made, nor does it
make the connection that the Amendment/Merger will"overcrowd the District's
schools, which in turn is a negative impact on the ability of the District to
provide a sound education for its students." Without providing a factual basis
or supportive evidence,the District's assertion that the Amendment/Merger will
create the level of impact claimed in the comment is not supported. There is
no evidence or causative chain of events that can be tied to the proposed
Amendment/Merger that would indicate that an environmental impact would
occur to the extent that there will be a significant impact on the environment.
For further discussion see Responses to Comments OV 1 and HBU-3.
9/26/96«I:%RSG630%EM\RESPONSE.DOC>> 11
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
HBC-z
The school capacity calculations for Dwyer Middle School have been revised to
reflect use of the portable building for food service uses. Please see revised
Draft EIR Section 4.13. The District's finding that there is no excess capacity is
noted, and will be forwarded to the decision makers. Because there is no
development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth al-
lowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no
impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update
EIR. The Draft EIR for the AmendmentNerger incorporates the applicable
General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed in the General Plan.
See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
IBC-2
Current enrollment figures and the District's statement that there is no room
for expansion are noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers.. The
Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projections proposed
by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not be used in the
calculations of school impacts.
HBC3
Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision
makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec-
tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not
be used in the calculations of school impacts.
HBC-4
Current enrollment figures are noted and will be forwarded to the decision
makers. The Draft EIR used actual enrollment from the District. The projec-
tions proposed by the District are not actual numbers of students, and will not
be used in the calculations of school impacts.
HBC S
Shifts in educational programming being implemented in the 1996-1997, and
the 1997-1998 school year may have an impact on school capacity, as indicated
in the comment. This new State educational program, the Class Size Reduction
Program, does not mandate that local school Districts lower class size. This
optional program includes State funded incentives of$650 per pupil allocated
9/16i964(I:\RSG630\EIRVtESPONSE.DOC» 12
for schools for classes that are reduced to no more than 20 students per teacher
(kindergarten through third grade). The State also passed SB 1789 to fund
facilities needed as a result of the Class Size Reduction Program. This $200
million fund allows local Districts, such as Huntington Beach City School Dis-
trict, to obtain $25,000 per classroom formed as a result of class size reduction.
This $25,000 is to be used for facilities at. the school where the new class is
formed. If any environmental or socioeconomic impacts result from this pro-
gram, it is the responsibility of the District to assess those impacts in an envi-
ronmental review, as required by CEQA
Because of the funding incentives offered by the State, the District may fund
construction of new classrooms or convert other school space for classrooms
on existing school sites, thereby increasing capacity. There is no CEQA require-
ment for the City to be directly involved in issues related to the Class Size
Reduction Program and the facilities needed in this evolving program. How-
ever, because this program is in the process of being implemented over a two
year period, and because of the facilities funding available through the State for
this program, it is premature to determine how the program will affect school
capacity in the future. Likewise, it would be speculative in this EIR to deter-
mine whether, or to what extent, the proposed Amendment/Merger would
affect schools in combination with the Class Size Reduction Program. Because
of the uncertainties involved in implementing the Class Size Reduction Program
and the absence of impacts identified in the Drab EIR related to the proposed
Amendment/Merger, further environmental analysis is not practical or useful,
and is not required by CEQA
HBC-G
Comment OV 5 makes the same legal points as HBC-6. Please see Response to
Comment OV-5,which addresses these issues. I
I
HBC-7
EIR Section 4.13 has been revised to include updated General Plan policies that
apply to school facilities impacts and mitigation, as suggested in the comment.
See Attachment A
I
i
HBC-8
The Draft EIR was prepared for the proposed Amendment/Merger. The District
has several considerations in its effort to optimize use of current facilities,
including modification of education programs, cost considerations, and loss of
playground space issues among many others. This is further compounded by
the Class Size Reduction Program mentioned in Response to Comment HBC-5.
It would be highly speculative to address the multiple combinations of District
responses to increased demand on individual school facilities or districtwide.
Please see Response to Comment HBU-3 for additional discussion.
9/26i96<<I:\ItSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOCO 13
HBC 9
- The effect of this comment is to seek a lower average number of students per
- classroom than the average employed in the Draft EIR. As previously discussed
in Response to Comments HBU-4 and OV-2, the classroom loading capacity
used by the consultant was a conservative estimate, using average classroom
sizes, based on input from each school district, including HBCSD.
Responses to Comments HBU-4 and OV-2 address the classroom loading capac-
ity for other districts. As with these other districts, the City obtained input from
each district in determining capacity, including HBCSD. In preparing the Drab
EIR, the City's consultant surveyed each school district, including HBCSD, to
determine student loading factors and available classroom space. Through
personal communication on Jun 19, 1996, Mr.Jerry Buchanan,Assistant Super-
intendent of Administrative Services, provided the consultant with the District's
loading capacity and the number of classrooms and portable classrooms at each
school. The consultant used a classroom loading factor of 30 students per
classroom to determine capacity based on this input.
Regarding year-round school programs used to increase student capacity at
schools, see Response to Comment HBU-3.
Please see Response to Comments HBU-2, HBU-5, HBU-8, and HBU-12 for a
discussion on cumulative impacts.
The Draft EIR utilizes a reasonable and substantiated average classroom capac-
ity for figuring potential impacts to schools. The comment does not provide
new data or succeed in providing additional information to substantiate the
claim that the Draft EIR should utilize a lower average classroom capacity. The
City will continue to rely on the average capacity figure provided by District
staff, because it continues to believe its assumptions to be well supported and
because of the absence of another feasible method of verifying capacity.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13,Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
HBC-10
Regarding issues of cumulative impacts, see Response to Comment HBC-9.
Please see Response to Comment HBU-6 for a discussion on portable classroom
refurbishment and replacement.
9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOCN 14
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Drab EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
HBC-11
Section 4.13 of the DEIR has been revised to reflect a revised school capacity
calculation for Kettler Elementary School to reflect use of the portable building
for child care use.
Regarding implementation of the State's incentive class reduction program,
please see Response to Comment HBC-5.
Regarding year-round education programs, see Response to Comment HBU-3.
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
HBC-12
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger be-
yond the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/
Merger will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the
General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorpo-
rates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate development analyzed
in the General Plan. See revised Draft EIR Section 4.13, Attachment A to the
Response to Comments.
Future development projects will be subject to separate CEQA scrutiny that will
more specifically analyze project impacts.
9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOCN 15
HBC-13
The issues in this comment are the same as those brought up in Comments
HBU-3 and HBU-4. Please see Responses to Comments HBU-3 and HBU-4.
HBC-14
The issues in the comment are the same as those brought up in HBU-9. Please
see Response to Comment HBU-9.
HBC-15
The statement that"the impact to each of the District's schools is significant" is
a conclusion that appears to be without supporting evidence. Each of the
issues in the comment letter preceding the statement is responded to in the
numbered responses. As indicated in Responses to Comments HBC-8 through
HBC-14, the City's recently updated General Plan acknowledges the citywide
effects of additional students generated by new development and has provided
mitigation, now in the form of General Plan policies. These policies are re-
ported in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13, included in
Attachment A.
The City acknowledges that new development will contribute to facilities bur-
dens that must be faced by the school districts. The City has recently adopted
the updated General Plan, which includes,policies assuring cooperation with
the school districts and providing mitigation to offset impacts. In this light, the
City respectfully disagrees with the comment.
HBC-1G
This comment raises the concern of impacts resulting from cumulative develop-
ment projects, and indicates that each project should mitigate these impacts.
As stated in Responses to Comments HBC-15, HBU-5, HBU-11, and HBU-12,
there is acknowledgment of cumulative citywide school overcrowding impacts
in the City's General Plan. This issue is addressed and mitigated in General
Plan policies included in the Draft EIR and updated in revised EIR Section 4.13,
which are included in Attachment A. See Responses to Comments HBC-15,
HBU-5, HBU-11 and HBU-12 for a full discussion of this issue.
HBC-17
Please see Attachment A and Responses to Comments HBU-12 and HBC-16 for
further discussion.
9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 16
HBC-18
This comment reflects the same opinion included in Comments HBC-15 and
HBC-16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a discus-
sion and response to the issue raised in the comment.
HBC-19
This comment is a summary of previous comments HBC-13, HBC-15, and HBC-
16. Please see Responses to Comments HBC-13, HBC-15 and HBC-16 for a
discussion and response to the issues raised in the comment.
9l26i96<<I:\RSG630\EIRVtESPONSE.DOC» 17
COUNTY OF ORANGE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
AGENCY
CO-1
Comment noted.
CO-2
The Amendment/Merger of the existing projects will have no effect on existing
trail facilities or on-road/off-road bicycle facilities. The Project Description
found in Chapter 3.0 of the Draft EIR states that the primary purposes of the
proposed Amendment/Merger are to amend tax increment revenue limits,
amend the powers of the Redevelopment Agency to pursue property acquisi-
tion, extend the timeframe for Agency indebtedness, expand the list of possible
infrastructure projects, and merge the five existing redevelopment projects.
Table 3 A in the Draft EIR, page 3-8, shows the expanded list of possible infra-
structure projects that may be carried out by the Redevelopment Agency.
Among the items on the list are housing programs, public facility projects,
community development programs, and commercial rehabilitation/
redevelopment projects that would have no affect on trails or bikeways. Devel-
opment within the proposed Amendment/Merger area will still be subject to
policies of the General Plan, which promote the provision of safe and efficient
bicycle circulation through implementation of the City's bicycle plan. The
infrastructure projects to improve and maintain pedestrian, bicycle and vehicu-
lar circulation include: 1) completion of improvement projects already under-
way(various roadways in Oakview Project Area, Center Avenue completion), 2)
completion or improvement of roadway connections (Gothard and Hoover and
the 405 Interstate Highway(I-405) interchange at Huntington Center,widening
of McFadden Avenue/I-405 overpass), and 3) Edinger Avenue alignment project.
Review of each of these potential projects indicates that there will be no nega-
tive effects from these projects on County designated trails or bikeways, and
there would be improvements to citywide pedestrian, bicycle and vehicle facili-
ties resulting from the project.
CO-3
This EIR addresses the proposed Amendment/Merger of five existing redevelop-
ment projects on a program level. This Program EIR does not include specific
information or environmental analysis of the bikeway cited in the comment
because the project is not specifically authorized or environmentally clear in
this EIR. As indicated in EIR Figure 4.1.1, the railroad right-of-way is main-
tained as a distinct land use from McFadden Avenue to Edinger Avenue within
the Merged Project Area. General Plan policy CE 3.1.3 requires reservation of
this right-of-way for future transportation uses such as a transit or bicycle facil-
ity. In addition, bikeways are projects that are permitted in the Merged Plan
and could be funded by the Agency at some time in the future. Should such a
project be proposed, a separate environmental review may be required for that
project, subject to the provisions of CEQA.
926i96<<I:\RSG630\EIR\RESPONSE.DOC» 18
C0 4
- The Draft EIR prepared for the Amendment/Merger is an environmental review
document prepared according to the regulations and guidelines of CEQA. As
such, the Draft EIR considers the Amendment/Merger and the probable envi-
ronmental consequences of that project. The comment suggests that the City
consider a linear recreation corridor along the north-south Southern Pacific
Railroad right-of-way. This comment does not bring up any environmental
issue or new environmental impact related to the project. The comment sug-
gests a new facility for consideration by the City. Because there is no environ-
mental issue or concern raised by the comment, and the issue is a land use
issue outside of the environmental issues required to be addressed in an EIR as
described above, no further response is appropriate or necessary. The com-
ment will be forwarded to the decision makers for their consideration.
CO-5
Comment noted. The proposed Amendment/Merger includes no provisions,
plans or projects that will conflict with this planned bikeway. As with Com-
ments CO-3 and CO-4, there are no environmental issues that are required by
CEQA to be addressed in this response. Please see Responses to Comments
CO-3 and CO-4 for further discussion.
9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\RMPONSE.DOC>> 19
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
AG-1 The comment is an introduction to the comment letter. No response is re-
quired.
AG-2
The comment is a summary of the Draft EIR and introduction to SCAG review
processes. No response is required.
AG-3
The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan
Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are
being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro-
posed Amendment/Merger or the environmental effects of the Amend-
ment/i�lerger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental concerns
or impacts discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, no further response is re-
quired
AG-4
The comment restates the findings of the land use discussion in the Draft EIR.
There is no comment regarding the adequacy of the Draft EIR. Therefore, no
further response is required.
AG-5
The City agrees with the comment. No further response is required.
AG-6
The City agrees with the comment that job creation resulting from the
Amendment/Merger is within the projections included in the General Plan. The
City agrees with the balance of the comment. There are no environmental
concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-7
The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns
brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\,EIR\RESPONSE.DOC>> 20
AG-8
The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns
- brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-9
The comment regarding Newport Beach is noted. There are no environmental
concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-10
Comment noted. The City agrees with the comment. There are no environ-
mental concerns brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-11
The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns
brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-12
The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns
brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-13
The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns
brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-14
The City agrees with the comment. There are no environmental concerns
brought up in the comment. No further response is required.
AG-15
The comment indicates that growth projections used in the City's General Plan
Update program were inconsistent with SCAG projections, but that they are
being addressed in other venues. The comment does not relate to the pro-
posed Amendment/tMerger or the environmental effects of the Amend-
ment/Merger. Further, there is no comment regarding environmental effect
discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, there is no requirement to provide
further response.
9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOO> 21
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, DIVISION OF OIL, GAS,
AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
DOG-1
Comment noted; no response necessary.
926i96<<I:ULSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOC>> 22
ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL
VC-1
Comment noted. The Project Area is heavily urbanized. The proposed
Amendment/i�lerger will not affect large areas of open space typically associated
with field mice and other small mammals. There are no specific development
entitlements or approvals associated with the proposed Amendment/mierger.
Therefore, landscaping is not being proposed as part of the project. The com-
ment will be forwarded to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Agency,
the City agency responsible for carrying out public sponsored landscaping
projects.
VC-2
Comment noted. The Project Area is already urbanized and drainage improve-
ments are in place. However, one of the objectives of the Amendment/Merger
is to maintain and/or upgrade existing drainage improvements. This will fur-
ther the objectives of the Vector Control District to ensure proper drainage
within the Project Area.
9r26/96<<I:\RSG630\EM\RESPONSE.DOCN 23
THE GAS COMPANY
GS-Z
As reported in the Draft EIR, gas service can be provided from existing mains
without significant impact to the environment. No response is necessary.
9/16i96<<I:\,RSG630\,EM\MSPONSE.DOC>' 24
IBoard of Trustees: .
HUNTINGTONBEACH UNION Bonnie Bruce
�. eF Bonnie Castre-
=r C' HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Barbara Johtur
i z
Curt Jon,
Z 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 Michael Simons
O .a,F•a�� C
by 0,5` (714)_964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed-D.,Superintendent of Schools
Oh SCHo�
RECEIVED
August 26, 1996 AUG 2 8 1996
DEPARTMENT OF
Stephen V. Kohler ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Economic Development Department
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Kohler:
As you are aware, the Huntington Beach Union High School District has expressed its interest
in the proposed merger of the five Redevelopment Project Areas, through our response to the
Notice of Preparation, dated May 15, 1996, and our letter regarding the draft Environmental
Impact Report, dated August 1, 1996.
HBU-1
I am now requesting that my letter to Ms. Linda Niles, dated August 1, 1996, be incorporated
into the official record of responses to the redevelopment project merger Draft Environmental
Impact Report. I look forward to further discussions with City staff on this matter.
Sincerely,
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Attachment
he mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and
focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership.
Board of Trustees:
HUNTINGTONBEACH UNION Bonnie Bruce
e HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT B Bonnie a Johnson
z Curt Jones
* Michael Simons
U 10251 Yorktown Avenue •Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999
C714) 964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools
--
August 1, 1996
Ms. Linda Niles
Senior Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Linda:
I appreciate the opportunity City staff gave me to express my concerns about the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) on the proposed merger of the redevelopment project
areas. As you requested, I will try to summarize my concerns in writing so that you can review HBU-1
them with your consultant. My comments concern Section 4.13 - Schools and are keyed to the
first pages in that section where an issue arises. I ask that you consider that comments-made
regarding the analysis of one school would be applicable to all of our schools.
PROJECT EAPACTS
Page 4.13-5: In the third full paragraph on this page, the statement is made that the DEIR
"describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment". While the report
describes some of the options, it does not exhaust the possibilities. For example, the purchase HBU-2
or lease of portable classrooms, remodeling or construction of permanent facilities, and
transportation are all options that are not discussed.
At the end of the same paragraph, there is a statement that the analysis considers "the potential
adverse impacts that could result from those choices" that are offered, but there is no true
discussion of such adverse impacts. For example, the continued reliance on very old portable
classroom space is an implied option; yet there is no discussion of the cost of rehabilitating or HBU-3
replacing those classrooms. Nor is there any recognition of the various problems that arise in
considering year-round operation as an option, although these are well documented. For
example, ensuring that all courses are available on all tracks often results in extra cost for
teachers of courses such as physics, trigonometry, calculus, and Advanced Placement offerings.
HUNTINGTON BEACH HIGH SCHOOL
Page 4-13.6: The DEIR ignores the capacity computations described in our facilities master plan
and adopts a new, simplistic approach of multiplying classrooms by a loading figure. Such an
approach assumes that students fit neatly into groups of 30 and that all classrooms will be used
to house these neat units for 6 periods a day. This approach ignores problems such as physics HBU-4
or chemistry labs that don't have sufficient stations to hold 30 students, or industrial arts
programs that don't attract 180 students a year. Our capacity analysis recognizes that we can
never use 100% of the space.
ie mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and
focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and creative individuals with a capacity for 1PadPr.chin.
In the second full paragraph on this page, there is reference to the new housing units in the
Main-Pier area. Setting aside whether the correct student generation factor was employed, the
DEIR at least acknowledges that some enrollment growth will result from the new housing.
However, the impact of this growth is dismissed since the affected school is alleged to have
capacity. This conclusion assumes that the capacity can and should be dedicated to this HBU-s
developments. The logical outcome of this argument is that, if a school has 100 seats, and 10
new development each generating 100 students are planned, none of them has an impact since
the school's 100 seats can accommodate the students from any one of the developments. It is
this fallacy that leads us to emphasize cumulative impacts when we request that every new
development contribute to mitigation.
OCEAN VIEW HIGH SCHOOL
Our capacity analysis shows that OVHS enrollment currently exceeds the permanent capacity of
the school. The DEIR ignores the need to replace the existing portable classrooms, which are HBU-s
beyond their useful life.
SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
Page 4.13-14: In the first paragraph of this section, it is suggested that the school districts "may
have inadvertently understated actual capacity" and that "[w]hen student capacity is calculated, HBU-7
the student capacity figure increases substantially". As I have already set out above, I think our
method is more accurate than the one used by your consultant.
In the second paragraph of this section the conclusion is drawn that "there appears to be
adequate space available to serve additional students." The paragraph goes on to say "[whhen
a year-round school schedule and increased usage of portable classrooms are considered,
adequate capacity is assured." These conclusions are not justified, given the flawed approach HBU-8
to calculating capacity, the problems associated with year-round schedules, the age of the
portables we currently use, and the cost of new portables.
Page 4.13-15: In the first full paragraph on this page, it is asserted that "[w]ith the exception
of community facility districts for specific developments, no other mitigation measures to meet
increasing school enrollments are possible, pursuant to State law". This assertion overlooks the HBU-9
Mira, Hart and Murrietta cases, as well as the various mitigation agreements in place in the City
of Huntington Beach which have been sanctioned by the City Council.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
In one sentence, the DEIR recognizes that something called cumulative impacts exists and then
denies that the students generated within the project will contribute to a cumulative impact. If HBU-10
cumulative impacts are to be addressed, then every project that generates students,must mitigate
its fair share of those impacts.
GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
I have not checked each of the policies noted here, but believe they are inaccurate based on the ( HBU-11
last one which I am certain is not the finally approved language.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The conclusion that mitigation measures are not warranted ought to be revisited, based on the
Objections raised above.
I HBU-12
2
LEVEL OF EVIPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
We contend that the conclusions in this section are drawn from a faulty analysis and should be
revisited after--we address the objections outlined above.
HBU-13
As I noted at the outset, I have attempted to summarize my concerns. I would be happy to
discuss them further at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Patricia Reid Koch, Ph.D.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
c: Dr. Marc Ecker, Fountain Valley School District
Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Huntington Beach City School District
Dr. James Tarwater, Ocean View School District
Ms. Barbara Winars, Westminster School District
3
�xarp' of Ca llfamia '
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH g
1400 TENTH STREET NO
PETt E WILSON SACRAMENTO 95814 LEE GRISSOM
GCNERWA CIREC`TCR
September 5,. 1996
f
STEPHEN KOHLER
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
2000 MAIN STREET
KUN'TINGTON BENCH, CA 920'48
Sub-'ect : E.EZ ITINGTON BEACF REDEVELOPMENT PRCJECT SCR 9604107S
iDear STEPHEN KOHLER:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named envJ..ronmental
document to selected state agencies for review. The review period
is closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This
letter acknowledges that you have complied wi-th the State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental.
documents, pursuant to the California Environmeatal Quality Act . PR__
Please call at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding
the environmental review process . When contacting the
Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the Eight-digit State
Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly.
Sincerely,
ANTERO A. RiVASPLATA
Chief, St ate - Clearinghouse
- it V 11C:C Vl t.v3ai�.rlc�ivAa• �.......�..--._ l
' •I.d—Srarr 1400 f.•wN.Q_4.G�wro.CA yyt/J 210rJ15400 CHP a-
. i4o)ee't"fhle:,f��sr�nmenrall�r.ctfl.-r•{,tt-rv.fi.+i.�47••+w..F:2.d+.+.4•y•w••Ir•.eet
l.Ad Agency (',If"t tl-A,n4 ^ Canna Person'
SMS t AddM$J.•^Tit Main StrM M rase:C.'141♦ta:i<A3
C,Irf M�r,++•cv+nr..F<'�I:hrsii _ Lp:4t5i� G+ansy'1,7t�t2.
Caunry •anrr - `!i7JJv.a+C:oenm.•r+ry Li ^e.�rwan 4a.. .
e rFt n.+-fern r_rr MyrS.••+:^rM va c,�S•. sn a__rh_rradaentf=^'h^"ndan
f awe sieeo;r�„.rral•..war of str+rh ss..�sxmti+n a �c
A,y,=Sre P'�•�"'t"t'+ern ��1.fade:91_.n r;.W A.yas;e'_y �v
A7aeaaOla!hrcal N1 f:.ar A•.r.li�tiley'Y At SeCGM:,(ta�_Tavp, rvAI ttrn=t:fhal
dlchtn 2 M:ke: Scan Ilwy s'y„i;.�+x+-d Pine•H'rw1y TcTc I�reawj'boa la't—ays.fYas
Alrporb:(IJA'�X.JitivyM v,.a:h,-..f.-:N:M�i1r.vJ S:noob u..�: ••+8�ach r:nr c.aml nrnn.HuntlaKcnn x.a.h U.>a_e+ ti+rti
-..1 Q�.:� ,^mn V1e..�±•n,-i[:r•mrr R'Qnw,nwxr vl+r+cl Q:taict
CEQ.L C Sop ❑Satpr k_,cnOubx urm :1 CPA: ❑tiQl t `xr: ❑).i. Ml aament
p F ly Cam D Fitt(rrax acl l\n),. C LA ❑Fine,Docurs+rwt
O`se>s.prc. O Other O Q-fc F11 ❑Other
Oran Fill O Fume
loc aj Axll,-Type: .
❑General fLn Up ule ❑specdk M. ❑deaone O MJic 0—
r%c'.ewe al PUI%A +d+a+ent L1.cs..ter FUn C pI_. .e 71 R.alvelopnrnt
O General Pbn£:.nenr 7 Planned tin;:7eve100rCMi C Use Per.+++1 ❑Con:ai petniit
O Cs n iri y Ilan t7 s.�st... O L.a+d O''Is opt(i+.6a:iav ad, ❑rlther
isarwi�Fap,T.Map.era)
1 Devslopmrvat T}pe:
iO Residen:iat: UNn Acn. O tVaxrr+dhia— Type VrD .
11 ❑Arrwc: ya0. Aaes R.+ptmes_ O TYan.1..*t+uao. T7;+e
❑Con-- L.Sq.F__AA�re._s&s+at'77-- O M:rdne: mne I ap.
❑tndusiniaL• s4.k_Actys Employers_ C Fc-'.. 7Typ¢e .
❑eata.Aoatel: O was-Trc enenc
C Reerestloual: O Hanrdocve o,_�. Type
Q C)mt+ ny�w•b.vrrr:PI 3Aw+.ndment/2L�•_:
psvi—i Frees Oi.a+._d it Dome t
0Aa thes CMWal 01^.oat 14.;,, udtnw 71 Sdtool✓(In.era t:es Qtt�iyr r2uslitr
C AFnCtdt—I L.++d O F•rat UAd.11ln Haiard O•✓Vd.syssma ❑D.te,wppyV.w.mdacter
Q�A,,Q-tcy p3 ic 0 sewer C.rYM7 dwedartrOUpstlan
A—"At*loivratK.ta+nl Kner+h CSSC41 PCfteC9tnpaci+can,G,•adrnyt vddtik
1IZZ oaual lax poise GeoMh teduaVti;
(?rkaiOwgeAAbaerr*ien P-vrJatior.'F!ous.na W+ne ❑YameMaozrssous land ti'e
rD Lemxrw;clte+ ry 4c Aervicw.t SuUt n Tr..7..`CdeuL,nnn o OCrutnulatr.FReas.+
C Feu! ❑ReavatiuLTsfIC r..]vest tat.an
Yrereaat Lrd Ilr/2wob4;Kiaaers)FtAss 1..'.ee VaAcce
Piro-1 MsalpWae: TTae proposed r.—Vac is an ant-.1—ant end merge oadte the pre adY ad•.ap:.:d Rtde1[{opinent rlanv}reaje�+i .
w.attun the Caq ad Hunruaarvn Teaet:. TTe p:e,•:.+...ty.depend jtede.e eN jyaaicad eYabilsha3 sins dx Inaptioa e!the Nardir>aaan
YeaehtL:dewtelo ent �ayirdvd•iS.ni mr�nse.f:u.srrnetnelbiw+ecAede•eia;+rnentPrgect'1902).Mnd dirRederwa-LaM
Frokct (19n3). Oakie-ap.A.,viapmerit?soi'=t (19rZ). TAX•ezeads R+dc.cbpmeis Pr.;ct r3502) end Use Yorytawn.cake
Rrtta.>saptaert:rM.+_L(1967).-n.pre p—d actions woad ao-laisc the•JLVCd F *d, +F-+ene ho:ra.iwm a rind+r^+ieet alkd the
siuntirp.x:M.J.Redesvbysnett PfCtt[i
Smte C)tarinshntse Caklte.': Mr.Chris B,claLy Project Scut to the tollowint Stitt Agencies
(111 t7 445-U 13
'7 �Y R490orcca StatelCasaaser$yea
Saito R .;cw{kg1 (_ �.� tloatSng _Ocinatl SCPACvs
pr Comet Cort:m CAVEPA
Dept.Review to ASceey _O -� _Coastal COttav ARB
Q t.nlaradu Rvr Bct Gal Wotohlgmt Rd
Agency Ken b.CH / - C miiervacion -SWRCB:Orhtts
q _ FUhlt.t;itvne r -_SWFCR:Delta
SCH COMPLLA.NCE _ ( _arm _Delta hutmdoo
Forestry _SG+RCS: WirOiality
]`arks do P-*,DNp SWRC&wtr illo s
ntase Dote SCHHamber*Gall CoRtneota Reetamatiac �Rcg.WOO I_gr
96o Y/Q7-5 WR _.DTSCJ�C
Iskmerorward late e0neatabidirecllrtotlw -ROES YWAdhCerta:tibat
LeadAt"q BwTnnap Hotta Corrcciioes
_ _Aetmatrties lndependeat Comm
�j� _Clip rr LrwgyCannl
AQMDJAPCD (Rr:wr�s.�y�Q �l(•. CA-=.- /p_ _NAI IC
_TrimPlicoing _ PI1C
Ilwse:F dt]level Sane ken% .0
Hedh a wetraPC State LsnJc t:r mat
Ddrdciaa 1120 Tahoe Rgl Prue
Medkd Waste iCritter:
WIM
WA
A'
September 5, 1996
a = -
V� I
I I Mr. Stephen V. Kohler. Prniect Menam r
Huntin�fon Bear F± Rede.- t A-8.1C-t
i ( 2000 Mlnin Street
4 Wl.rrlir.�A....
f
I
'ram GaFf 'PuojecV Draft Err(for&e Huntington Beach Redevelopment Proiect
+ss K Flare tear Mr. Kohler:
I � (
The Orange County Transportation Authority MrTAI hne nmyi'ML�
° ` I Environmental Im�t Renort for the H�nt;nn*' �
i • a-- .+cicv'N7cTit r1OjCC[
and has the following rllmmont;
I � (
ch'"v spa►, -
CI�TG rw�rr�nt�l) Nr�r�w vw scllftut: UnOugh �me proposed redevelopment
. 'v eques'c that bus iumouts be placed as -the rho,..,.w w,�,s, I �P u�u lints r needed.
TA-1
eaoLt rvcations oT the iumouts would have to be deten-nined when-mare
veiailed pians are available. Please submit detailed maps to OCTA as that►
( become available.
I Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this oroiec_:t. Please feel ftee fo
R qp R&.1 i call me at(714)560-5765 or Bill Batory at 1714)660_5912_
Aaarw.
I G'9907 T I Sinfy.
I i
I i rv�y��.. vutasi
i ransporiation Analyst
I 1
c: Bill Batory, OCTA
I
!( Fly.t•SPUN►m-.umRAx\GR suEv WjmTBEAcmnOEIRNBRv DOC
I '
f
I orate cow.7Traarpmmr mA eorfly
$,',p yo„on M,c.+Street/P.O.ec+ r<t8*/Orarys/Gaykrr*e 82r,13•�58a/(714)�OCTA(ers7j
I
1
1
1
BROWN. O'DONNELL, MILLER, BROWN & DANNIS
ATTO UV M ti'LAW
A MFL5510VAL C01zP0EUl1�ION
a L t7DvwA �torec�Ftoo
bvnt Q AlJ17U _.
.L.n�.ci�c0,G(54te'
J LVMA — TC� 41515i.14111
empty 1 Olan:t
►-x 41515-U-434-
L.. 137,rr+
A.
IN "" September 4, 1996 _359 Via tya,
sLIM 3;
4& _lux cu%=4
1.Geed+ d Td: n vp?7 -6w.
L+ao S.J+n�cR �s 32t?liT3.630#
Josa t.:.
A W01
- v 1.Alsdeyal t7bi2 Alocv Zwc
FM
h+1e F,Zt
W.S=7J
L b7zo I W^�CA7590%
� 4F:IM/603-047L
C.r� OR-..117
lux '&dl►hem
,AM ra:d—I VTA FA SIWLE AND L. S. MAIL
Sae SaI Wo Ta: 310,641-11'-1
la t.ldweliv
1 _ hb Steven Kohler QM teas CA
,4 ccau.aa Project Manager ra/cb:tr77
3�clis�a City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Steet Th:uis s-'l'
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re- DEIR 96-2;
Our file 5400.1.001.6
Dear Mr.Kohler.
We represent the Ocean View School District in regard to its dealings with the City's
Redevelopment Agency. Recently we received your letter stating that the DEIR oa the m=ger
of redevelopment areas is available, and informing us that September 4, 1996 is the end of the
comment period. Ov-1
This letter is to estate the request I left for you in my phone message cf today', for An
ext=ion of time to respond until September 6, 1996. The District hopes that this uffi not be
an inconvenience for your office.
Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
BREON, O'DONNILL,WUER, :
BROWN &.DANhTIS
Priscilla Brown
G:ti W F•CLi-°`iT5+S�OQ�1 D0161ICOf-1Z.l:R 1 S.9 6
BREON, O'DONNELL. MILLER. BROWNl & DAIN?�NITS
AT02N1T5 AT tAW
A MAOFFSS(ONAI.COR.VM: ION
z<:a V ar"z a sm-no.00 accc
grid[.L.tkt Su head-CA 94105
PWcau 413151)r112
6si R U7c`.sn .
Sepietnb%o r5, I996 US0Vh Tejo a
�"n vaarnc iYiz 3n
l+era I.a--hLM —..+
7<t 34137e.aai7
Lwia S.I=rn Zn/maaos
•-
OS-1L A.Matt
(iiudu P.►%dipl i7rii Maao Raid
Ft'.d it,StLq" Sutra f,
Satau CA S33W
Lone D.Rgw�L1s Td ii,Br�'+i79
Cq A B 7aa
Jwc VIA FAC5T _E AND LT. S. M�lft.
to And=cat.
Six Assn Wwma T-310/6YZ•12I)
tun L""`DC Steven V.Kohler
,--.=I �a 4as a
Project Ma �,er Pd•71 AV f7-
st>a`viuciixcu R,zdcyelopnl st Ageacj of ire City of Huntington Beach
MVRY'X&O- C j 'a'Of Hun-dnooz Beach cam,off,c.
2000 iviai.zi Street 7eI a1v/s�s ceo�
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Response to DER on Amendments a^.d Merger of Exw`ting
Redevelopment P.ojrct Areas to Cram the HuufuYgtou Beach
RedevwtopmCnt ploject;
Our file 5400.1.001.6
Dear Mr.Kohler:
The Ocean view School District("District")has asked that our firm respond to the
Draft Environmental.impact Report COO- ")prepared by LSA&Associates,data-d R y 19,
1996 for the Redevelopment Agency of Huntington Beach("Agency"). We have re,,icwed
the report as well as the Draft Redevelopment Plan and Report prepared by Rosenow OV-2
Spevacek Group,Inc.,dated.July 17, 1996 fo:the Agency. Our review of these documents
discloses that the DEIR fails to adequately address the impact oti the District both in terms of
the factual implica ions of the redevelopment mercer and the legal obligations of the Agency.
Facr�1 R yar s
The D£IR asserts chat"the number of additional students resulting from the
Amendmcnt1Mergcr does not exceed any affected school's existing facilities and r z;fies."
(4.13.4.) It claims that if the District's capacity is recalculated using a leading,furor of 34
per classroorn,including portables,then adequate capacity is achi,Vrcd. (4.13.4.) P fo eu ve,
it continues,"When a year round school schedule and increased usage of portable clasarooms OV-3
are considered,adequate capacity is
The DEIR's student capacity chart,Table 4.13.A shows that currently the schools in
the District art at 99%to 100°!o capacity. 'These figures are cased on the District's estimate,
VIA,rAQ LE ANT? U. &MAIL
Steven V.Kohler
Redevelopment Agency of the Ciry of Hu..►*tirg*oa Beach
City of Huntington Beach
September 5, 1996
Page 2
and, as pointed our in the District's,'May 17, 1996 lever,the District calculates that its
capacity will be ove;tnadeacd by 55 students. The DEIR assumes that these figures are
inflated,but gives no facts to demonstrate that is the case. It ignores the fact th-t the.District
cmnot load every classroom at 34 due to programmatic reasons(special education OV-3
classrooms,for example must be loaded at a much smaller rate)and contractual masons.
Average class sites are negotiated with the teachers;the District cannot unilaterally change
them.
In addition,even if the District could add,:ss the capacity problem by adding
portables,how am these to be paid for? The repo does not address this issue,aud,even
worse, speculates that all the Disuict needs to do is go on a year round schedule to solve its
capacity problems.This ignores the practical and financial cost of year round schooling. It is
not a money saving device foi most districts-it requires additional staff and operational cons.
In addition,co«<munity support for the concept is critical. The Diehl completely fails to OV-44
assess the feasibility of any of the measures it suggests.
In short,the DEIR glosses over the factual realities of the redevelopment prroject and
erroneously underestimates the impact on the District.
a 11dent Overcrowding is pin finnvv gnrn ntall Irroact
The DEIR's approach to the Agency's impact on the schools is fimdamentally flawed
by its assumption that school overcrowding is not an environmental impact.(4.13.3) This is
bated on a Court of Appeal decision,Goleta Union School District v.Regents of the
U►iversity of California(1995)37 Ca1,App.4th 1025 ("Goletd'),which,we contend,would
not withstand scrutiny if applied in this case.
First,the case ignores CEQA Guidelines and case law.The Guidcltns5 state at section
1530 that"the environment'includes both natural aad man-made conditions." In Murrieta
Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (1991)229 Cal.App.3d 1212,the court OV-5
held that a school district may properly state a CEQA cause of action where a lead agency
fails to address or provide for adequate mitigation of impacts on schools El Dorado Union
High School District v-City of Placerville (1983) 144 Cal.4pp.3d 123,the court held that an
EIR should address school issues,and consider student enrollment and existing and future
cnroRment capacity. In a related case,Fullerton Joint Union High School District v.Stare
Board of Education(1932)Ca1.3d?79,the court held that a school district reorganization
plan which would require construction of new school fa6lides cited a possibility of
significant envimmuental impact and therefore had to be addressed in as EIR.
