Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Atlanta Avenue Widening - MND 09-001 - Mitigated Negative De
1 JENNIFER McGRATH, City Attorney, SBN 179917 SCOTT FIELD, Assistant City Attorney, SBN 105709 2 Box 190, 2000 Main Street 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 TEL (714) 536-5555 4 FAX(714) 374-1590 5 Attorneys for Respondent, 6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF ORANGE, CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER 10 11 PACIFIC MOBILEHOME PARK, LLC, ) CASE NO. 30-2011-00449749 12 a California limited liability company, [JUDGE NANCY WIEBEN STOCK, 13 Petitioner/Plaintiff, DEPT. CX105] ) 14 V. ) 15 ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a ) 16 California Municipal corporation ) and DOES 1-50, ) 17 ) 18 ) Respondent/Defendant. ) 19 ) 20 21 I hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct transcript of the City of Huntington 22 Beach City Council Meeting of January 18, 2011. 23 24 Dated: July 13, 2011 RolAn Lugar, Assistant y Clerk 25 City Of Huntington Beach 26 27 28 Villasenor, Jennifer From: Vllasenor,Jennifer Sent: Thursday, February 24,2011 10:50 AM To: Claudio,Jonathan Subject: Atlanta widening CUP/CDP Attachments: CUP 05-19.doc Hi Jo, I wanted to get back to you regarding the CDP/CUP for Atlanta Ave.Widening. In terms of timeline,I have everything I need to process the application for PC action so placing the item on the agenda would just be a matter of when P.W. would like to go. If you are shooting for a particular month,let me know and I'll send you tentative PC study session and hearing dates. One item that still needs to be resolved is the issue regarding the wall at the property line. As currently proposed,the wall is shown at the new property line with grated tree wells and a 1%foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the wall. Given that P.W.is requesting a CUP to construct this wall in the proposed location at a height and with a retaining wall that would deviate from the standards of the HBZ5O,Planning would like to see how modifications can be made to the proposal to achieve a design that is more consistent with the City's Council-adopted design guidelines(see links below). Perhaps there are areas of the wall where articulation can be incorporated along with some aesthetic enhancements that are called for in the design guidelines. Page 5 of Chapter 203(2"d link)has some examples of the recommended design elements. httpllwww.huntinston beachca.gov/files/users/planning/Chapter%209.pdf http://www.h u ntingto n beachca.gov/fi les/users/pla n n ine/Cha pter%203.pdf If you would like to discuss,please let me know. If you have revisions that you would like Planning to review,please send over to me and I will review right away. I think it's important to resolve this item prior to action on the project and move forward to PC hearing with a recommendation that satisfies both departments. Also,I wanted to provide you with additional entitlement history related to wall requests for the property(see attached). Let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss this information as well. Finally,as you know,the City is being sued on the MND that was prepared for this project. It is probably a good idea to discuss any potential timing issues related to scheduling the project for action with the City Attorney's office and the lawsuit. If you are in agreement,I can facilitate a meeting. Unrelated to the project,I am processing a TTM application for the subdivision of the mobile home park. 1 will be deeming the application complete soon and will likely schedule this for hearing on April 12a'as I have 50 days to process. Let me know if you have any questions on this project. That's it for now. Feel free to call or email me. Thanks Jo. City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department I i I Villasenor, Jennifer From: Claudio,Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, January 26,2011 5:13 PM To: Olmos,Tony; Broussard,Todd; Krause,Tina;Green, Micheal;Villasenor,Jennifer;Vigliotta, Mike Subject: Atlanta Widening-Relocation Meeting Notes Attachments: Relocation Process Meeting 1.26.11.docx Hello all. Please find the attached meeting notes for your reference. If you have any additions or corrections,please let me know and copy all on this email. Thank you "jo i I i i i j 1 i I I i ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING,CC-1319 Relocation Process January 26,2011 9:00—10:00 A.M. BIG PICTURE(Meeting notes in BLUE text) • Internal staff meeting to discuss project goals and overall process (Tony,Todd,Jennifer,Tina,Mike G,and Jo in attendance) • Meet with Caltrans R/W and Local Assistance to get feedback/guidance on process (Jo emailed Caltrans requesting availability to meet within next 2 weeks;Michelle(OPC) to present proposed process for Caltrans feedback and ask procedural questions(e.g., Resolution of future eminent domain passed by Council at beginning of ROW process?; Tina and Jo to represent City at Caltrans meeting) • Meet with owners of 8 affected homes to introduce project team,provide project overview,and develop relationship (Tony would like to meet in early February;Michelle from OPC does NOT recommend that City meet individually with owners;City should invite 8 owners and give general information to the group;Jo will coordinate this effort and Mike G will be available to answer general relocation process questions) o FTIP Amendment approval and Caltrans E-76(ROW)estimated in April 2011 (Other than general meeting w/8 owners, no ROW work to commence until E-76) • Relocation Process - Order Preliminary Title Reports - Interview owners of 8 homes to assess needs and approximate valuation - Develop Relocation Plan(revise as needed after 30-day public review;final plan requires Council approval) (DRAFT plan is sent to City for review before plan is sent to 8 owners and Caltrans for 30-day comment period;FINAL plan w/all comments addressed must be approved by Council) - PW Engineering prepares legal descriptions and plats(Mike G confirmed that more detailed Caltrans ROW Map required only for State Hwy acquisitions) - Appraisals for 8 homes and land to be acquired from PMHP(Suggested advancing appraisal process in OPC schedule so that actual values and comps would be known and incorporated into FINAL Relocation Plan) Negotiate w/8 homeowners and PMHP owner(Relocation of 8 affected owners CANNOT occur until offer made to Park Owner;negotiations w/Park Owner to occur after FINAL Relocation Plan approved by Council) ® Possible Scenarios - Early purchases - Leases and Rent-back(Park policy does not allow sub-leases,all owner-occupied per Ed Pike) - Eminent Domain (can't get too far in approval process or may endanger