VIA FRCSiMMLE ANP U. S. M�TM
Steven V.Kohler
Redevelopment Agency of the City of H,:ntington Bcach
City of Huntington Beach
September S, 1996
Page 3
In addition, th-coun's ruling left in place the position that socio-economic itapa�z
are relevant considerations if they either result from physical impacts or contribute to such
impacts.Ln this case,the construction of nrw housing will create a physic change which
wall overcrowd the District's schools, which in turn is a ctcgative impact on the ability of the
District to provide a sound education for its students. The DEIR ignores this connection.
Finally,CEQA requires that all"reasonably foreseeable"impacts be assessed,and OV-5
impacts on schools resulting from new developm-nt are reasonably foreseeable. (Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn, v.Regents of the University of California(1988)47 Cal. 3d 376)
This basic premise cannot be-ignortd. Thus the District submits that the DEIR fails to
adequately address the impact of the development contemplated under the.Agency's ply on
the District.
Very truly yours,
BREON, O'DONNELL,14I LLnE ,
BROWN&DAItiTNTIS
0 ( Vy lt./
Priscilla Brown
PB:kmd
cc: Jame; R.iarwater,Ed..D.
G.�WP1CLifNISL a09U Q415�3C0431.E?t�.L46
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
O 20451 Craimer Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach.California 92648 (714)964-8888
BOARD OF TRUSTEES B '(E'• ED
September 3, 1996 _.S A. INC.
Brian E.Rechsteiner SEP 0 4 1996
President
Brian Garland Stephen P. Kohler
Clerk Project Manager
Shirley Carey HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Member 2000 Main Street
Robert Mann,Ed.D. Huntington Beach, California 92648
Member
Catherine McGough SUBJECT: Response to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Huntington Beach
Member Redevelopment Project EIR Number 96-2
ADMINISTRATION Dear Mr. Kohler:
Duane A.Dishno.Ed.D. This letter is in response to the Draft EIR 96-2. The comments are limited to Section 4.13
Superintendent Schools. My comments are applicable to all district schools. -
Alan Rasmussen,Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent r �nnel/Educational Table 4.13 A - Schools Serving the Merged Project Area
Services
.erry Buchanan IZy� 'er Middle School (Huntington Beach City School District "HBCSD") - Current
Assistant Superintendent enrollment will be 950 at the start of school on September 4, 1996. The portable classroom
Administrative Services listed is a Food Service kitchen which cannot be used for classroom purposes. A new HBC-1
addition to the school was opened in 1995 to handle the enrollment from the Holly Seacliff
Project. No excess capacity exists for new projects.
Sowers Middle School (HBCSD) - Current enrollment will be 1,190 students at the start I HBC-2
of school on September 4, 1996. There is no room for expansion.
Kettler Element�School (HBCSD)Element�School (HBCSDI - Current enrollment will be 700 on September 4,
1996. The school has 4 portable classrooms,not the 6 listed. One of the portables is used HBC-3
for a N-rMCA Child Care Program.
Smith Elementa�Sch�1�BCSDIElementa�Sch�1�BCSDI - Current enro will 800 on September 4, HBC-4
1996. This school takes most of the new development in the Cityand will not be able to
handle further development.
The capacity at Smith and Kettler and the rest of the K-5 schools will also be further
impacted because of a decision to implement the state program of class size reduction.
District wide,there will be a need for 42 additional classrooms when fully implemented in
the 1997-98 school year. On September 4, 1996, when school starts, the District will
implement class size reduction for the first grade only, which will require an additional 3 HBC-5
classrooms at Smith and 3 classrooms at Kettler. The fust grade implementation effectively
reduces capacity at Smith School by 53 students and 48 students at Kettler. This pattern,
when projected for full implementation effectively reduces the District's capacity at K-5 by
900 students.
"we Are An ,..-
I
I
i
Mr. Stephen Kohler
September 3, 1996
Page 2
Project Impacts 4.13.3 - Pages 4 & 5 -
The analysis focuses on a flawed interpretation of Goleta Union School District v. the I HBC-E
Regents of the University of California. The analysis further fails to note the impact of
Mira,Hart,Murrietta and several other decisions that address the issue of mitigation. The
recently enacted General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach sanctions implementation of ( HBC-7
higher fees.
This section further fails to analyze the adverse impacts that could result from the options
proposed. Year-Round Education has been studied at length by the District because of the NBC-8
cost among other issues. The loss of playground space on already impacted sites has been
discussed at length.
Project Impacts 4.13.3 - Pages 7, 8, 10 & 11
Dwyer Middle School - As addressed earlier, the capacity analysis is flawed. The
consultant should leave the loading of schools to those who will be forced to put teachers
and students in them. The portable cannot be used for a teaching station and the 45
classrooms include computer labs, home economics, drafting, wood shop and physical
education stations. We cannot load every square foot of space every hour of the day. The
District's capacity analysis has been carefully worked out and works for the District and the
community. Dwyer is not on a year round track and community surveys at this time do not HBC-9
support the concept. Even if implemented, it is doubtful that a 25% increase in capacity
can be reached. The school capacity was increased to house students from the Holly
Seacliff Specific Plan area. The expected enrollments from this project utilize the current
unused capacity.. The development within Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier, which Dwyer
serves, will further stretch the ability of the District to serve this area and ignores the
cumulative impacts that every project has on the District's ability to serve students. This
project does have an impact from additional students.
Sowers Middle School - Once again the flawed analysis assumes that the District can use
100% of the space all of the time. Sowers also has portables over 20 years old a-rid leased
portables that must be removed at the end of this school year. The same issues raised in the HBC-1 1
Dwyer analysis apply to Sowers except for Holly Seacliff. There is an impact to Sowers
School from the project.
Kettler Elementary School-Once again the analysis is flawed. Kettler has 4 portables, one
of which is used for child care. The new current enrollment plus class size reduction
wipes out any real or imaginary capacity. The design of the school and its core facilities HBC-1
further limit the capacity. Year Round Education has been discussed and rejected because
of the high cost. The impact to Kettler is significant and the school cannot house students
from the planned project.
Smith Elementary School - Once again the analysis is flawed. Smith shares a 21 acre site
with Dwyer and the District's Maintenance and Operations Facility. If the capacities were HB
as suggested, we could not physically handle the students, let alone find a classroom for
them. Smith has taken the brunt of the new development west of Beach Blvd. and the
Mr. Stephen Kohler
September 3, 1996
Page 3
cumulative impacts are still being felt. Not Counting the 3,000 plus units from the Holly
Seacliff, there are over 300 units with approved tract maps yet to be built that will impact
Smith. Development will continue to overload the school. The impact to Smith School is
significant and the commutative impacts compound the issues.
Other issues not considered by the consultant in doing an independent loading analysis
include:
1. The impact of Special Education- We load these classes at 6-12 student per room
2. RSP Special Education Program- The middle schools each have 3 classrooms and the
elementary schools, 1 classroom. These programs can not be housed in the parking
lots.
3. Technology-Each school has 1 or more computer labs.
Summary of Impacts 4.13 - Pages 14 & 15
The District did not inadvertently understate its actual capacity. The consultant used a HBC-1:
flawed analysis that we have attempted to document. Students do not arrive in nice round
numbers easily divisible by 20 or 30. They do not all show up on the first day of school
and stay for the year. A well rounded program requires special education, GATE,
computers, libraries and child care,none of which were utilized in the consultants analysis.
We don't send students home when we get over 20 or 30,we put them in a classroom even
if it means class sizes are smaller. While we load at 30, our averages are lower. Reducing
to 29.5 adds 4 classrooms. No mention is made of the difficulty of implementing year
round schedules or that most year round programs generate for less than a 25% facility
increase. No mention is made of old portables,or the cost of new portables or the loss of
playground and parking space. When they arrive,where will everyone park?
As mentioned earlier, the report ignores a whole body of law which discusses the issues,
most notably, Mira,Hart and Murrietta. It ignores the fact that the General Plan and three
Huntington Beach Specific Plans sanction additional mitigation. It further ignores a whole HBC-V
series of mitigation agreements that were negotiated with both large and small developers
and then blessed by the City Council.
The impact to each of the District's schools is significant. I HBC-1!
Cumulative Impacts 4.13.5 Page 15
This issue was addressed earlier. Every project must mitigate its share of student impacts
and the discounting of the impact does not lessen its reality. Each school has significant
impact. If 100 homes are added within the District it matters little if it is 1 project of 100 HBC-1E
units, 2 projects of 50 units, 4 projects of 25 units, or 100 individual permits, they will
generate the same number of students.
I,
I
Mr. Stephen Kohler
September 3, 1996
Page 4
General Plan Policies 4.13.5 Page 16
The General Plan should speak for itself. This is an incomplete list of the policies and does I HBC-1
not appear to be accurate.
Mitigation Measures 4.13.6 Page 16
There is significant impact and mitigation should be required. The impact of class size I HBC-1F
reduction increases the lack of adequate facilities and should be addressed.
Level of Impact 4.13.7 Page 16
Since the conclusions were drawn on faulty or inadequate data, the impact on all schools I HBC-1f
should be changed to significant.
Please do not hesitate to call if you need additional information.
Sincerely,
Jerry Buchanan
Assistant Superintendent,Administrative Services
cc: Julie A. Cho. Environmental Analyst,LSA Associates
Linda Niles, Senior Planner, City of Huntington Beach
Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Dr. Mark Ecker, Superintendent,FVSD
Dr. James Tarwater, Superintendent, OVSD
Barbara Winars,Deputy Superintendent, Westminster
I -
U "—r-Y C) F M. RUANE
1 _CTOR.E%V
2 t MATHEWS
3 FtANt Z�-' ES 'PlANhiNG
LOCA-flON:
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 3CO N.FLOWER ST.
PL4NNWG THIRD FLOOR
SANTA ANA.CA
SEP O 41998 MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O.BOX 4048
SANTA '.NA,CA 92702-404S
RECEIVED TE4SPHONE:
(711)634-44s33
FAX*:634.2771
SEP - 5 19S6 bPc:834.4772
Stepaen V. Kohler, project Manager
Huati=,gton Beach Redevelopment Agency DEPAFxTMENT OF
2000 Main street ECONOMIC DEVELOP MENT
Lit�ntingtcn Beach, CA 32648
S'DBJE.'CT: bEIP, to Amend & 1`S6erge Erlsting Redevelopment Project Areas to create
the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project
Dear mr. Kohler:
The above referenced item. is a draft Bnviror..rental Impact Report (DEIR) for the
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The proposed project would merge five
existing non-contigious redevelopment projects (totaling 629 acres) to more CO-1
comprehensively attain the ability to correct blighting conditions, promote
economic development and facilitate the conztruction of affordable housing. The
Countv of orange has reviewed the MIR and offers the following comments
regarding recreaz'.ion and open space:
1. Section XV. R.ECREATION should addresl3 recreational programs, inclua'ng
opportunities for riding and hiking trail facilities, and ore-road and CO-2
off-road bikeways.
2. The Commuter Bikeways Strategic Plan (CBSP) identifies a regional
Class I (paved off-road) bikeway along the railroad right-of-Dray easterly of
C-othard Street_ The EIR should address thin bikeway, which will connect
Golden Wes+- College, Huntington Center, Old R'orld Center, and Park & Ride CO-3
facilities to residential areas. It will also '•_ink at leasz three of the
five redevelopment areas.
I
3 . It is also suggested the City consider a greenway (linear recreation
corridor) along the railroad right-of-way. Greenways typically include CO-4
bikeways and riding and hiking trails. Greenway corridors are an i.npertact
amenity for cocraunities with redevelopment areas.
Mr. S. Xohler
Page 2
4. The CBSP also identifies a regional Class I bikeway along the west
side of Pacific Coast Highway within the pier section of Redevelopment Area CO-5
#5 .
Thank you for the o:portunity to respond to the DEIR, If you have any questions
or Need to contact us, please call Charlotte RarryTan at (714) 834-2522_
Very truly yours, -
1
George Britton, Manager
Pavironmental & Project Planning bivision
RECEIVED
iHERN CALIFORNIA PLIG 26
- August 16, 1996
D�EPAEC DEVELOPUEUT
OF
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
ASSOCIATION of Huntington Beach, CA 92507
GOVERNMENTS
RE: Comments on Draft EIR for Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project - SCAG No. 19600223
Mr. Kohler:
318 West Seventh Street
Thank you for submitting the.Draft EIR for Huntington Beach
izth Floor
Redevelopment Project to SCAG for review and comment. As
Los Angeles,California areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG
90017 3435 assists cities, counties and other agencies-in reviewing projects and
plans for consistency with regional plans. ;
t(213)236-1800
f(213)236.1825 The attached staff comments are meant to provide guidance for
considering the proposed development within the context of our
:.scag.ca.gov
regional goals and policies which are based in part upon state and AG-1
federal mandates, as noted herein. While neither the project sponsor
:.President,:Mayor Pro Ten,Dick Kell,- nor the lead agency is required to undertake the specific actions
-srrt • fin-vice Prendeel =.pern -
_urhseaire Burke,lox Angeles Cnuntysy recommended' by SCAG or other agencies through the
v.ce P—idms: Mayor Bob &..less.
Monroeia • In,mediarc Past President: Intergovernmental Review Process, there are requirements in state and
:r Bob Busmr,Ri.enide
ylmperiat:Sam Slurp.Imperial County federal laws for consistency with regional goals and plans, as noted
�hdlon,D Centro
41... dex Tort 8,,,h—ir<Burke. herein. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments,
:es County• Arid Alarcon-Loa Angeles
please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960.
N+ror rc,Los
Mg<la Eileen Awri,
Bar-.Bob B.rden.Mon,—U•George
Hal Bergson.Los Mgelo•Sue B+uer,
•Martin Braude,tars Angeles•Robert
Ro,sm<ad•!aura Chick.Los Mgeles• Sincerer-,
.ley,Cerritos•Joe D—id=lak.Redon
do
/T
)oug Drumnictod,Long teach•lobo 1
x Angelo•Michael Feuer,Los Aatteks• t
ay.Cal-b--Ruth Galamer,Lars Mget. •� 6
;,reru•Glendale•Ackae Gnidberg,Los
G.A+nd Hudem+n.Ingl--d•Mike V '
r. Los Angeles • Nate Hoiden, Los
Abbe Land,West Holly%ood•earbar, VIVIANE DOCHE-BOULOS
Uhantbr+ David \yen, himdak-
''"^•Preto.Ci 'A--Mark 'o^= Intergovernmental Review
,vne Ptx,Pico
Rrvna•h(uk Ridlq�•
'-Angeles • It.ehard Mond-. Los
Albert Robb.South Care•klareine
pt..•Ray Snnh.win--•Rudy in--
'a Ane t•Z.Wachs.Los Angeles
Los Angeles•Judy Wright,Claremons
�au,h Paudma
Orange: M.n+n Bergeson• Orange
m Bun.Ors A4nwos•An Bmwn.
1nt Dchay.Ness F,ut Beach•Rnhacd
-•Sand m ra Gems,Cn,u Mena-
;yrd,San Cietncnre•B. Per.).Brea
ni--;dc: Bogy Bmter- lt—nide
-• et,,C.hn,w•D„k Kelly,
,endgc.Rnervde• Run
S.. .—dire: Iarry Walker,San
uunry••Jun B+gk/.Tncup nuu Pat
y.ten,GAu+u • Dntd Elde^un.
r,M...u,San&-rnardnu,•G,s
Ch.—Hdis•R„h,,,Nola,,,Upla d
ra:Judy Ll,kd,.&n,nn Cn nq.
... ,,,d oak,•Su,.Dady
.S+„u 1.4
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIR FOR
HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION TO COMMENTS RE: HUNTINGTON BEACH
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT DRAFT EIR
BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is a Program EIR which represents a proposed amendment and merger of five
previously adopted Redevelopment Plans/Projects within the City of Huntington Beach. The five
projects include: Huntington Center Commercial District, Main-Pier, Oakview, Talbert-Beach
and Yorktown-Lake. The actions of combining the original projects into one is necessary to
provide the Redevelopment Agency the ability to expand its financial and statutory authority.
The five projects include a total of 619 acres or about 3.5 percent of the City acreage. The
project will enable the Agency to continue to facilitate: 1) economic development activities, 2)
infrastructure improvements, 3) commercial rehabilitation activities, 4) provision of market rate
and affordable housing opportunities, and 5) provision of housing rehabilitation programs and
elimination of blight.
Redevelopment Acres Existing Land Uses Proposed Land Uses
Project (Assisted by Merged
Project)
AG-2
Huntington Center 160 Retail, Office 530 Single Family
Commercial Commercial (Huntington Homes
Beach Mall) 80 Multiple Family
Units
Oakview 68 General Commercial, Huntington Beach
Medium & High Density Mall Refurbishment
Residential
Talbert-Beach 25 Low, Medium & High 600 Hotel/Time Share
Density Residential, Rooms
General Industrial
Yorktown-Lake 30 Medium Density 260,000 square feet of
Residential, Public Commercial Use
2
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Main-Pier 336 Retail, Tourist, 3,000 square feet of
Recreational, Public, Industrial Use
Residential
Under the Policy Scenario, which SCAG reviewed in 1995, the Huntington Beach
Comprehensive General Plan Update (adopted May 13, 1996) has the potential to allow the
following increases during the period 1990-2010:
18,500 Residential Dwelling Units
3,165,000 Commercial Retail Square Feet
1,570,000 Commercial Office Square Feet
2,505,000 Industrial Square Feet
2,200 Rooms for Overnight Accommodations
II. INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS
The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is the
Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into three categories:
core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management, Regional Mobility (being a summary of AG-2
the 1994 Regional Mobility Element), .policies in the Air Quality chapter, along with the
Hazardous Waste Management and Water Quality chapters constitute the core chapters. These
core chapters respond directly to federal and state planning requirements'. The core chapters
constitute the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable
regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain both
core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this letter.
Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services,
Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid Waste
Management and portions of the Air Quality chapter. These chapters address important issues
facing the region and may reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not
contain actions or policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and
establish no new mandates or policies for the region.
Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links between
the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG.
' See Endnote.
3
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number and
reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the
project with those policies.
III. CONSISTENCY WITH THE CORE CHAPTERS OF THE REGIONAL
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE
A. The Growth Management Chapter (GMCI includes both core and ancillary policies that are
particularly applicable to this project. The GMC policies relate to the three RCPG goals: to -.
improve the regional standard of living, to maintain the regional quality of life, and to provide
social, political, and cultural equity. To achieve these goals, SCAG encourages the development AG 2
of urban forms that enable individuals to spend less income on housing, minimize public and
private development costs, and that enable the private sector to be more competitive, thereby
strengthening the regional economy. Attaining mobility and clean air goals is also critical in
enhancing the quality of life in the region and can be achieved through the development of urban
forms that accommodate a diversity of lifestyles, that preserve open space and natural resources,
and that are aesthetically pleasing and preserve the character of communities. Lastly, SCAG
encourages the development of urban forms that avoid economic and social polarization-and of
reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation
to the following policies is intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals and does
not infer regional interference with local land use powers.
1. Core Growth Management Policies
3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regional
Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases
of implementation and review.
SCAG staff comments: The GMC contains forecasts of population, housing and
employment growth at the subregional level that are currently anticipated by the public
entities within each of the subregions. As SCAG has designated subregions, the City of
Huntington Beach is located within the Orange County Subregion. In order to foster the AG-3
implementation of this policy, SCAG staff disaggregated the subregional growth
projections to the City level for use by the City of Huntington Beach in the development
of its General Plan, on which the Redevelopment Project is based. However, it should
be noted that SCAG's projections were adopted by the Regional Council as policy at the
regional, county and subregional levels only. The analysis of these projections in the
Draft EIR for the Draft Comprehensive General Plan Update has revealed certain
inconsistencies between the projections used in the General Plan and those obtained from
4
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
SCAG staff. The section of the Draft EIR that addresses population and housing
contained the following discussion:
"SCAG projects the City of Huntington Beach population to increase from 181,519 in
1990 to 205,699 by 2010, or an increase of 13.3 percent ('straight-line' average increase
of 0.67 percent annually). The estimated population growth occurring as a result of full
implementation of the Draft General Plan would represent a 27,771 resident increase
above the SCAG population projected for the year 2010. However, it should be noted
that the population growth figures submitted by Huntington Beach to SCAG have been
revised and SCAG has not yet amended the Regional Comprehensive Plan to reflect the
changes."
Likewise, the Draft EIR addressed the differences between the City's housing projections
and those of the regional plan in this way:
"Both the Policy Plan and Theoretical Buildout of the Land Use-Plan will increase the AG-3
housing stock within the City limits by 18,500 new units by the year 2010. The.total
number of units anticipated or buildout capacity (existing units + estimated future units)
for the City is 92,679. The 92,679 anticipated units exceed SCAG's 2010 housing
forecast of 75,872."
With respect to employment, the-Policy Scenario is estimated to generate 22,413 new
jobs within the City, for a buildout capacity estimate of 82,282 jobs. This compares with
SCAG's unofficial 1994 projection of 89,551 jobs within the City by 2010.
j From this analysis, it is apparent that the inconsistencies in growth projections that have
developed during the plan formulation process are being addressed and that efforts are
j currently underway to resolve these inconsistencies.
The combined redevelopment project does not propose any changes in land use or zoning
designation, or policies that would result in any increase in population within the City
of Huntington Beach. The project will primarily allow for increased funding AG-4
opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial rehabilitation, and assisted
housing projects, which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and
type (i.e. land use) will be consistent with that projected in the General Plan.
3.03 The timing,financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation
systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. ( AG-5
5
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
SCAG staff comments: The City of Huntington Beach and the Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Agency have recognized the need for infrastructure capacity upgrades to
meet the needs of the combined redevelopment project. These agencies have AG-5
programmed the construction of various infrastructure programs to correspond with the
combined Programmed improvements include: storm drainage, street improvements,
library construction, and waterfront improvements.
2. Ancillary Growth Management Policies
3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they
seek to attract and housing prices.
SCAG staff comments: The project does not address the matter of achieving a balance AG-6
between types of jobs and housing projects. Providing empolyment opportunities is a
primary objective of the Amendment/Merger. Job creation will be within the
employment projections outlined in the General Plan. Affordable replacement housing
at all levels must be available within four years of displacement according to City and
Agency policy.
3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on
in construction and make better use of existing facilities.
SCAG staff comments. The design of the Merged Project Area makes maximum
utilization of existing infrastructure(streets, water, sewer and other utilities) and essential AG-7
public services (police, fire, emergency medical, libraries, public health care services,
existing parks and recreational facilities). The City of Huntington Beach has plans to
improve their utility services to the City, which in turn will benefit the Merged Project
Area.
3.08 Encourage subregions to define an economic strategy to maintain the economic vitality
of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other
economic incentives, which support attainment of subregional goals and policies.
SCAG staff comments. The General Plan contains policies designed to provide for the
economic needs of the City's residents including (1) retail shopping opportunities and AG-8
services, (2) local-serving office development, and (3) orderly and controlled industrial
growth. The Project will enable the Redevelopment Agency to finish out the
redevelopment programs begun by the agency by continuing the Agency's financial and
statutory authority to alleviate conditions of blight, revitalize commercial areas, protect
6
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
residential uses and neighborhoods, construct additional public improvements and
facilities, and develop affordable housing. These efforts will benefit both the City of AG-8
Huntington Beach and the Orange County Subregion. _
3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth
in job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions.
L
SCAG staff comments. The City of Newport'Beach is housing rich jobs poor, while the AG-9
Subregion is jobs rich-housing poor. The Project would allow the jobs/housing ratio to
improve at the City level, resulting in a more balanced community.
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions'programs aimed at designing land
uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for roadway expansion,
reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and create opportunities for
residents to walk and bike.
3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions'plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized areas
accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment.
3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points AG-10
along the regional commuter rail, transit systems and activity centers.
{
j3.15 Support local jurisdictions' strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit
oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors.
SCAG staff comments. The General Plan policies demonstrate that the land use policies
of the Plan have been closely correlated with the transit and rail service policies in a
manner that is consistent with the objectives of the GMC.
3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation node corridors,
underutilized infrastructure systems and areas needing recycling and redevelopment.
AG-11
SCAG staff comments. The City's five redevelopment project areas have been merged
in this Project. The objectives of the Merged Project are fully consistent with this
policy, where recycling and redevelopment activities are concerned.
3.17 Support and encourage settlgment patterns which encourage a range of urban densities.
AG-12
SCAG staff comments. The Land Use Element of the General Plan, on which the
7
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
Merged Project is based, adequately provides for a range of urban densities for the City.
3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop
sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and
effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social services,
recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection. AG-13
SCAG staff comments. Policies related to the equitable provision of services have been
adequately reflected in the General Plan, which have been incorporated by reference into
the Merged Project.
B. The Re[Zional Mobility Chapter (RMC) also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain
to the proposed project. This chapter links the goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of
fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy consumption.
promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable
access to residents affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among
the relevant policies in this chapter are the following:
4.01 Promote Transportation Demand Management (TDM)programs along with transit and
ridesharing facilities as a viable and desirable part of the overall mobility program while
recognizing the particular needs of individual subregions.
4.03 Support the extension of TDM program implementation to non-commute trips for public
and private sector activities.
4.04 Support the coordination of land-use and transportation decisions with land-use and AG-14
transportation capacity, taking into account the potential for demand management
strategies to mitigate travel demand if provided for as apart of the entire package.
4.27 Urban form, land-use and site-design policies should include requirements for safe and
convenient non-motorized transportation, including the development of bicycle and-
pedestrian friendly environments near transit.
SCAG staff comments: The Merged Project incorporates several General Plan policies
speak to the need for a Transportation Demand System. The policies highlight the various
strategies which should be pursued including: provision of employee incentives for
utilizing alternative transportation modes, encouragement of flex-time, staggered work
hours, etc., use of multiple-occupancy vehicles for non-work trips, support and
promotion of ridesharing, encouragement of TDM Plans for major new non-residential
8
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
development, and encouragement of technologies which optimize safe traffic flow and
manage traffic congestion. These TDM measures appear to be adequate in view of the
character of development that the Plan seeks to achieve within the City. The City has
also adopted a Transportation Demand Management ordinance, established a Capital
Improvement Program, and a Level of Service Deficiency Plan. The City's TDM AG-14
regulations apply to any discretionary permit for commercial, industrial, institutional, or
other uses that are determined to employ 100 or more persons. The General Plan also
calls for expanded bicycle routes which link with pedestrian trails and bus routes as well
as other cities.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As described above the Draft EIR for Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project appears to
be generally consistent with the pertinent policies and objectives of the Regional Mobility and
Growth Management Chapters of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. However, the AG-15
growth projections proposed by the General Plan differ to some degree with the projections that
resulted from previous consultation efforts between the City and SCAG. Efforts have been
underway to resolve these differences.
9
August 16, 1996
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Roles and Authorities
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency established under
California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, the Association is designated as a Council of
Governments(COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency(RTPA), and a Metropolitan Planning Organization(MPO).
Among its other mandated roles and responsibilities, the Association is:
• Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and mandated to maintain a
continuing,cooperative,and comprehensive transportation planning process resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a
Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to 23 U.S.C. §134(g)-(h), 49 U.S.C. §1607(0-(g) et seq.,23 C.F.R.
§450,and 49 C.F.R. §613. The Association is also the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency,and as such is
responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan(RTP)and Regional Transportation Improvement Program
(RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080.
• Responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use,housing,employment,and transportation
programs,measures,and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health
and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). The Association is also designated under 42 U.S.C. §7504(a)as a Co-Lead Agency for
air quality planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District.
• Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and Programs to the State
Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §7506.
• Responsible, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, for reviewing all Congestion Management Plaits
(CMPs)for consistency with regional transportation plants required by Section 65080 of the Government Code.The Association
must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such programs within the region.
• The authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and
direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review).
• Responsible for reviewing,pursuant to Sections 15125(b)and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines,Environmental Impact Reports
of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans.
• The authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency,pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2)(Section 208
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
• Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment,pursuant to California Government Code Section
65584(a).
• Responsible(along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Barbara County/Cities Area Planning
Council) for preparing the Southern California Hazardous Waste Management Plant pursuant to California Health and Safety
Code Section 25135.3.
xi—e J. ry 19,1995 HAEMPLOYMENf.GP3
10
STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE VALSON,Covornc
DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION ��yy
�L'�
DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, 4
AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
245 WEST BROADWAY,SUITE 475
LONG BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90802-4455
(310)590-5311
TELEFAX(310)590-5301
• j
August 15, 1996 �9
Stephan V. Kohler
Project Manager
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Department of -Economic Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: DEIR for the Huntington Beach- Redevelopment Project
City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange
SCH #96041075
The Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources (Division) appreciates the opportunity to
respond to the comments submitted in the subject DEIR. After
reviewing the document's impact and mitigation measures, the
Division does not have any additional comments to make at this
time.
DOG-1
Please contact R. K. Baker or Edward Santiago in the Long
Beach office, if you have any questions regarding the Division's
laws or regulations, or if any amendments to the existing document
may require additional Division review. Our address and phone
numbers are located in the letterhead above.
Sincerely,
: Richard K. Baker
District Deputy
Orange CountyVector Control District
DISTRICT OFFICE •13001 GARDEN GROVE BLVD., GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643
MAILING ADDRESS . P.O. BOX 87,SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92702
PHONE (714) 971-2421 . FAX(714)9713940
August 5, 1996
GOAD OF TRUSTEES- RECEIVED
PRESIDENT-FLORENCE CAMIJ:ER
VICE-PRESIDENT -LARRY A.HERMAN
SECRETARY-WILLIAM OWA
Mr. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
A : AUG - $ 1996
LFONARD J.LAWICKI EONA Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency -
REA
BKARL H.FANNING 2000 Main Street DEPARTMENT OF
BUENA PARK Huntington Beach, California 92648 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
MICHAEL DAMS
COSTA MESA RE: Vector Control Evaluation for -
WILLIAM BANDARUK
CYPRESS Draft EIR No. 96-2 Huntington Beach
LINCOLN CASTRO
DANA POINT Redevelopment Project
ROBERT D.CARR
FOUNTAIN VALLEY Dear Mr. Kohler:
LAURANN COOK
FULLERTON
GFLORENCE CA
ARDEN GROVEMLEER I have reviewed the above project site and do not anticipate any significant
THOMAS L PETROSINE vector problems.
HUNTINGTON BEACH
ROBERT J.EGAN
IRVINE
ROSEMARY DUGARD Hantavirus associated illness has been confirmed in California and it has been
LAGUNA BEACH
GRANT McCOMBS determined that most of the human cases have been linked to exposure to virus-
LAGUNA HILLS
DR.PHILIP D.HANF infected deer mice, Peromyscus maniculatus, a species found throughout the
LAGUNA NIGUEL
VACANT state. In Orange County, deer mice are common in canyons, foothills, and
LA HABRAcoastal bluffs. Hantavirus infected mice have been collected from several sites in
VACANT
VACANT
LAKE FOREST JEAN D.JAMBON the county. State and local agencies have developed protocol for dealing with
LA PALMA rodents and Hantavirus.
LARRY A.HERMAN
LOS ALAMITOS
VACANT
MISSION VIEJO Risk of Hantavirus infection is low for persons who do not have direct rodent
SYD GORDON
NEWPORT BEACH contact or do not live in dwellings heavily contaminated with rodent droppings.
PEGGY DUCEY VC-1
ORANGE Information on Hantavirus is enclosed.
FRED L.BARRERA
PLACENTIA
SAN MAN Z.�KENRODE During the landscape phase of the project, plants such as Algerian ivy,
CLEMGLENN EDWAD ROY bougainvillea, oleander, palm trees, etc. should be avoided. A list of alternate
SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO
VACANT types of ground cover is enclosed.
SANTA ANA
WILLIAM L BOYNTON
F�K BEACH In addition, after the landscape phase is completed, an effort should be made to
STANTON M°AR„NEZ eradicate rats or ground squirrels that may attempt to reestablish themselves in
TUSTIN
FABIE berms or slopes. These animals can cause erosion damage property, and carry
VILLFABIE KAY COMBS � b �
WILLIAM APARK
M O disease agents such as those tilat cause la-ue.
WILLUIM OLNA _ b p b
WESTMINSTER
FRANK FRY.JR.
YORBA LINDA Also, all project sites should be graded for proper runoff to avoid standing water
JAN HELF
COUNTY OF ORANGE that could breed mosquitoes. Furthermore, off-street drains should be designed
R.PAUL WEBS VC-2
DISTRICT MANAGER to carry runoff water into catch basins, retention basins, or directed toward
GILBERT L CHALLET existing natural drainage.
0'E CC) Thank you for allowing our comments on this project. If you have any questions
0�3'' regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
�.
�C`oNz R0�,�1 Gary'Reynolds
Biologist
GR/cs
Enc.
A vector is any insect or other arthropod,rodent or other animal of public health significance capable of Causing
human discomfort,injury.or capable of harboring or transmitting the causative agents of human disease.
HA..NTAVIRUS INFORMATION SHEET
. .A
.r 11.:.•; • ~~ ,
Xaar<'?mot�•.t.•: ^,.'��.:r�y�l_c:�iac;,v:c%•}.:;.
DEER MICE
Peromyscus maniculatus
Hantavirus associated illnesses have been confirmed in New Mexico,Arizona, Colorado, Texas,
Nevada, California, Louisiana, Washington, Idaho, South Dakota, and North Dakota.
It has been determined that most of the human cases have been linked to exposure to a virus-infected
deer mouse species (Peromyscus maniculatus)that is found throughout the State of California and
has been collected frequently from numerous canyon and foothill localities in Orange County.
Studies continuing since 1993 have shown that there is evidence that the virus currently exists in
approximately 10 percent of the deer mice population in Orange County.
The California Department of Health Services recommends that homes with heavy deer mice
infestations be cleaned thoroughly where deer mice droppings have accumulated. As a precaution,
the droppings should be misted from above with a mixture of one part household bleach to five parts
water and wet to the point of just being damp but not soaked. They should then be cleaned up,placed
in a double plastic bag, and then disposed of. Dry droppings should not be swept or otherwise
handled because of the possibility of dust particles being inhaled;dust masks and rubber gloves are
recommended.
Deer mice should be controlled in cabins and other structures through exclusion,trapping, and use
of approved rodenticides. House mice and rats and their droppings should also be treated with the
,",me precautions.
ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
13001 Garden Grove Boulevard,Garden Grove,CA 92843•Mailing Address: P.O.Box 87,Santa Ana,CA 92702
(714)971-2421 • 1-800-734-2421 1996-N
HANTAVIRUS ILLNESS AND HOW TO AVOID IT
COMMON QUESTIONS AND THEIR ANSWERS
The recent confirmation of eight fatal cases of Hantavirus infection in California has heightened interest in this
disease and how its transmission may be prevented. The purpose of this fact sheet is to provide available information
and to answer common questions.
Q: What is Hantavirus?
A: Hantaviruses are a family of four previously identified viruses found in rodents. These viruses have caused
serious health problems in other parts of the world(mainly the Far East and Scandinavia).
The virus responsible for the recent U.S.deaths is a fifth Hantavirus strain that is apparently unique to North
America. This new strain attacks the lungs,instead of the kidneys as the other strains did,resulting in the disease
termed Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome(ARDS).
Q: How is this virus transmitted?
A: The virus is believed to be principally carried by a common rodent, the deer mouse. This mouse is found
throughout North America and in every California county. Infected rodents shed live virus in saliva,feces,and
urine. Humans are infected when they encounter and inhale aerosolized microscopic particles that contain
dried rodent urine or feces. In other parts of the world,rodent bites have caused human infection with related
Hantaviruses. Insects and mites have not been studied extensively to determine their role in Hantavirus
transmission.
Q: How dangerous is this virus?
A: This strain appears to be extremely dangerous to those who are infected with it. More than half of those known
to be infected by the virus have died. While dangerous to individuals,its means of transmission is so unusual
that most people are very unlikely to encounter the virus; it poses little threat to the general California
population.
Q: Can people infect each other?
A: There is no evidence of human-to-human transmission of Hantaviruses. No one believes the virus will start
an epidemic. No health care workers have been infected while caring for infected patients.
Q: How long does it take to develop symptoms after exposure?
A: Typically one to two weeks,but the range may be as wide as a few days up to six weeks.
Q: What are the symptoms?
A: Typical cases of ARDS initially seem similar to the flu: high fever,muscle aches,cough,and headache. After
several days, respiratory problems worsen rapidly. The lungs fill with fluid and victims die of respiratory
failure.
Q: Is there any treatment?
A: At the moment,it appears there is no generally effective treatment for this Hantavirus. Physicians have been
administering ribavirin, an antiviral drug, experimentally to suspected victims. Too few people have been
treated to draw any conclusions about its effectiveness.
Q: Is Hantavirus disease(ARDS)present in California?
A: Yes. Six Californians have died between 1984 and 1995 from Hantavirus ARDS. All of these people had close
coniact with rodents, including deer mice in California.
Q: Are California deer mice and other rodents infected with Hantavirus?
A: Yes. Twenty counties have records of Sin Nombre Virus(SNV)positive deer mice; 12.2 percent seropositive
statewide. Harvest mice and meadow mice have been found positive for related Hantaviruses that have not been
associated with human disease.
Q: Do rodents in urban areas carry the Hantavirus?
A: Again,very little is known about the extent and distribution of the virus at this time. However,all known cases
of human Hantavirus infection have been acquired in rural locations.
Q: Are deer mice the only animals that carry the disease, and how do I tell deer mice from other mice?
A: Deer mice are the most abundant, widely distributed,and probably the most common carrier of the virus. It
is difficult to properly identify nice. All rodents should be avoided.
Q: What do I do if I am going into.a cabin or rural home with rodent droppings in it?
A: Dwellings with evidence of severe infestation(e.g.,substantial collections of rodent droppings or dead animals
present) should first be aired-out while unoccupied.
Rodent debris should be thoroughly wetted with a household disinfectant or a l to 5 dilution of household
bleach in water to reduce formation of dust aerosols. Debris should then be WIPED UP and placed in double
plastic bags for disposal,together with any cleanup materials such as paper towels,etc. DO NOT use vacuum
cleaners or sweep with brooms,which will create air-borne dust. Use of gloves,dust mist masks,long-sleeved
clothing, and protective eyewear may help prevent personal exposure. Debris and dead animals should be
soaked in disinfectant (e.g., the diluted bleach solution or phenol-based cleaning solution) and buried or
kdisposed of as directed by local health officials. Rodent-proofing measures should be applied to dwellings to
prevent animal entry. Keep children and pets away from the area until it has been disinfected and completely
cleaned.
jQ: What do I do if I find a dead rodent in my house or cabin?
A: Disinfect, remove, and discard it as described above.
Q: Should I set out traps to catch the mice?
A: Mice and rats should not be allowed in buildings. Snap traps (not cage traps) can be used,but direct contact
with the animal'and its droppings should be avoided. Follow the precautions described above. Traps should
be disinfected following use or disposed of with the dead animal. After eliminating rodents from a buildink,
the conditions that attracted them there (e.g., food sources, overstuffed furniture, etc.) should be corrected.
Is it safe to go camping?
Yes, but it is always important to avoid contact with animals, their burrows, nests, and especially their
droppings.
Q: Is it all right to take my pets along on my camping trip?
A: It is always better to leave pets at home or in a kennel for their own safety and yours. If pets must be taken,
they should always be confined or on a leash. Because of the danger of pets acquiring or transmitting other
wildlife-associated diseases to their owners,pets should always be vaccinated for rabies and regularly treated
for fleas (carriers of bubonic plague) and ticks (carriers of Lyme disease and relapsing fever).
Q: What special measures should I take if I do go camping?
A: Avoid areas with high rodent activity (e.g., burrows) or where rodent feces are evident. Store all food in
containers sealed with lids. Do not feed chipmunks or other wild animals. Wear an insect repellent. With
prudent precautions and behavior,undue worry can be avoided. Enjoy your trip.
Q: Are children,pregnant women, and the elderly at higher risk than the general population?
A: The ARDS Hantavirus illness is so rare that a greater susceptibility in these groups cannot be determined.
Proximity to and contact with rodents and their urine and feces appears to be the most important factor in
determining who becomes ill with Hantavirus.
Q: Will the "fume bombs" sold over-the-counter kill the virus?
A: Probably not. The virus is best inactivated by contact with a liquid disinfectant such as diluted household
bleach, as previously described.
Q: Whom should I contact for morn information?
Call your County Health Depari.ment listed in the Government Section at the front of your telephone directory.
If you feel ill and are concerned, contact your personal physician, who will work with your County Health
Department and the State Health Department. Please do not call the State Health Department directly.
(Modified from California Department of Health Services Bulletin)
ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
13001 Garden Grove Boulevard,Garden Grove,CA 92843•Mailing Address: P.O.Box 87,Santa Ana,CA 92702
(714)971-2421 • 1-800-734-2421 1996
PEST CONTROL BULLETIN NO. 49
ALTERNATIVE GROUND COVER TO ALGERIAN IVY
Algerian Ivy, a popular ground cover in Orange County, is known to harbor roof rats. For this reason
the Orange County Vector Control District in cooperation with the California Department of Health,
has developed a list of substitute ground covers not attractive to rats. The list is accompanied by a
brief description of each species named. When purchasing these plants, check with your nurseryman
for more specific information regarding your location.
1. Ajuga, Bronze (Ajuga reptans atropurpurea)
This plant has bronze colored leaves with blue flowers, grows from 2 to 4 inches and is
considered to be a hardy species. Good in sun or shade, planted 6 to 12 inches apart.
2. Giant Ajuga (Ajuga crispa)
A large ajuga plant,this species is very hardy, has metallic colored leaves with blue flowers and
f will grow to 9 inches in height. May be planted in sun or shade, space 12 to 18 inches apart.
I
3. Camomile (Anthemis nobilis)
A deep turf is produced by this plant and it can be mowed. Grows to a 6 inch height if not cut.
Good around stepping stones and walkways. Produces a pleasant fragrance when leaves are
crushed. Plant in sun, 6 to 12 inches.apart-
4. Creeping SpeedweII (Veronica repens)
Dense green leaves with blue spring flowers. This hardy plant grows to a height of 6 inches.
Prefers sun or light shade, plant 12 to 18 inches apart.
5. Creeping Thyme (Thymus serphyllum)
Small, light green leaves with lavender,white or pink flowers. Reaches 4 inches in height,
prefers sunny areas and should be planted at 10 inch intervals.
6. Dichondra (Dichondra repens)
Familiar lawn plant can also be used as ground cover. Grows to 3 inches in height and with-
stands moderate traffic.
7. Germander (Teucrium chamaedrys)
Bright green foliage, resembling mint. Spreads well. Lavender flowers appear in spring.
Prefers sun and warm climate, spreads rapidly. Reaches 10 inches in height and should be-
planted at 10 to 12 inch intervals.
8. Goldmoss Stonecrop
This ground cover is a hardy,succulent evergreen which will do well in sun or shade. They
will grow to 3 inches in height and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart.
9. Hahns Ivy (Hedera helix)
Good ground cover for erosion control. Grows well in sun or shade to a height of 12 inches.
Should be spaced 12 to 18 inches apart
10. Needle Point Ivy
This subspecies of Hahns Ivy has the same characteristics, except the leaves are pointed. Plant
the same as Hahns Ivy.
11. Mondo Grass (Ophiopogon japonicum)
Evergreen and grass-like, this plant will reach 10 inches in height. Plant's appearance improves
with age, and is very hardy. Space 6 to 8 inches apart.
12. Sand Strawberry (Fragaria chiloensis)
Popular ornamental plant in Orange County. Very hardy and rapid spreading. Reaches a height
of 8 inches. Plant 12 to 14 inches apart.
13. Snow-in-Summer (Cerastium tomentosum)
A low spreading perennial with grayish foliage. Does well in hot,'dry areas. Grows to 6 inches
in height and should be spaced 18 to 24 inches apart.
14. Spring Cinquefoil (Potentilla vema)
Has attractive palmate,strawberry-like foliage, dark green in color. Spreads rapidly and
produces a bright yellow flower. Grows to 6 inches in height and should be spaced a foot apart.
Very hardy.
15. Trailing African Daisy (Osteospermum fruticosus)
A good erosion control ground cover, this popular plant blooms through spring and summer. It
will reach a height of 18 inches and is very hardy. Plant 12 to 18 inches apart
16. Wooly Yarrow (Achillea tomentosa)
Olive green foliage, spreads rat; sly and is good for erosion control. Produces yellow flowers
in the spring and is hardy. Grows to 9 inches high and should be planted 6 to 12 inches apart.
ORANGE COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT
13001 GARDEN GROVE BOULEVARD
GARDEN GROVE, CA 92643
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 87, SANTA ANA, CA 92702
(714) 971-2421 • 1 (800) 734-2421
The Gas Company-
Orange Coast Region
RECEIVED
July 31, 1996 AUG - 5 1996
DEPARTMENT OF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Southern California
Gas Company
Attention: kir. Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
bfailing Add",;:
Box 3334
Anaheim,CA
Subject:— DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT No. 96-2 FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 92303-3134
REDEVELMIENT PROJECTS
CThis letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as on
information service. Its intent is to notify you that the Southern Colifornio Gas Company has facilities in the
area where the above named project is proposed. Cos service to the project could be served from existing
moins without any signifiont impact on the environment. The service will be in accordance with the company's
f policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual-
j orrorgements ore made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas
supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is under the
jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas
supply qr the condition under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised
fconditions.
GS-1
Residential (System Area Average) Yearly
Single—family 750 therms/yeor/dwelling unit
Multi—fomily units 475 therms/yeor/dwelling unit
These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas
Company during 1985 and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract or homes will
use these amounts of.energy.
We hove developed several programs which ore available, upon request, to provide assistance in selecting the
most energy efficient appliances or systems for a particulor project. If you desire further information on any
of our energy programs, please contact this office at 1(800)427-2000. for assistance.
i
Sincerely,
Robert S. Worth
Technical Supervisor
KRC
attachment
EIRRES.DOC
ATTACHMENT A
REVISED DRAFT EIR SECTION 4.13
9I26l964iI:\.R5G630\EIRVRESPONSE.DOC>>
4.13 SCHOOLS
4.13.1 EE aSTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Merged Project Area is currently served by one high school district and three
elementary school districts. The Huntington Beach Union High School District
(HBUHSD) includes the entire City of Huntington Beach, as well as portions of
the cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Seal Beach, and Westminster, and
portions of unincorporated territory in Orange County.' The Huntington Beach
City School District (HBCSD), Westminster School District (WSD), and Ocean
View School District (OVSD) also provide educational services to the Merged
Project Area. Figure 4.13.1 identifies the location of the schools that serve the
Merged Project Area. Each site name in Figure 4.13.1 is followed by its school
district designation.
There are no schools located within the Merged Project Area; however, one
elementary school (Oak View Elementary) is located directly adjacent to
Oakview.
High Schools
The HBUHSD operates four high schools serving the Merged Project Area. They
are the Huntington Beach High School,Westminster High School, Marina High
School, and the Ocean View High School. Each facility serves grades 9-12. The
District does not have any schools that are on a year-round schedule. Table
4.13.A provides information on the existing enrollments and capacities for each
of the four high schools that serve the Merged Project Area. The number of
portables indicated is in addition to the number of classrooms identified.
Middle/Elementary Schools
Huntington Beach City School District
The HBCSD has 13 facilities within the City of Huntington Beach, four of which
serve the Merged Project Area. Of the four schools, two are elementary schools
(Kettler Elementary and Smith Elementary) and two are middle schools (Dwyer
Middle and Sowers Middle). The grades served, capacities, and enrollment for
the schools serving the Merged Project Area are listed in Table 4.13.A.
' The school district boundaries were set by the State Department of Edu-
cation prior to the determination of the City boundaries, and were not
changed to coincide with City boundaries.
9/26i96<<I.%RSG630%EIR�SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-1
4
o ^_ 3 Westminster High
Stacey Intermediate Z (HBUHSD)
(WSD) o
SEAL it Clegg Elem. WESTMINSTER
B=ACN I (WSD) A ■
SCLSA
Schroeder Elem.
Y ? i (WSD) o
8 a E S Mc
o FAD DEN
W
z
�[�. /• .DLNGcR .
Marina High I \ k
(HBUHSD) ` ASun View Elem.
' (OVSD)
Spring View Middle Oak VietivElem.
(O VSD) ■ (Nat ui (OVSD)
i v,•
1 , I .�
NrARNcR
Golden View Elem.
2 FGJ`JTAI�i
_ ( (0VSD)A, `:.ALLEY
v Middle
Marine View Mt Mat ■
i I i
(OVSD) SLATER `�5
J Ocean View High ' S�
Hope View Elem. ■ (HBUHSD) '��p
P
1 I
(OVSD) •Mesa Vietiv Middle — TA!EEaT •"C,;
GRANGE (0VSD) �,
•� BOLSA CH!CA
l " o 2
i lso c, —
;- I ELL o 0
0
Huntington Beach
'3 Hi
gh
t
s-
g
(HBUHSD) � .!,•
ORKTC:'!
4 j
A t 1
• . I ► r la7nMj
'
Sm(Hith !e erMtdd1e■ B SDHBCSDJ
`I EE
f l
J
I V Sower
s Middle
o s M dd
1
(HBCSD) lxour:.Pcus
■
LEGEND j
5
City Boundary �KettlerElem.
i Y rY :.:t::. f
(HBCSD)
s �/:tA.uILTCrt
l Redevelopment Areas ly,
r^r f
High School s v:ING
Middle School f COSTA
Elementary School
I f'SSA
_6/19/96(RSG630) Figure 4.13.1
N
LSAO
ScaleV►� Schools Serving the
o.s 1 4.13-2 Redevelopment Protect Area
Table 4.13A-Schools Serving the Merged Project Area
Number of
_ Student Current Rema;n;ng Percentage Classrooms
Name of School Capacity Enrollment Capacity of Capacity (Portables)
High Schools(9-12)
Huntington Beach High School 2,266 2,145 121 95% 80(0)
(HBUHSD)
Ocean View High School(HBUHSD) 1,989 1,640 349 82% 53(16)
Marina High School (HBUHSD) 2,367 2,055 312 87% 75(7)
Westminster High School(HBUHSD)) 2,563 2,322 241 91% 89(0)
Total 91185 8,162 1,023 89%
Middle Schools(6-8)
Mesa View Middle School(OVSD) 740 701 39 95% 24(4)
Spring View Middle School(OVSD) 850 826 24 97% 26(3)
Marine View Middle School(OVSD) 800 703 97 88% 25(7)
Stacey Intermediate School(WSD) 764 709 55 93% 30(1)
Dwyer Middle School(HBCSD) 1,080 870 210 81% 45(0)
Sowers Middle School(HBCSD) 1,110 1,146 (36) 103% 31(10)
Total 5,344 4,955 389 93%
Elementary Schools(K-S)
Oak View Elementary School(OVSD) 617 617 0 100% 19(6)
Sun View Elementary School(OVSD) 470 440 30 94% 15(2)
Hope View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 593 27 96% 23(3)
Golden View Elementary School(OVSD) 620 561 59 90% 22(3)
Clegg Elementary School(WSD) 420 481 (61) 115% 16(2)
Schroeder Elementary School(WSD) 420 449 (29) 107% 15(2)
Kettler Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 686 4 99% 22(3)
Smith Elementary School(HBCSD) 690 770 (80) 112% 23(6)
Total 4,547 4,597 (50) 101%
Source:Huntington Beach City School District,Development Fee Findings Report,March 14, 1996.;Huntington Beach Union
High School District,Development Fee Findings Report, February 27, 1996;personal communication with Ocean View School
District and Westminster School District.
Ocean View School District
9/26/96<<I:\RSG630\EIR`SECT4-13•WPD)� 4.13-3
There are approximately 641 residences within the Merged Project Area served
by the OVSD. The District has six schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of
the six schools, four are elementary schools (Oak View Elementary, Sun View
Elementary, Hope View Elementary, and Golden View Elementary) and two are
middle schools (Mesa View Middle and Spring View Middle). Table 4.13.A-iden-
tifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers.
Westminster School District
There are no residences within the Merged Project Area served by the WSD. The
District has three schools that serve the Merged Project Area. Of the three
schools, two are elementary schools (Clegg Elementary and Schroeder Elemen-
tary) and one is an.intermediate school (Stacey Intermediate). Table 4.13-A
identifies the schools' capacities and enrollment numbers.
4.13.2 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
A significant impact to public schools would occur if the anticipated future
student population generated by the Amendment/iMerger exceeded the antici-
pated capacity of school facilities located within the affected district, and the
overcrowding resulted in some other related physical impact, that caused a
significant effect on the environment.
4.13.3 PROJECT IMPACTS
Based upon Section 15131(a) of CEQA and recent court interpretations, the
analysis of environmental impacts resulting from a project must focus on the
physical effects of the project. For schools, this means that potential classroom
overcrowding and the potential cost of constructing new classrooms are not in
themselves adverse environmental effects. CEQA applies only to activities that
will cause a physical change in the environment. A project's social and eco-
nomic effects can be relevant to an EIR's analysis if they are shown to lead to
physical impacts on the environment.
In response to the claim that increased student enrollment is a significant envi-
ronmental impact, the court in Goleta Union School District v. The Regents of
the University of California noted that in prior court decisions it was the need for
construction of new schools, not increased enrollment or potential overcrowd-
ing,that triggered detailed CEQA review. Student overcrowding is not a change
in the physical environment and, therefore, should not be treated as an impact
on the environment. Increased enrollment can cause a significant environmen-
tal impact under CEQA where a change in physical conditions, such as classroom
or new school construction,will occur. In other words, there must be a chain of
events caused by a project or program that causes a physical change to the
environment. Overcrowding by itself is not an environmental impact. Because
increased enrollment is not an environmental impact, the court held the Regents
had no duty under CEQA to commit additional funds to mitigate student enroll-
ment increases.
9/26/96<<I.%RSG630�En;�SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-4
Recently passed SB1287 amended State law to limit a public agency's ability to
levy fees, charges or dedication against a development project for the construc-
tion or reconstruction of school facilities. Under this amended State law, only
fees that can be established to help finance school facilities are the developer fee
funding, described below, and community facilities district financing.
The current State statutory development fees levied for residential development
is$1.84 per square foot and $0.30 per square foot for commercial development.
The elementary school districts (grades K-8), including HBCSD, OVSD, and WSD,
receive 61 percent of the developer fees. The high school district, HBUHSD,
receives the remaining 39 percent.
This EIR describes the options for responding to increased student enrollment.
This EIR analysis also recognizes that the school district will decide which solu-
tion to implement. It is not the purpose of this document to dictate policy to
the school districts to select a specific implementation program to address needs
created by the students generated by the Amendment/Merger or to suggest that
the districts employ a particular mitigation approach. As the Merged Project Area
is developed and student numbers increase, it is anticipated that the school
districts will make decisions regarding the placement of the students on the basis
of policies then in effect on and current circumstances and options. Each subse-
quent project within the Merged Project Area subject to CEQA will be assessed to
determine whether there is a significant impact on schools. The analysis that
follows concentrates on the predicted student population generated from pro-
jected development within the Amendment/Merger, possible measures that
could be implemented to provide adequate facilities for that population, and the
potential adverse impacts that could result from those choices.
High Schools
Huntington Beach Union High School District
HBUHSD uses a student generation factor of .1159 per dwelling unit. This is
based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average
number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell-
ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten
percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000
square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be
increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in
excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms.
Huntington Beach High School
According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), HBHS has a total
capacity of 2,266 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at
2,145 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 121 students. As
indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at HBHS is 80,
with no portable classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms is
multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular
9/26i96<<I:WG630\EIIt4SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-5
academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity
has a range of 2,400 to 2,640 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 255 to 495 students.
HBHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put HBHS on a year-round track; the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier are within the attendance area of HBHS. There are
no planned residential areas associated with redevelopment actions within
Yorktown-Lake; however, based upon the anticipated redevelopment actions in
Main-Pier, 563 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of
units by the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of
approximately 65 students to HBHS. This addition to HBHS will not signifi-
cantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the
additional students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capac-
ity.
Ocean View High School
According to the District's 1995 Facilities Master Plan (FMP), Ocean View High
School (OVHS) has a total capacity of 1,989 students. The District reports that
current enrollment is at 1,640 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity
for 349 students. As indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent class-
rooms at OVHS is 53,with 16 portable classrooms. When the number of perma-
nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,
which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental
classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,070 to 2,277 students. There-
fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 81 to 288 students.
OVHS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put OVHS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Oakview and Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of OVHS. There are
no planned residential units associated with redevelopment actions within
Oakview; however, based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in Talbert-
Beach,43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of units by
the District's student generation factor of.1159 results in an increase of approxi-
mately five students to OVHS. This addition to OVHS will not significantly affect
the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the additional
students with either method of calculating the school's surplus capacity.
Marina High School
According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Marina High School has a total capacity
of 2,367 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at 2,055 stu-
dents,leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 312 students. As indicated in
the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at MHS is 75,with 7 porta-
9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR�SECT4-13-WPD» 4.13-6
ble classrooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is
multiplied by the classroom loading capacity, which ranges from 33 for regular
academic classrooms to 30 for developmental classes, the total school capacity
has a range of 2,460 to 2,706 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 93 to 339 students.
Marina High School is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District
were to make the decision to put Marina High School on a year-round track, the
school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center;
therefore, no additional students will be generated upon implementation of the
AmendmentMerger. There is no impact to Marina High School from additional
students generated by the project.
Westminster High School
According to the District's 1995 FMP, the Westminster High School has a total
capacity of 2,563 students. The District reports that current enrollment is at
2,322 students, leaving an approximate surplus capacity for 241 students. As
indicated in the FMP, the total number of permanent classrooms at Westminster
High School is 89, with no portable classrooms. When the number of pdi-ma-
nent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity,
which ranges from 33 for regular academic classrooms to 30 for developmental
classes, the total school capacity has a range of 2,670 to 2,937 students. There-
fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 107 to 374 students.
The school is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to
make the decision to put it on a year-round track, the school's total student
capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no existing or planned residential areas within Huntington Center;
therefore,no additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the
Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to Westminster High School from
additional students generated by the project.
Middle Schools
Huntington Beach City School District
The HBCSD uses a student generation factor of.3095 per dwelling unit. This is
based on an average dwelling unit size of 1,600 square feet, with an average
number of three bedrooms. To determine student generation for larger dwell-
ing units, the District recommends an increase of the generation factor by ten
percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in excess of 2,000
square feet and up to 4,100 square feet. The student generation rate should be
increased by 20 percent for each 500 square feet of additional square footage in
excess of 4,500 square feet, to account for additional bedrooms.
9r26i961<I:\RSG630\EIR\,SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-7
Dwyer Middle School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Dwyer Middle School (DMS) has a total capacity of 1,080 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 870 students, leaving an approximate surplus
capacity for 210 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of per-
manent classrooms at DMS is 45,with no portable classrooms. When the num-
ber of permanent classrooms is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of
30 students,the total school capacity increases to 1,350 students. Therefore, the
school's total student capacity would increase by 270 students.
DMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put DMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity :
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no planned residential areas within Yorktown-Lake; therefore,-no
additional students will be generated, upon implementation of the Amend-
ment/Merger. There is no impact to DMS from additional students generated by
the project.
Sowers Middle School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996,Sowers Middle School (SMS) has a total capacity of 1,110 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is at 1,146 students, leaving an approximate capac-
ity deficit of 36 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma-
nent classrooms at SMS is 31,with 10 portable classrooms. When the number of
permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading
capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 1,230 students.
Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students.
SMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A small segment of Main-Pier is within the Sowers Middle School attendance
area; however, this segment is composed of a neighborhood commercial strip.
There are no residential projects included in this area; therefore, no additional
students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementation of
the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SMS from additional student
generated by the project.
Westminster School District
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of Stacey Intermedi-
ate School (SIS), the area is not anticipated to generate additional students to
SIS. Currently, the area does not have any residential areas nor does it propose
any. Therefore, no additional students will be generated by redevelopment
actions upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to
9/26/96«I:\RSG630\EIR\,SECT4-13•WPD>> 4.13-8
SIS from additional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on
the total capacity at SIS is provided below.
Stacey Intermediate School
According to the District, total student capacity at Stacey Intermediate School
(SIS) is 764 students. Currently, SIS has a student enrollment of 709 students,
with a surplus capacity for 55 students. As indicated by the District, the total
number of permanent classrooms at SIS is 30,with 1 portable classroom. When
the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class-
room loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 930 students. There-
fore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 166 students.
SIS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SIS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated,Huntington Center neither has nor proposes any residential
land uses. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area,
resulting in no impact to Stacey Intermediate School.
I
Ocean View School District
OVSD uses a student generation factor of.30 for single family dwelling units and
.04 for multifamily dwelling units.
Mesa View Middle School
According to the District, total student capacity at Mesa View Middle School
(MUMS) is 740 students. Currently, MUMS has a student enrollment of 701
students,with a surplus capacity of 39 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at MUMS is 24, with 4 portable class-
rooms. The District has indicated that new development in the School District
would result in the addition of 55 students to the District's facilities,which they
indicate are at capacity. However,when the number of permanent classrooms
and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 34 students, the
total student capacity is increased to 952 students. Therefore, the school's total
student capacity would increase by 212 students.
MUMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put MUMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Oakview and all of Talbert-Beach are within the attendance area of
MUMS. As stated earlier, redevelopment actions within Oakview will not result
in new housing units. However, based upon anticipated redevelopment in
Talbert-Beach, 43 new housing units are projected. Multiplying the number of
units by the District's student generation factor of.30 results in an increase of
9/26i96«I:VLSG630\EIR�,SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-9
approximately 13 students to MVMS. The addition to MUMS will not significantly
affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate capacity to serve the addi-
tional students using either method of calculating the surplus capacity. There-
fore, the number of students to MUMS resulting from projected development
within Talbert-Beach is incremental and considered less than significant.
Spring View Middle School
According to the District, total student capacity at Spring View Middle School
(SUMS) is 850 students. Currently, SUMS has a student enrollment of 826 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 24 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at SVMS is 26, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
986 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
136 students.
SVMS is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SVMS on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance area of SUMS, the area is
not anticipated to generate any additional students to SUMS. There are no
existing or planned residential areas within this area; therefore, no additional
students will be generated by projected development within the Amend-
ment/Merger. There is no impact to SVMS from additional students generated by
the project.
Elementary Schools
Huntington Beach City School.Distrfct
As identified above, the HBCSD uses a student generation factor of .3095 per
dwelling unit.
Kettler Elementary School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Kettler Elementary School (KES) has a total capacity of 690 stu-
dents. Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 686 students, leaving an approximate
surplus capacity of four students. As indicated by the District, the total number
of permanent classrooms at KES is 22, with 3 portable classrooms. When the
number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom
loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to 750
students,with an available capacity of 64 student spaces.
9/26i96<<I:%MG630�EIR`SECT4-13.VPPD>> 4.13-10
KES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put KES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Main-Pier(the area southeast of 1st Street) is within the attendance
area of Kettler Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in
this part of the area, approximately 350 residential units are expected with the
Waterfront Project. Multiplying the number of units by the District's student
generation factor of.3095 results in an increase of approximately 77 students to
KES. This addition to KES will not significantly affect the school's facilities since
capacity exists to serve 64 of the additional 77 students when the maximum
allowable classroom loading capacity District is used. At most, one additional
portable would be needed at the school, or other arrangements as discussed
earlier in this section would need to be implemented to provide additional
capacity to handle the anticipated growth. Because the overage is a very small
number, 13 students, the impact to KES is considered less than significant.
Smith Elementary School
According to the District's Development Fee Findings Report (DFFR) prepared in
March, 1996, Smith Elementary School has a total capacity of 690 students.
Actual 1995/1996 enrollment is 770 students, leaving an approximate surplus
deficit of 80 students. As indicated by the District, the total number of perma-
nent classrooms at Smith Elementary is 23, with 6 portable classrooms. When
the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the class-
room loading capacity of 30 students, the total school capacity is increased to
&70 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
180 students.
Smith Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were
to make the decision to put Smith Elementary on a year-round track, the
school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
A portion of Main-Pier(the area north west of 1st Street) is within the attendance
area of Smith Elementary. Based upon anticipated redevelopment actions in this
part of the area, approximately 213 residential units are expected (150 with the
Chevron Project and 63 with the Third Block West Project). Multiplying the
number of units by the District's student generation factor of.3095 results in an
increase of 66 students to Smith Elementary. This addition to Smith Elementary
will not significantly affect the school's facilities since adequate capacity exists to
serve the additional students when the maximum allowable classroom loading
capacity specified by the District is used. Therefore,the impact to Smith Elemen-
tary is considered less than significant.
Ivestminster School District
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of both Clegg Ele-
mentary School (CES) and Schroeder Elementary School (SES), Huntington
Center.will not generate any additional students to CES or SES. Currently, the
9/2 6i96«I:\RS G 630E I R\,S ECT4-13-WPD" 4.13-11
I area neither has nor proposes any residential land uses. Therefore, no addi-
tional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon implementa-
tion of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to CES or SES from addi-
tional students generated by the project; however, a discussion on the school's
capacities is provided.
C1eggElementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Clegg Elementary School
(CES) is 420 students. Currently, CES has a student enrollment of 481 students,
with a surplus deficit for 61 students. As indicated by the District, the total
number of permanent classrooms at CES is 16, with 2 portable classrooms.
When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the
classroom loading capacity of 30, the total student capacity is 540 students. .
I Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 120 students.
CES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put CES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated, Huntington Center includes no residential land uses. The
Amendment/Merger proposes no change in land use for Huntington Center.
Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this area, resulting in
no impact to Clegg Elementary School.
Schroeder Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Schroeder Elementary School
Schroeder Elementary is 420 students. Currently, Schroeder Elementary has a
student enrollment of 449 students, with a surplus deficit for 29 students. As
indicated by the District,the total number of permanent classrooms at Schroeder
Elementary is 15,with 2 portable classrooms. When the number of permanent
classrooms and portables is multiplied by the classroom loading capacity of 30,
the total student capacity is 510 students. Therefore, the school's total student
capacity would increase by 90 students.
Schroeder Elementary is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District
were to make the decision to put Schroeder Elementary on a year-round track,
the school's total student capacity would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated, the Amendment/Merger proposes no residential land uses
for Huntington Center. Therefore, no additional students will be generated
from this area, resulting in no impact to Schroeder Elementary School.
Ocean View School District
As identified above, OVSD uses a student generation factor of .30 for single
family dwelling units and .04 for multifamily dwelling units.
9/206<<I:\RSG630\EIR\5ECT4.13•WPD'I 4.13-12
Oak View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Oak View Elementary School
(OVES) is 617 students. Currently, OVES has a student enrollment of 617 stu-
dents, with no surplus student capacity available. As indicated by_the District,
the total number of permanent classrooms at OYES is 19,with 6 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
850 students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by
233 students,resulting in a surplus student capacity.
OVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put OVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
There are no planned residential uses within Oakview; therefore, no additional
students will be generated upon implementation of the Amendment/Merger.
There is no impact to OYES from additional students generated by the project.
Sun View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Sun View Elementary School
(SVES) is 470 students. Currently, SVES has a student enrollment of 440 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 30 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at SVES is 15,with 2 portable classrooms.
When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied by the
classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to 578
students. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 108
students.
SUES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put SVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Although Huntington Center is within the attendance areas of SVES, the area is
not anticipated to generate any additional students to SVES. Currently, the area
does not have any residential land uses,nor does it propose any. Therefore, no
additional students will be generated by redevelopment actions upon imple-
mentation of the Amendment/Merger. There is no impact to SVES from addi-
tional students generated by the project.
Hope View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Hope View Elementary School
(HVES) is 620 students. Currently, HVES has a student enrollment of 593 stu-
dents, with a surplus capacity of 27 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at HVES is 23, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
9/26i96«I..\RSG630\ER;OSECT4-13•WPD" 4.13-13
884. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 264 stu-
dents.
HVES is not on a year-round schedule; however, if the District were to make the
decision to put HVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
Talbert-Beach is within the attendance area of HUES. Based upon the proposed
redevelopment actions in this area, 43 new housing units are projected. Multi-
plying the number of units by the District's student generation factor of .30
results in an increase of approximately 13 students to HVES. This addition to
HUES will not significantly affect the school's facilities, since there is adequate
capacity to serve the additional students with either method of calculating the
school's surplus capacity.
E
Golden View Elementary School
According to the District, total student capacity at Golden View Elementary
School (GVES) is 620 students. Currently, GVES has a student enrollment of 561
students,with a surplus capacity of 59 students. As indicated by the District, the
total number of permanent classrooms at GVES is 22, with 3 portable class-
rooms. When the number of permanent classrooms and portables is multiplied
by the classroom loading capacity of 34, the total student capacity is increased to
850. Therefore, the school's total student capacity would increase by 230 stu-
dents.
GVES is not on a year-round schedule;however,if the District were to make the
decision to put GVES on a year-round track, the school's total student capacity
would increase by approximately 25 percent.
As previously stated,residential land uses associated with redevelopment actions
are not proposed. Therefore, no additional students will be generated from this
area,resulting in no impact to GVES.
Summary of Impacts
In summary,the potential impacts to schools serving the Merged Project Area are
considered less than significant. Table 4.13.A indicates student enrollment
approaching and sometimes exceeding the student capacity at several schools, as
stated by the school districts. However, the districts did not calculate their
potential student capacity by multiplying the number of classrooms and
portables by the classroom loading capacity,and may have inadvertently under-
stated actual capacity. When student capacity is calculated,the student capacity
figure increases substantially.
Based upon this method of calculation, implementation of projected develop-
ment within the Amendment/Merger will not generate students beyond the total
student capacity at any school. Therefore, there appears to be adequate space
available to serve additional students. When a year-round school schedule and
9206<<I.\RSG630�EIR'SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-14
increased usage of portable classrooms are considered, adequate capacity is
assured.
In regard to potential project demands for school facilities, the districts collect
school impacts fees to the maximum amount permitted by law. With the excep-
tion of the establishment of community facility districts for specific develop-
ments, no other mitigation measures to meet increasing school enrollments are
possible,pursuant to State law(SBA 1287). In addition, the districts will receive
Average Daily Attendance financing to fund district teacher salary and other
general education expenses.
Furthermore, school districts will be entitled to a share of the tax increment
revenue generated by the Merged Project. As discussed in the Project Descrip-
tion, Section 3.0, the Amendment/NIerger will amend the Merged Plan as such;
therefore, statutory payments provided by Section 33607.7 will be remitted to
any affected taxing agency with whom the agency has not entered into a pass
through agreement prior to January 1, 1994; the Agency will continue to remit
payments in accordance with such pass through agreement in lieu of statutory
payments. Such statutory and pass through payments are designed to alleviate
any financial burden or detriment that the affected taxing agencies may incur as
a result of the Amendment/Merger.
Because there is no physical impact to any of the schools and because construc-
tion of a new school is not justified, there are no physical consequences that
result from the Amendment/Merger. Impacts to the schools serving the Merged
Project Area are considered less than significant.
4.13.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Although the General Plan Update EIR identifies that a cumulative increase in
the number of students generated would result in cumulative impacts to all of
the school districts and their facilities that serve the City of Huntington Beach,
the number of additional students resulting from projected development within
the Amendment/Merger does not exceed any affected school's existing facilities
and capacities. HBCSD will experience an increase of 143 students as result of
the Amendment/Merger; however, this amount is only slightly higher than the
student growth projections for HBCSDI. Using the maximum allowable class-
room loading capacity specified by HBCSD, the number of students does not
exceed HBCSD's capacity. Therefore,as previously stated, there are no physical
consequences that result from the Amendment/Merger; therefore, there is no
physical impact to any of the schools and construction of a new school or a
portion of a school is not justified. Therefore, there are no cumulative impacts
resulting from the Amendment/Merger.
1 Community Systems Associates, Inc., Development Fee Findings Report,
March 14, 1996.
9F26i96«I:VtsG630\EIRI,SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-15
4.13.5 GENERAL PLAN POLICIES
The General Plan Update EIR identifies several policies contained in the Land
Use Element and the Public Facilities and Public Services Element of the General
! Plan Update that will lessen impacts to the affected school districts. The policies
are listed below:
• Plan and construct public infrastructure and service improvements as
demand necessitates to support the land uses specified in the Land Use
Plan (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Services Ele-
ments of the General Plan) (Policy LU2.1.1).
` Require that the type, amount, and location of development be corre-
lated with the provision of adequate supporting infrastructure and ser-
vices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Ele- .'
ments) (Policy LU2.1.2).
f
• Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate
school facilities (Policy LU2.1.7).
I
• Require that the proposed annexation areas generate a sufficient tax base
! or other revenue base to pay for their required or necessary City services
(Policy LU3.1.4).
'F Require that the infrastructure and service provision to the proposed
annexation areas will not create a burden on existing City services and
infrastructure (Policy LU3.1.5).
• Accommodate the development of parks,sports facilities,schools, librar-
ies, community meeting facilities, religious facilities, and similar
community-serving uses in all residential areas, provided that they are
compatible with adjacent residential uses and subject to review and
approval by the City and other appropriate agencies (Policy LU9.4.1).
• Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint
use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin one another in
order to maximize the use of property, minimize the cost of develop-
ment, and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for
the community(Policy LU 9.43).
• Consider reinstating after-school and summer programs on school play-
grounds and fields (Policy RCS 1.1.7).
• Continue the dialogue between the City of Huntington Beach and the
local school districts regarding the review of measures to alleviate school
overcrowding in some areas and available capacity in schools in other
areas (PolicyPF4.1.1).
• Continue communication and cooperation efforts between City officials
and the local school districts, especially in the areas of population pro-
jections, funding sources, and through annual monitoring of develop-
9/L6/96<<I:\.RSG630\EUI\SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-16
ment activities, in order to promote a better quality of life for existing
and future residents (Policy PF 4.2.1).
• Require new development projects to pay appropriate school impact
fees to the local school districts (Policy PF 4.2.2).
• Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate
school facilities (Policy PF 4.2.3).
• Create, establish, and implement shared responsibility agreements be-
tween the City of Huntington Beach and the local school districts for the
maintenance and operation of properties and facilities where public
recreation activities occur at local school sites (Policy PF 4.33)
• Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A)
and an interior Ldn of 45 dB(A), that all new development of "noise
sensitive"land uses,such as housing, health care facilities, schools, librar-
ies, religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction
mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within
acceptable limits (Policy N 1.2.1).
• Require development that generates increased traffic and subsequent
increases in the ambient noise levels adjacent to noise sensitive land'uses
to provide for appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with the
acceptable limits of the City noise ordinance (Policy N 1.2.5).
Implementation Programs
Development Impacts on Educational Facilities
• Develop a review process that would require that development impacts
be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the school districts
prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to
school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school
district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to
project approval by the permitting City authority (Program I-LU27).
Improve and Upgrade Services and Facilities
• The City will:
j. cooperate with the school districts in formulating plans
and programs to enhance and upgrade the school facili-
ties used by the community for parks, recreation, and
educational purposes;and,
k. expand the communication and dialogue between the
City and the school districts to better understand, coordi-
nate,and effectively utilize limited financial and property
9/26i96<<I:\RSG630\EM\,SECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-17
resources of the City and school districts, in order to max-
imize the improvement and upgrading of school facilities
within the City (Program I-PF2).
I
Fees
a. New development shall be required to contribute fees to
cover the cost of additional facilities and capital improve-
ments in accordance with State Nexus legislation (e.g.
j Governmental Code 65996) and with the needs of each
applicable school district.
b. Continue to require persons requesting building permits
! to pay the appropriate school fees to the local school
districts prior to issuance (Program l--PF3).
Development Review
C. Through the development review process, review com-
ments on development from the school districts (Pro-
gram I-PF 7).
Interagency Coordination
d. The City shall continue to establish meetings with the
local school districts to discuss issues of mutual concern
and interest.
e. The City and the local school districts shall utilize consis-
tent population projections based on existing, new and
proposed development within the City.
f. The City shall meet with local school districts to develop
and implement a shared maintenance and operations
agreement for the: a) use of school facilities for public
recreational activities; and b) use of City parks for educa-
tional purposes (Program I-PF 12).
Feasibility Study
• The City will conduct a study evaluating:
d. the financial advantages and disadvantages to the City and
the community of using closed school sites or operating
school sites for public services (Program I-PF 13).
92"6<<I.WG630\EMR,SECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-18
Funding Sources
• The City shall cooperate and coordinate with the school districts in iden-
tifying and soliciting funding from additional sources to support the
expansion and development of school facilities in order to enhance the
educational opportunities, activities, and programs offered by the school
districts, and to address issues facing the school district which affect the
health,safety, and general welfare of the community (Program I-PF 14).
Development Impacts on Educational Facilities
• Develop a review process that would require that development impacts
be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the school districts
I prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigations to
school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school
district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to
f
project approval by the permitting City authority (Program I-PF 13).
C
I
Special Studies/Reviews
j. Determine each school's recreational and sports field
contribution and determine alternate recreational re-
sources available to the neighborhood in the event of
school closure. In addition, establish alternative recre-
ational options including the leasing and/or acquisition of
school facilities (Program TRCS 7).
Interagency Participation and Coordination
C. The City will work with and coordinate its earthquake
and other emergency response plans with each school
district as the school districts prepare earthquake educa-
tion programs and develop their own earthquake and
other emergency response plans (Program l-EH2).
Emergency Contingency Plans
d. Coordinate with local school districts in the preparation
of emergency contingency plans, including early warning
procedures, evacuation plans, emergency facility and
shelter utilization, and emergency services availability
(Program TEH 13).
4.13.6 MITIGATION MEASURES
Mitigation measures are not warranted.
9/26l96<<I:\RSG630\EIR'�SECT4-13•WPD» 4.13-19
4.13.7 LEVEL OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
In regard to potential project demands of projected development on school
facilities, expected increases in students are consistent with the General Plan
Update. In addition, pursuant to the California Health and Safety Code Sections
33000 et. seq, statutory and pass through.payments to school districts are con-
sidered adequate mitigation for financial burden and detriment incurred as a
result of the AmendmeniMerger. No unavoidable adverse impacts to schools are
expected to result from the project.
With implementation of the General Plan policies identified above, the addi-
tional demands associated with projected development within the school dis-
tricts that serve the City of Huntington Beach will be lessened to a level below
significance.
l
I
i
I
9/26,96<<I.\RSG630\EMECT4-13.WPD» 4.13-20
I
RESOLUTION NO. 9 6-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, CALIFORNIA,MAILING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS
CONCERNING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,MAILING CERTAIN
FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT,AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California(the"City")as
Lead Agency has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report("Final EIR") for the proposed
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project; and
Said Final EIR is a program EIR, as defined by State and local guidelines for the
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"); and
The EIR has been prepared and circulated pursuant to CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines
adopted pursuant thereto; and
A duly noticed public hearing was held by the City Council on August 19, 1996, at which
time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard; and
The Final EIR, which includes the Draft EIR and responses to the concerns raised during
the review period and at the public hearing,has been prepared pursuant to said statute and
guidelines; and
The City Council at its regularly scheduled meeting on October 7, 1996, adopted
Resolution No. 96-63 certifying that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA
and State and local guidelines adopted pursuant thereto; and
The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR
and other documents in the record with respect to the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California as follows:
Secton 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the
proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project will not have any significant effects on the
environment other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR with implementation of
mitigation measures contained in the EIR and included in Attachment"A."
1
r
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds as follows regarding the environmental
impacts of the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project detailed in the Final EIR:
a. That the environmental effects of the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, including those raised in comments on the Draft
EIR,have been considered and recognized by the City Council.
b. That, based on information set forth in Chapter 4.0 of the Final EIR, and in
the Statement of Findings for the proposed Huntington Beach
Redevelopment Project, attached to this Resolution as Attachment"A"
and incorporated herein by reference,the City Council finds and
determines that the proposed Huntington Beach Redevelopment Plan will
not have significant environmental effects on land use,population and
housing, earth resources, water quality, air quality,transportation and
circulation, biological resources,public health(hazards),noise,public
services and utilities, aesthetics, cultural and scientific resources, and
schools, other than those set forth in the General Plan EIR.
C. The City Council also finds and determines that, based on information in
the Air Quality section of Attachment"A,"the proposed Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project may have a potentially significant short-
term construction air quality impact that can be mitigated to acceptable
levels.
d. The City Council also finds and determines that, based on information in
the Cultural Resources section of Attachment"A,"the proposed
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project may have a potentially
significant impact to cultural resources that can be mitigated to acceptable
levels.
e. As to displacement effects that may result from the demolition and new
construction activities associated with implementation of the Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project, identified in Section 4.2 of the Final EIR
and Attachment"A,"the City Council finds and determines that the
mitigation measure identified in the Final EIR and in Attachment"A"will
reduce housing and population effects to acceptable levels.
f. The City Council finds and determines that no additional environmental
effects other than those identified above will have a significant effect or
result in a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the
environment as a result of implementation of the proposed Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project.
I
2
SF/s:PCD:Resolution:EIR-11-4
11/5/96 42
RLS 96-806
I
r
g. The City Council hereby adopts the findings and measures and statements
contained in Exhibits A and B, and hereby incorporates Exhibits A and B
by this resolution.
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that all significant effects
identified in the Final EIR have been reduced to an acceptable level of significance in that:
a. All environmental effects that can feasibly be avoided have been
eliminated or substantially lessened, as determined through the findings
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this Resolution; and
b. Based upon the Final EIR,Attachment"A"and other documents and
information in the record, specific economic, social and other
considerations make infeasible other project alternatives identified in the
Final EIR.
C. The City Council hereby adopts Attachment`B"as its Mitigation
Reporting and Monitoring Program for implementation of the proposed
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project.
d. The City Council hereby adopts Attachment"C"as a Statement of
Overriding Consideration for implementation of the proposed Huntington
Beach Redevelopment Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held this 18th day of November , 1996.
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
� f
City Clerk City Attorney
4ity
EWED AND APPROVED: INITIAAdministrator Dire r con is Development
3
SFATCD:Resoiution:EIR-114
11/5/96 42
RLS 96-806
r
07b
Attachment A
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines states that:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has been
completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects of the project
unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for each of those
significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding."
The possible findings for each significant adverse impact are the following:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Final EIR
(§15091[a]1)
Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes either have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency
(§15091[a]2).
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR (§15091[a]3).
Although the EIR for the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Amendment/Merger(known
hereafter as the Amendment/Merger) identified effects of the project and mitigation measures to
reduce these effects, the project did not result in significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
However, the following text identifies the effects of the project as it relates to each topical
section in the EIR and specifies how the mitigation measures will lessen the effects.
LAND USE
The intent of the Amendment/Merger is to provide a vehicle for the City's
Redevelopment Agency to assist the City in eliminating incompatible land uses and/or
blight, and to promote economic development. The Redevelopment Plan for the
Amendment/Merger designates permitted land uses within the Merged Project Area
consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. Because there is no
development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond the growth allowed by the
j City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger will have no impact beyond the
effects described and mitigated in the General Plan Update EIR. The Draft EIR for the
Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General Plan policies that mitigate
development analyzed in the General Plan. Therefore, there are no significant land use
impacts associated with the proposed Amendment/Merger.
1
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
r
Mitigation Measures
None required.
POPULATION AND HOUSING
The Amendment/Merger does not propose any changes in land use or zoning
designation, or policies that would result in any increases in population within the
Merged Project Area of the City. The project primarily allows for increased funding
opportunities for infrastructure improvements, commercial rehabilitation, and assisted
housing projects, which may facilitate development in the area; however, the scale and
type (i.e., land use)will be consistent with that projected in the City's General Plan.
The Amendment/Merger also facilitates implementation of housing programs in the
Merged Project Area, through financing mechanisms, and promotes the City's housing
goals. It is estimated that the Redevelopment Agency's activities will facilitate 610
dwelling units, which is 0.6 percent of the General Plan build out.
The City must also replace affordable housing units affected by redevelopment
activities; therefore, the proposed Amendment/Merger may result in the displacement of
low and moderate income families and/or loss of affordable housing units within the
Merged Project Area. Redevelopment activities include housing setaside, whereby a
portion of the Redevelopment Agency's tax increment revenue is required by the State
to be set aside into a special fund of the Agency to meet affordable housing needs
within the City. The Agency adopted a relocation plan in conjunction with the
preparation of the five existing Redevelopment Plans, and is also required to adhere to
the State Relocation Law. The Agency is required to replace affordable housing
destroyed or removed as a consequence of a redevelopment project.
One of the primary objectives of the Amendment/Merger is the enhancement of existing
employment opportunities and economic development within the City. Job creation
within the Merged Project will be within the employment projections outlined in the EIR
for the General Plan.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure will lessen the potentially significant effect to housing
and population to a level below significance.
The Agency shall relocate any persons or families of low and moderate income
displaced by a redevelopment project. The Agency shall adopt and implement a
relocation plan pursuant to Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the California
Health and Safety Code. The relocation plan ensures that no families or single
persons of low and moderate income are displaced by a redevelopment project
until there is a suitable housing unit available and ready for occupancy. Such
2
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A
11/5/96-k1
RLS 96-806
housing units shall be available at rents comparable to those at the time of
displacement. Further, housing units for relocation are to be suitable for the
needs of the displaced household, and must be decent, safe, sanitary, and
otherwise standard dwelling. It is the Agency's objective that residents be
relocated with the minimum of hardship.
EARTH RESOURCES
Huntington Center and Main-Pier are located within potential liquefaction zones.
Liquefaction is a construction hazard and may lead to severe settlement, lateral
dislocation, uplift (heaving) of buried structures and possible overturning of buildings.
Although a portion of the Merged Project Area may experience potential liquefaction
effects, the City's standard codes and General Plan policies will adequately mitigate this
impact to a level below significance.
Yorktown-Lake is susceptible to ground rupture impacts due to its location within the
Fault Hazard Zone. The remainder of the Merged Project Area is not within the Fault
Hazard Zone, but all of the Merged Project Area is susceptible to potential ground
shaking effects associated with an earthquake. The City's standard codes and General
Plan policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level below significance.
Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier contain oil fields that are typically locations of subsidence.
Subsidence can cause settlement of engineered structures built above oil fields,
potentially leading to distress to foundations and other structural elements. The City's
standard codes and General Plan policies will adequately mitigate this impact to a level
below significance.
Due to the location of Yorktown-Lake and Main-Pier within a Methane Overlay District,
the likelihood of methane exposure during construction is prominent. Therefore, future
development and redevelopment within these two areas may create exposure to
methane gas.
Mitigation Measures
City and State codes, development review processes, and General Plan policies will
mitigate these potential impacts to a level below significance.
WATER RESOURCES
Redevelopment within the Merged Project Area may increase the amount of urban
runoff and water pollution, including siltation/sedimentation.
3
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
Mitigation Measures
Existing regulations requiring water quality management plans and NPDES permitting
prior to construction reduce potential effects to less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
The Amendment/Merger will not result in any new development that has not been
analyzed as part of the previous Redevelopment Plans or as part of the City's General
Plan. However, future redevelopment within the Merged Project Area will result in short-
term construction and vehicle exhaust emission impacts.
Site clearing, grading, equipment travel on unpaved surfaces, and demolition of existing
improvements may result in an increase of fugitive dust during construction within the
Merged Project Area. In addition, an increase of contaminated soil, dust and other
pollutants may result during grading operations within the Merged Project Area.
Mitigation Measures
Construction Exhaust Emissions
Mitigation for both heavy equipment and vehicle travel is limited. However,
exhaust emissions from construction equipment shall be controlled by the
applicant's contractor in a manner that is consistent with standard mitigation
measures provided within the AQMP, to the extent feasible. The measures to be
implemented are as follows:
Use low emission on-site mobile construction equipment;
Maintain equipment in tune, per manufacturer's specifications;
Use catalytic converters on gasoline powered equipment;
Use reformulated, low-emissions diesel fuel;
Substitute electric and gasoline powered equipment for diesel powered
equipment, where feasible;
Where applicable, do not leave equipment idling for prolonged periods
(i.e., more than five minutes); and
Curtail (cease or reduce) construction during periods of high ambient
pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2 smog alerts).
4
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
I
Uo
The City shall verify use of the above measures during normal construction site
inspections.
Fugitive Dust
The applicant shall implement standard mitigation measures in accordance with
SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403, to control fugitive dust emissions and ensure that
nuisance dust conditions do not occur during construction. These measures may
include the following:
Spread soil binders on site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
Water the site and equipment in the morning and evening;
Reestablish ground cover on the construction site through seeding and
watering;
Phase grading to prevent the susceptibility of large areas to erosion over
extended periods of time;
Schedule activities to minimize the amounts of exposed excavated soil
during and after the end of work periods;
Dispose of surplus excavated material in accordance with local
ordinances and use sound engineering practices;
Restore landscaping and irrigation removed during construction, in
coordination with local public agencies;
Sweep streets on a daily basis if silt is carried over to adjacent public
thoroughfares or occurs as a result of hauling;
Suspend grading operations during high winds in accordance with
Rule 403 requirements;
Wash off trucks leaving site;
Maintain a minimum 12 inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
Cover payloads on haul trucks using tarps or other suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
The application of paints and coatings and asphalt paving material will raise
significant quantities of VOC emissions during their application.
5
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-A
11/5/96-#1
RL.S 96-806
s C��- � `'�
Where feasible, emulsified asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be utilized.
The use of rapid and medium cure cutback asphalt should be avoided
whenever possible.
Where feasible, low VOC paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
precoated materials, shall be specified.
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
In larger areas of both surface and subsurface contamination, a site assessment
will be conducted before any construction takes place at that locale. At locations
where spillage of fluids from the petroleum extraction process has occurred, the
soils will be remediated using appropriate techniques. Removal of petroleum
contamination will also alleviate the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its
attendant odor. These activities would fall under the direction of both local and
State agencies, which would "sign off' on the remediation effort upon completion.
If unforeseen areas of subsurface contamination are encountered during
excavation activities, these activities would be curtailed in this area until the area
could be evaluated and remediated, as appropriate.
Any structures to be demolished will have an asbestos survey performed by
personnel trained and certified in asbestos abatement. Any existing asbestos
will be removed and disposed of in accordance with sound engineering practice
and federal regulations. Implementation of these measures will reduce
potentially significant contamination issues to a level that is less than significant.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The Amendment/Merger maintains the same land use designations and intensities as
the General Plan, and the Amendment/Merger traffic setting and forecasts are the same
as those in the General Plan. Therefore, no circulation impacts are forecast that were
not considered in the General Plan Update EIR.
Mitigation Measures
None required. All development will be subject to General Plan Policies in the General
Plan EIR regarding transportation and circulation.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
No significant impacts to biological resources are identified with the Amendment/Merger.
Minor wetland impacts of development of the waterfront site at PCH and Beach
Boulevard could occur, and a minor increase in human intrusion could occur, but these
are not considered significant.
6
G:S F-96-M isc:Attach-A
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
Mitigation Measures
None required.
PUBLIC HEALTH(HAZARDS)
Future development and redevelopment related to the Amendment/Merger may
incrementally increase exposure to hazardous materials during construction of
operation.
Mitigation Measures
Existing City and State codes and General Plan policies will mitigate potential impacts to
a level below significance.
NOISE
The Amendment/Merger may result in increased construction related noise in the
Merged Project Area.
Mitigation Measures
Existing City codes and General Plan policies will mitigate potential impacts to a level
below significance.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
The Amendment/Merger may result in increased demand on existing public services and
utilities.
Mitigation Measures
Existing General Plan policies limit growth if infrastructure is not available to serve the
increased demand.
AESTHETICS
Future redevelopment projects resulting from the Amendment/Merger may alter existing
views.
7
G:S F-96-M isc:Attach-A
11/5/96-N1
RLS 96-806
Mitigation Measures
City development review processes, design guidelines, and General Plan policies will
reduce impacts to a level below significance.
CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Future projects resulting from the Amendment/Merger may disrupt or impact historical
resources. In addition, future projects within the Merged Project Area may encounter
previously unknown archaeological and paleontological resources.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure will lessen the potentially significant effect to cultural
resources to a level below significance:
Prior to the commencement of new construction that would displace or require
demolition of potentially significant resources, a complete assessment shall be
prepared for any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the present
report within the Merged Project Area. At a minimum, this assessment shall
include the following documentation:
A) A full description of each building including architectural style, roof
design, window design, type of foundation, exterior wall treatments,
special architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white photographs showing one or more facades of
each building.
C) A determination of construction date from existing records, such
as building permit record books on file in the Planning Department at the
City of Huntington Beach. In the event that records cannot be located
for some of the buildings, interviews should be conducted with members
of the local historical society or other individuals who may have relevant
data to share.
D) A competent architectural historian should be consulted prior to
the demolition of any of the potentially historic buildings identified in the
present study. Additional measures may be implemented as a result, if
necessary to prevent an adverse impact.
Should any cultural artifacts, archaeological resources or paleontological
resources be uncovered during grading or excavation, a County of Orange
certified archaeologist or paleontologist shall be contacted by the Community
8
QSF-96-Misc:Attach-A
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
Development Director to: 1) ascertain the significance of the resource, 2)
establish protocol with the City to protect such resources, 3) ascertain the
presence of additional resources, and 4) provide additional monitoring of the site,
if deemed appropriate.
Monitors trained in fossil recognition, fossil recovery and heavy equipment
monitoring shall be on site during grading operations.
A copy of the present report shall be placed in the collection of historic
documents on file at the Huntington Beach Central Library or another suitable
local archive.
SCHOOLS
Because there is no development authorized by the Amendment/Merger beyond
the growth allowed by the City's adopted General Plan, the Amendment/Merger
will have no impact beyond the effects described and mitigated in the General
Plan Update EIR. This will not result in physical impacts on the environment. In
addition, development fees, State financing, and requirements for continued
levels of tax funding for affected school districts lessen potential impacts to a
level below significance.
Mitigation Measures
The Final EIR for the Amendment/Merger incorporates the applicable General
Plan policies regarding potential impacts on schools as analyzed in the
applicable General Plan.
9
G:SF-96-M isc:Attach-A
11/5/96-N1
RLS 96-806
I
Attachment B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PREPARED FOR:
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Economic Development
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Contact: Stephen V. Kohler, Project Manager
(714) 536-5582
or
Linda Niles, Community Planning Department
(714) 536-5271
PREPARED BY.•
LSA Associates, Inc.
One Park Plaza, Suite 500
Irvine, CA 92614
Contact: Robert W. Balen, Principal
(714) 553-0666
LSA Project#RSG630
October 18, 1996
I
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
This mitigation monitoring and reporting program has been prepared in compliance with Public
Resources Code Section 21086.6. It describes the requirements and procedures to be followed by
the City of Huntington Beach to ensure that all mitigation measures adopted as part of the
Amendment/Merger will be carried out as described in the EIR.
Table 1.A lists each of the mitigation measures specified in the EIR, and identifies the party(ies)
responsible for implementation and monitoring of each measure.
1
G:S F-96-Misc:Attach-B
1115/96-#1
RLS 96-806
i
Table 1.A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Requirements
Responsible Party for
Timing for Mitigation
Environmental Topic Mitigation Measure Implementation Monitoring Measure
4.2 Population and 4.2-A The Agency shall relocate any Economic Development Economic Development Prior to the issuance of
Housing persons or families of low and moderate Director(or designee) Director(or designee) any project requiring
income displaced by a redevelopment removal or displacement of
project. The Agency shall adopt and housing.
implement a relocation plan pursuant to
Sections 33410 through 33411.1 of the
California Health and Safety Code. The
relocation plan ensures that no families or
single persons of low and moderate
income are displaced by a redevelopment
project until there is a suitable housing unit
available and ready for occupancy. Such
housing units shall be available at rents
comparable to those at the time of
displacement. Further, housing units for
relocation are to be suitable for the needs
of the displaced household, and must be
decent, safe, sanitary, and otherwise
standard dwelling. It is the Agency's
objective that residents be relocated with
the minimum of hardship.
2
Q SF-96-Misc:Attach-B
11/5/96-H1
RLS 96-806
4.5 Air Quality Construction
Exhaust Emissions
Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
4.5-A Mitigation for both heavy Director(or designee) Development Director any grading or building
equipment and vehicle travel is limited. (or designee) permits associated with the
However, exhaust emissions from Merged Project Area.
construction equipment shall be controlled
by the applicants contractor in a manner
that is consistent with standard mitigation
measures provided within the AQMP, to
the extent feasible. The measures to be
implemented are as follows:
Use low emission on-site
mobile construction equipment;
Maintain equipment in
tune, per manufacturer's specifications;
Use catalytic converters
on gasoline powered equipment;
Use reformulated, low-
emissions diesel fuel;
Substitute electric and
gasoline powered equipment for diesel
powered equipment, where feasible;
Where applicable, do not
leave equipment idling for prolonged
periods (i.e., more than five minutes); and
Curtail (cease or reduce)
construction during periods of high ambient
pollutant concentrations (i.e., Stage 2
smog alerts).
The City shall verify use of the
above measures during normal
construction site inspections.
3
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B
11/5/96-N1
RLS 96-806
Fugitive Dust
4.5-13 The applicant shall implement Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
standard mitigation measures in Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits
accordance with SCAQMD Rules 402 and (or designee) associated with the
403, to control fugitive dust emissions and Merged Project Area.
ensure that nuisance dust conditions do
not occur during construction.These
measures may include the following:
Spread soil binders on
site, unpaved roads, and in parking areas;
Water the site and
equipment in the morning and evening;
Reestablish ground cover
on the construction site through seeding
and watering;
Phase grading to prevent
the susceptibility of large areas to erosion
over extended periods of time;
Schedule activities to
minimize the amounts of exposed
excavated soil during and after the end of
work periods;
Dispose of surplus
excavated material in accordance with
local ordinances and use sound
engineering practices;
Restore landscaping and
irrigation removed during construction, in
coordination with local public agencies;
Sweep streets on a daily
basis if silt is carried over to adjacent
public thoroughfares or occurs as a result
of hauling;
Suspend grading
operations during high winds in .
accordance with Rule 403 requirements;
4
G:SF-96-M isc:Attach-B
11/5/96-M1
RLS 96-806
Wash off trucks leaving
site;
Maintain a minimum 12
inch freeboard ratio on haul trucks; and
Cover payloads on haul
trucks using tarps or other suitable means.
Volatile Organic Emissions
4.5-C The application of paints and Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
coatings and asphalt paving material will Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits
raise significant quantities of VOC (or designee) associated with the
emissions during their application. Merged Project Area.
Where feasible, emulsified
asphalt or asphaltic cement shall be uti-
lized. The use of rapid and medium cure
cutback asphalt should be avoided when-
ever possible.
Where feasible, low VOC
paints, primers, and coatings, as well as
precoated materials, shall be specified.
5
G:SF-96-M isc:Attach-B
11/5/96-Hl
RLS 96-806
Contaminated Soils and Dusts
4.5-D In larger areas of both surface and Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
subsurface contamination, a site Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits
assessment will be conducted before any (or designee) associated with the
construction takes place at that locale. At Merged Project Area.
locations where spillage of fluids from the
petroleum extraction process has
occurred, the soils will be remediated using
appropriate techniques. Removal of
petroleum contamination will also alleviate
the generation of hydrogen sulfide and its
attendant odor. These activities would fall
under the direction of both local and State
agencies, which would "sign off'on the
remediation effort upon completion. If
unforseen areas of subsurface
contamination are encountered during
excavation activities, these activities would
be curtailed in this area until the area could
be evaluated and remediated, as
appropriate.
4.5-E Any structures to be demolished Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
will have an asbestos survey performed by Director(or designee) Development Director building or grading permits
personnel trained and certified in asbestos (or designee) associated with the
abatement. Any existing asbestos will be Merged Project Area.
removed and disposed of in accordance
with sound engineering practice and
federal regulations. Implementation of
these measures will reduce potentially
significant contamination issues to a level
that is less than significant.
6
Q SF-96-Misc:Attach-B
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
4.12 Cultural 4.12-A Prior to the commencement of new Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
Resources construction that would displace or require Director(or designee) Development Director any entire structure
demolition of potentially significant (or designee) demolition, grading or
resources, a complete assessment shall building permit.
be prepared for any of the potentially
historic buildings identified in the present
report within the Merged Project Area. At a
minimum, this assessment shall include
the following documentation:
A) A full description of each
building including architectural style, roof
design, window design, type of foundation,
exterior wall treatments, special
architectural features, etc.
B) Black and white
photographs showing one or more facades
of each building.
C) A determination of
construction date from existing records,
such as building permit record books on
file in the Planning Department at the City
of Huntington Beach. In the event that
records cannot be located for some of the
buildings, interviews should be conducted
with members of the local historical society
or other individuals who may have relevant
data to share.
D) A competent architectural
historian should be consulted prior to the
demolition of any of the potentially historic
buildings identified in the present study.
Additional measures may be implemented
as a result, if necessary to prevent an
adverse impact.
� I
7
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-B
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-80f
4.12-B Should any cultural artifacts, Community Development Community During demolition and
archaeological resources or Director(or designee) Development Director grading associated with
paleontological resources be uncovered (or designee) the Merged Project Area.
during grading or excavation, a County of
Orange certified archaeologist or
paleontologist shall be contacted by the
Community Development Director to: 1)
ascertain the significance of the resource,
2) establish protocol with the City to protect
such resources, 3)ascertain the presence
of additional resources, and 4) provide
additional monitoring of the site, if deemed
appropriate.
4.12-C Monitors trained in fossil Community Development Community During demolition and
recognition, fossil recovery and heavy Director(or designee) Development Director grading associated with
equipment monitoring shall be on site (or designee) the Merged Project Area.
during grading operations.
4.12-D A copy of the present report shall Community Development Community Prior to the issuance of
be placed in the collection of historic Director(or designee) Development Director any demolition, grading, or
documents on file at the Huntington Beach (or designee) building permits associated
Central Library or another suitable local with the Merged Project
archive. Area.
d
8
GM-96-Misc:Attach-B
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
2e S �1G -(cn>
ATTACHMENT C
SUMMARY OF/AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 96-2
In order to make a decision as to whether to approve a project that will have an adverse
environmental impact, the benefits of the proposed project must be balanced against its
unavoidable, significant adverse impacts. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh
the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered
acceptable (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093 (a)). Benefits from a project are
defined as those improvements or gains to the community that would not occur without
the proposed project. The benefits from adopting the Huntington Beach Redevelopment
Project Amendment/Merger are based primarily on the higher quality community
environment that will exist as the Merged Project Area develops and infrastructure
improvements are made according to the Amendment/Merger.
This EIR has identified that the Amendment/Merger may result in significant
unavoidable adverse impacts for two environmental issue areas, regardless of
implementation of the proposed policies and/or mitigation measures. These
environmental issue areas are: air quality and cultural resources. The Agency and the
City Council have balanced the benefits of the proposed Project against the
unavoidable risks identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report and make the
following Statement of Overriding Considerations.
1. The proposed Merged Project will contribute to the creation of a modern,
efficient, and balanced urban environment for people of the Redevelopment
Project Area and surrounding areas and uses, by providing infrastructure
improvements, street and storm drainage systems monitoring and improvements
and economic development activities funded through the Merged Project.
2. The proposed Amendment/Merger will eliminate and prevent the spread of blight
and deterioration, and will conserve, rehabilitate, and redevelop the Merged
Project Area in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan.
3. The proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage the involvement and
participation of residents, business persons, and community organization within
the Project Area in a coordinated revitalization design to meet the diverse needs
of the area.
4. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will improve social and
economic conditions in the entire Merged Project Area by: facilitating the
creation of additional commercial retail development offering easily accessible
neighborhood oriented goods and services; upgrading deteriorating industrial
1
QSF-96-Misc:Attach-C
11/5/96-#I
RLS 96-806
I
and commercial areas by revitalizing existing businesses and generating
additional new development opportunities in a more attractive environment; and
creating additional recreational and library facilities.
5. New development, rehabilitation of existing structures, landscaping, drainage
improvements, and roadway and intersection improvements will improve the
overall aesthetics of the Merged Project Area in accordance with plans, policies
and mechanisms reflected in the City's recently adopted revised General Plan,
such as:
(a) The adoption of land use standards;
(b) The promotion of architectural and urban design standards including:
standards for height; building setback; continuity of street facade; building
materials; security lighting; and appurtenances;
(c) The promotion of landscape criteria and planting program to ensure
additional green space;
(d) The promotion of sign and billboard standards;
(e) Coordination of the provision of high quality public improvements; and
(f) Integration of public safety concerns into planning efforts.
6. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will address conditions of
blight and effective redevelopment in the Merged Project Area.
7. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage private
sector investment in the development and redevelopment of the Merged Project
Area, assist in the revitalization of viable commercial areas, and the development
of a viable business environment that positively relates to adjacent land uses.
8. Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will provide for the stabilization of
currently declining commercial areas by: providing the thrust for revitalizing the
Merged Project Area by occupying vacant buildings and developing on vacant
sites; reactivating underutilized structures; and providing additional employment
opportunities for small businesses.
9. The proposed Amendment/Merger will facilitate the successful elimination of
blight in the Merged Project Area. The proposed Amendment/Merger will
upgrade vacant sites at various key intersections in the Merged Project Area and
improve the area's physical and economic environment by providing consumers
a variety of much needed additional commercial and civic services.
2
QSF-96-Misc:Attach-C
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
10. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will encourage and motivate
owners and business tenants within the Merged Project Area to revitalize and
redevelop their properties.
11. Implementation of the Amendment/Merger will not only benefit the immediate
Merged Project Area, but will have spin-off effects of benefiting surrounding
commercial uses in other parts of the adjacent community. Assistance by the
Agency will stimulate the economic base of the area by motivating commercial
and industrial involvement, and improving overall economic conditions, which in
turn will benefit the community at large.
12. The Amendment/Merger will attain the purposes of the Community
Redevelopment Law through the assemblage of land into parcels suitable for
integrated development, and the planning, redesign and development of areas
that are stagnant or underutilized.
13. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will generate new home
ownership, and property owner investment will be encouraged by the
Amendment/Merger. Property taxes will be used to increase and improve the
supply and quality of low and moderate income housing for all age groups.
14. Development and preservation of sound residential neighborhoods in the
Merged Project Area shall be encouraged by the promotion of residential
property rehabilitation, and implementation of sensitive and well designed infill
housing.
15. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide a basis for the
location and programming of public service facilities and utilities including, but
not limited to, library facilities, street lighting, drainage improvements and
roadway improvements, and coordination of the phasing of public facilities with
private development.
16. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide the public
improvements necessary to eliminate impediments to private investment in the
area.
17. Implementation of the proposed Amendment/Merger will provide a full range of
employment opportunities for persons of all income levels.
18. Through new investment opportunities, the local job force in the community shall
be preserved and expanded. To the extent feasible, developers in the Merged
Project Area will be encouraged to hire at least a portion of the workforce to be
employed at the new developments from within the City of Huntington Beach.
3
&SF-96-Misc:Attach-C
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
19. The development of new businesses in the Merged Project Area will provide
construction jobs and create new employment opportunities by attracting new
employers as tenants, who will, in turn, provide additional employment
opportunities. As new development is stimulated, it is anticipated that additional
employment opportunities will be achieved as new businesses with new
employers/employees replace vacant or underutilized business establishments.
20. New development within the Merged Project Area will provide the City annual
increased revenues from sources such as, but not limited to: property taxes,
commercial property rental taxes, telephone taxes, telephone equipment rental
taxes, electrical taxes, natural gas franchise taxes, sales taxes, retail business
taxes, retail property rental taxes, and liquor and cigarette taxes.
21. New development brought about by the Merged Project will generate an increase
in revenues available to the Agency from tax increments, which can be used to
further goals of the Redevelopment Plan.
22. The proposed Amendment/Merger will coordinate the revitalization effort in the
five existing Redevelopment Project Areas with one coordinated revitalization
effort that will leverage and maximize the effect of other public programs of the
City of Huntington Beach and the metropolitan area.
23. The Merged Project is required by provisions included within it to be consistent
with the City's General Plan. All land uses, infrastructure and public facility
improvements projects, roadway improvement projects, and economic
development actions carried out by the Agency in the Merged Project Area must
be consistent with the Adopted General Plan. As such, the proposed
Amendment/Merger does not allow any economic development activity, physical
improvement, or infrastructure improvement that has not already been
authorized by the General Plan. In adopting a revised and updated General
Plan on May 13, 1996, the City Council made the following findings that also
apply to the proposed Amendment/Merger:
• The General Plan provides for the development of a variety of housing
types to meet the needs of all segments of society by establishing
programs for the provision of affordable housing, the preservation and
improvement of existing housing, and a provision for the development of
housing for people with special needs.
• The General Plan provides for the linkage of new development with
available and expanded infrastructure and services, including streets,
transit, sewers, water, storm drainage, energy, and communication. The
timing of development will be phased with the provision of necessary
infrastructure/service improvements.
4
G:SF-96-Misc:Attach-C
11/5/96-#I
RLS 96-806
I
• The Circulation Element of the General Plan provides policies and
programs designed to provide a transportation network with adequate
capacity to accommodate proposed build out, including mechanisms to
monitor and maintain acceptable traffic conditions.
• The General Plan will ease the potential effects of traffic, equipment,
construction and other noise sources through policies that require the
installation of mitigation measures of many different means to ensure that
noise levels are maintained within City noise standards.
The City of Huntington Beach finds that the unavoidable risks of this project are
acceptable when balanced against the benefits of this project for the reasons set forth
above.
5
G:SF-96-M isc:Attach-C
11/5/96-#1
RLS 96-806
Res. No. 96-100
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18th of November, 1996 by
the following vote:
AYES: Harman, Julien, Dettloff, Bauer, Sullivan,
Green
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Garofalo
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/reso1uti/resbkpg/96-100