possibility of eminent domain) - Legal issues (1/27/11 meeting scheduled between Mike V.,Jennifer,Tina,and Jo to discuss owner-occupied legal requirements;early coach purchases;CUP/CDP processing w/rt possibility of future eminent domain process) ® Planning Dept. Process (Jennifer stated that CUP/CDP process had already started and scheduling of Planning Commission meeting could be done relatively quickly;may need DAT or separate meeting w/Planning management to discuss landscaping requirement within City parkway;tentatively looking to go to PC in May 2011,then bringing CUP/CDP and Relocation Plan together to Council in June 2011—assuming PC action is appealed to Council by Park Owner) ® Open discussion (Mike stated it was possible to condemn a TCE for reconstruction of the on-site circulation road;discussion re:on-site landscape maintenance by Park Owner-value of maintenance may be capitalized and included in lump sum payment if negotiations are successful) i I �4 i f I f HART, KIND cSc C® LDREN Boyd L.HHill bhill@hkclaw.com File No.36608.005/4811-8789-7352v.1 February 9, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 374-1557 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Council c/o Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 Notice of Intent to Commence CEQA Action Honorable Members of the City Council: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, under Public Resources Code section 21167.5, Petitioner, Pacific Mobiiehome Park, LLC, intends to file a Petition under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to commence an action against Respondent, City of Huntington Beach, challenging the City's final decision to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 on January 18, 2011. The challenge is based on the City's failure to comply with CEQA requirements to study the entire Project, the City's failure to disclose study and mitigate all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, and the City's failure to prepare an environmental impact report for the Project, which divides an established community. The Petition will seek a writ mandating the City to vacate and set aside Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 and to comply with all CEQA requirements pertaining to Project environmental review and approval. Sincerely yours, HARTf. H KING COLDREN Boyd cc: By E-Mail only to the following: _ Mark Hodgson Gary Hodgson Jim Hodson __ Jennifer Villasenor, City Associate Planner Scott Hess, City Director of Planning and Building Mike Vigliotta; Assistant City Attorney Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www,hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management ❑ ❑ ® ❑ program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources:16) Discussion a&b: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street is designated as a primary arterial in the General Plan Circulation Element and Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH). As defined in the General Plan,the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb,gutter,a bike lane, and 2 through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. The proposed project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its primary arterial designation of the General Plan and MPAH. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue is also an existing Orange County Transit Authority(OCTA)transit route. The current transit activity turning from Huntington Street and stopping on Atlanta Avenue is constrained due to the substandard width of the existing roadway,the tight turning radius at the southeast corner of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street,and the presence of cyclists who share the roadway on this segment of Atlanta Avenue. Widening the roadway to provide 2 eastbound travel lanes and a designated bike lane will help to reduce the impacts of the existing bus stop(located approx. 100 ft. east of Huntington Street)and improve the ability of the roadway to accommodate bus turns. During construction,there may be some vehicle delay during various stages of the project. In addition, construction traffic from truck haul trips and workers entering and exiting the project site would add to the existing traffic conditions. However,project construction would be temporary lasting up to six months and is required to implement a traffic control plan, subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works,during construction to minimize disruption to motorists within the project area. The project would require soil import and export and, at most,would require approximately 345 total haul trips(based on a nine cubic yard truck capacity),which could result in 10—30 truck trips per day depending on the construction schedule. The number of haul trips would be considered in the traffic control plan and measures to reduce air quality would require that the haul trip schedule avoid peak traffic times. The requirement for a traffic control plan as well as the relatively minimal number of daily trips would not result in significant impacts to traffic during construction such that the level of service on Atlanta Avenue and surrounding streets would be impacted. A traffic analysis was prepared for the proposed project by Austin Foust Associates in March,2009. The analysis studied three intersections within or adjacent to the project area:Atlanta Avenue/First Street;Atlanta Avenue/Huntington Street;and Atlanta Avenue/Delaware Street. The intersection of Atlanta Avenue and First Street is currently signalized. The other two study intersections are currently unsignalized. The Atlanta Avenue/Huntington Street intersection is currently being signalized as part of another project while the intersection at Delaware will remain an unsignalized two-way stop-controlled intersection. The study analyzed traffic impacts with and without the project for existing conditions and build-out conditions of the year 2030. The performance criteria used were based on peak hour intersection volumes. Intersection capacity utilization(ICU)values were calculated for each of the AM and PM peak hours. The ICUs represent volume to capacity(V/C)ratios for these time periods and,with their associated level of service(LOS),provide an adequate measure of performance. Page 18 He -567- Item 12. 71 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The analysis concluded that the widening project will improve the performance of the project's study intersections. For instance,without the widening project,the Huntington Street/Atlanta Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F for the year 2030 scenario. With the project,the intersection would operate at LOS A. In addition,the stop-controlled movements at the Delaware Street/Atlanta Avenue intersection would operate at LOS F and experience a significant delay in 2030 without the project. With the project,the intersection would operate at LOS E in the AM peak hour and would still operate at LOS F in the PM peak hour,but experience a substantially reduced delay in both the AM and PM peak hours. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. In addition,the overall traffic operations as a transit corridor will be enhanced with the proposed street widening by minimizing delays and the associated impacts. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either 191 an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources:11) Discussion: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. Although the City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,the project will not result in the development of new structures or buildings that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No impacts would occur. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources:4,16) Discussion: See discussion under e. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources:4,16) Discussion d & e: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. In addition to providing additional vehicular travel lanes,the project will remove an existing"choke point"at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, which will reduce existing traffic hazards and minimize vehicular conflicts,thereby improving emergency access within the project area. The project will also improve the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by constructing a designated bike lane and sidewalk that currently do not exist within the subject segment on the south side of Atlanta Avenue. An existing fire lane and two emergency access gates within the existing mobile home park will be moved and reconstructed in the same location(relative to the property line)within the mobile home park. Atlanta Avenue will remain open during construction and a traffic control plan,which will address emergency access,is required to be implemented during construction. Less than significant impacts would occur. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources:4,16) 191 El Page 19 Item 12. - 72 NB -568- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project does not propose new structures or uses that would generate additional parking demand within the project area resulting in inadequate parking capacity. During project construction,workers will park at a designated staging area, subject to approval by the Department of Public Works,to avoid impacting existing on-street parking spaces on the north side of Atlanta Avenue. The project does not propose to remove any on-street parking spaces nor will any common parking spaces within the mobile home park be removed. No public parking lots or required coastal access parking will be utilized for the project. Less than significant impacts would occur. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs regarding public transit,bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources:4,16) Discussion: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. These improvements include construction of a new ADA accessible sidewalk,Class H bike lane and a new OCTA bus stop along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue does not currently have a sidewalk or designated bike lane. The bus stop is existing,but does not meet current OCTA transit stop standards. Because the current roadway narrows at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue,traffic flow is often impeded when the bus makes stops at this location. In addition,bicyclists are currently forced into travel lanes due to the roadway narrowing and the existing transit stop configuration. The project would improve the current conditions with the installation of the proposed improvements and would improve traffic safety for pedestrians,bicyclists and transit users traveling within the project area. Less than significant impacts would occur. VH. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through 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 California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources:l,4) Discussion: See discussion under e. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 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:l,4) Discussion: See discussion under e. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected El El 9 wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, Page 20 HB -569- Item 12. - 73 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact coastal,etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources:l,4) Discussion: See discussion under e. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 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:l,4) Discussion: See discussion under e. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources:1,2,4) (Discussion: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project area consists of existing roadway and a mobile home park. These uses have been existing since the 1920s and 1950s respectively. The project site does not consist of riparian or sensitive habitat and there is no potential for wetlands to occur within or adjacent to the project area. In addition,the site is not delineated on any federal, state or local maps as a wetlands area. The project does not have the potential to impact the habitat of special status species. The project proposes to remove existing landscaping within the project area along Atlanta Avenue and within the mobile home park. Existing landscaping along Atlanta Avenue consists of primarily non-native species and no trees are proposed for removal along Atlanta Avenue. A total of 25 trees, including several Monterey pines,would be either removed from or relocated within the mobile home park. The project is subject to a standard requirement for the replacement of any existing mature healthy trees to be removed within the mobile home park at a 2:1 ratio. Existing vegetation adjacent to the project area is limited to parkway trees and landscape planters across Atlanta Avenue, approximately 40 feet from the project area. All existing vegetation outside the project area will not be removed or impacted by the proposed street widening project. Vegetation removal and construction vehicle traffic may result in the disturbance of nesting species protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA). The MBTA protects over 800 species, including geese,ducks, shorebirds, raptors, songbirds,and many relatively common species. Although existing trees within and near the project site may contain nesting areas for birds,the project site does not serve as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage as it is essentially isolated vegetation within an urbanized area. Notwithstanding,the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act protects migratory birds and their occupied nests and eggs and as such,any vegetation removal should occur outside of the bird-nesting season. To ensure that the project complies with the MBTA and impacts would be less than significant,the following mitigation measure is recommended: )BI0-1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and META species, and appropriate agency consultation. Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: 1) Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September I and January 31 whenever Page 21 Item 12. - 74 HB -570- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact feasible. 2) Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 and August 31, a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active nest of a META protected species is identified onsite (per established thresholds), a 250 foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or US. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3) Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. With implementation of standard code requirements and the recommended mitigation measure,which ensures compliance with the MBTA, less than significant impacts would occur. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources:1) Discussion: There is no Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan for the area;therefore,no impacts are anticipated. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral rxi resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources:1) (Discussion: See discussion under b. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important El 11 El 0 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources:1) Page 22 HB -571- Item 12. - 75 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a& b: Although Huntington Beach has been the site of oil and gas extraction since the 1920s,oil production has decreased over the years, and today,oil producing wells are scattered throughout the City. The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project site is not designated as a known or important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan or any other land use plan. In addition,the project area has been used as a road since at least 1927 and the mobile home park was developed in the 1950s. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment conducted by WorleyParsons in October 2009,indicates that no current or former oil wells are present at the site and there is no evidence of the release of petroleum products within the project area. Therefore,the proposed project will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource or a mineral resource recovery site. No impacts would occur. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources:4,5,17,18) Discussion: See discussion under c. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources:4,5,17,18) Discussion: See discussion under c. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or El El 9 11 acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources:4,5,17,l 8) (Discussion a—c: The nearest school, Peterson Elementary School, is approximately half a mile from the project site. In addition,the project does not propose new structures or uses that will involve the routine transport,use or disposal of hazardous materials. The project does not provide on-site fuel dispensing, underground,or outdoor storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous or flammable substances that would be used during the construction phase include vehicle fuels and oils in the operation of heavy equipment for onsite excavation and construction. Construction vehicles may require routine or emergency maintenance that could result in the release of oil,diesel fuel,transmission fluid or other materials. The proposed construction operation would be required to comply with all State and local regulations to minimize risks associated with accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(WorleyParsons,October 2009)prepared for the project,the project site does not have any evidence of dumping,landfilling,stained soils, distressed vegetation,or other evidence suggesting the possible release of hazardous substances. However,because the site has been historically used as a roadway, it was concluded that aerially deposited lead(ADL)from Page 23 Item 12. - 76 H -572- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact automobile exhaust could be present in shallow soils. As such a Phase lI Environmental Site Assessment was recommended to determine the nature and extent of ADL in the on-site soils so that the soil can be properly managed(either reused on-site or disposed of)in accordance with State regulations. In March 2010,a Phase H Environmental Site Assessment to investigate for the presence of ADL was conducted for the project. The Phase II site investigation included soil borings and hand augering of varying depths to collect soil samples for laboratory analysis. Based on the laboratory analysis,concentrations of ADL in the soil would not have to be classified as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)hazardous waste. Therefore,the on-site soils may be re-used on site,pursuant to Department of Toxic Substance Control(DTSC)protocols,or, if removed and disposed of off-site,would not be classified as RCRA-hazardous waste. Other metals and contaminants found to be present in the soil,such as arsenic,were representative of background concentrations and would not pose significant human health risks above comparison levels. Discovery of additional soil contamination during ground disturbing activities is required to be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92. All fill soil(on-site and imported)shall meet City Specification#431-92—Soil Cleanup Standards and would be submitted to the Fire Department for review and joint approval with the Public Works Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. With implementation of standard City specifications and other applicable State and federal requirements,less than significant impacts would occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 11 El El 19 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:17) Discussion: The project site is not listed on the State's Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List. According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment the project site is not listed on any regulatory database of hazardous sites. No impacts would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 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:11) (Discussion: See discussion under f. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ El El 9 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources:4,11) Page 24 HB -573- Item 12. - 77 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (Discussion e&f: The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Although the City is located within the Planning Area for the Joint Force Training Center,Los Alamitos,the project site is not located within the height restricted boundaries identified in the Airport Environs Land Use Plan or within two miles of any known public or private airstrip. In addition,the proposed project does not propose any new structures with heights that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns. No impacts would occur. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El El 19 El adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources:1) Discussion: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The proposed project will not impede access to the surrounding area both during construction and after the project is complete. Primary access to the adjacent mobile home park is located on Huntington Street and will not be impacted by the proposed project. There are two gated emergency access drives to the mobile home park on Atlanta Avenue that are not used by residents. These access drives are proposed to be removed and relocated to the same location on the site as part of the project. In addition,Atlanta Avenue will remain open during construction. To minimize impacts during construction,a traffic control plan is required to be implemented during construction. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Less than significant impacts would occur. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:1,4) Discussion: The project area includes Atlanta Avenue, a primary arterial in the City, and an existing mobile home development adjacent to Atlanta Avenue. There are no wildlands within or surrounding the project area. No impacts would occur. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources:15) Discussion: See discussion under d. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources:15) Discussion: See discussion under d. Page 25 Item 12. - 78 NB -574- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise 0 El 0 El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?(Sources:15) (Discussion: See discussion under d. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient El El FRI 11 noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources:14,15) ]Discussion a—d: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The associated improvements include replacement of an existing wood fence with a concrete block wall separating Atlanta Avenue from the mobile home park. Residential uses surround the project site to the north,south and east. A noise study report was prepared for the project by the Chambers Group in April 2010. Short-term/Construction Noise Construction of the proposed project would increase noise and vibration levels in the vicinity of the project area. Construction noise and vibration would be temporary(lasting up to six months)and intermittent depending on the type of equipment being used and the stage of construction. Intermittent noise levels during construction activities could reach up to 98 decibels(dBA),which is an increase of up to 25 dBA over existing noise levels. Chapter 8.40—Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code(HBMC)exempts noise related to construction provided all construction activities occur between the hours of 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday - Saturday. Construction activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. The proposed project, would be required to follow standard protocols for public works projects and construction activities would occur Monday—Friday between the hours of 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM,which is more restrictive than the City's Noise Ordinance. Therefore, impacts from noise and vibration during construction would be considered less than significant. Even though construction noise impacts are less than significant,the following measures are recommended to reduce the annoyance construction noise can have on residents surrounding the project site. NOISE-1: The City shall require by contract specifications the following measures: o Ensure that all construction equipment has sound-control devices. o Prohibit equipment with un-muffled exhaust. o Site staging of equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. o Limit idling of equipment whenever possible. o Notify adjacent residents in advance of construction work. o Educate contractors and employees to be sensitive to noise impact issues and noise control methods. o Install temporary acoustic barriers between the mobile home removal and construction activities and the row of mobile homes to remain closest to Atlanta Avenue. Acoustical barriers should provide a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 25 and should be situated in a manner to provide an uninterrupted continuous barrier between all mobile home removal and road construction activities. During the mobile home removal activities, the barriers should stretch from the east edge of the property to the west and zig-zag between homes where necessary. After removal of the mobile homes and prior to construction of the drive aisle Page 26 HB -57 - Item 12. - 79 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact within the mobile home property, the barrier can be straightened to stretch more directly from the east property line to the west property line. Lon --tg erm pgrational Noise Traffic noise levels were predicted using the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA)Traffic Noise Model and were evaluated under existing conditions,Year 2030 conditions without the project and Year 2030 conditions with the project. The model included existing noise barriers such as existing fencing at surrounding sites as well as the proposed concrete block retaining wall for the Year 2030 With Project scenario. Traffic noise levels are considered significant when predicted future(2030)noise levels are at least 12 dB greater than existing noise levels or when the predicted noise levels approach or exceed the Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC)for the applicable activity category(in this case,67 dBA L�,(h)). Based on the analysis in the Noise Study Report,traffic volumes associated with the proposed project would not result in significant increases over existing noise levels nor will the project approach or exceed the established NAC. For the mobile home park,traffic noise levels upon project completion would be reduced from existing conditions likely due to the replacement of the wood fence with a concrete block wall. Less than significant noise impacts would occur. Similarly,long-term vibration impacts generally associated with traffic volumes and traffic noise levels would also be less than significant. Therefore,the project would not result in significant temporary or permanent noise and vibration impacts and would not result in an exceedence of applicable noise standards. Less than significant impacts would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two ❑ El El 9 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:11) Discussion: See discussion under f. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:4,11) Discussion e& f: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project is not within two miles of a public airport or a private airstrip. Although the City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos,the project will not result in the development of new structures or buildings that would expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels. No impacts would occur. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of 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: Page 27 Item 12. - 80 H - 76- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Fire protection? (Sources:1,22) Discussion: See discussion under e. b) Police Protection? (Sources:1,22) 19 El Discussion: See discussion under e. c) Schools? (Sources:1,22) Discussion: See discussion under e. d) Parks? (Sources:1,22) El 11 Discussion: See discussion under e. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? 11 El (Sources:1,22) Discussion a—e: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements including relocation of two existing fire hydrants on Atlanta Avenue. The project does not propose new structures or uses that would significantly increase the demand for public services including schools,parks and Iibraries. The project reduces existing traffic hazards and includes design features to minimize vehicular conflicts. Improvements in the function of the roadway will also serve to maintain or improve acceptable response times. Atlanta Avenue will remain open during construction, however, access may be limited at times throughout project construction. A traffic control plan,which accounts for emergency access, is required to be implemented during construction. Existing emergency access gates and a fire access lane within the existing mobile home park would be reconstructed on-site in their current configuration. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources:4,5) Discussion: See discussion under e. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El El 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:4,5) Page 28 HB -577- Item 12. - 81 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: See discussion under e. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water 19 drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources:4,5,22) Discussion: See discussion under e. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the 19 project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources:4,5) Discussion: See discussion under e. 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:4,5) Discussion a--e&h: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. These improvements include new curb and gutter and relocation of existing utilities along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. Stormwater within the project area will continue to drain to the existing public storm drain system in Delaware Street. No new residential, commercial or industrial uses or structures are proposed that would generate additional wastewater beyond the current conditions necessitating expansion or construction of new wastewater treatment facilities. In addition, the project will not result in the creation of new stormwater drainage or treatment facilities nor will it create a significant demand for water usage beyond that which currently exists for the project area. The project will require water for landscape irrigation,however proposed landscaping will replace existing landscaping and would be required to comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Less than significant impacts would occur f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources:1) Discussion: See discussion under g. g) Comply with federal, state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources:1) Discussion f&g: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements and does not propose new waste generating uses that would contribute additional solid waste. Some amount of solid waste may be generated from project construction. The nearest landfill is the Frank R.Bowerman Landfill located in the City of Irvine. The landfill has a remaining capacity Page 29 Item 12. - 82 HB -578- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact in excess of 30 years based on the present solid waste generation rates. The project will not noticeably impact the capacity of the existing landfill. In addition,waste from construction of the project is required to comply with all regulations related to solid waste including City specification No.431-92,which provides for the proper disposal of contaminated soils. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice(BMP),(e.g.water quality treatment basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources:4,5,22) Discussion: See discussion under item e above. XH. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 9 El (Sources:1,4) Discussion: b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources:l,4) Discussion: c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 19 El quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources:l,4) Discussion a—c: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project area is not within a State-designated or eligible scenic highway nor does it constitute a scenic vista. In addition,the project will not damage existing scenic resources including rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Atlanta Avenue is designated as a landscape corridor in the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The project will involve the removal of existing landscaping on Atlanta Avenue although new landscaping and street trees are proposed as part of the project. The new landscaping is required to comply with City landscape requirements for street trees and parkways. Although the project proposes to remove 25 trees from within the mobile home park,some trees may be able to be preserved and relocated on site, and all mature,healthy trees that are removed are required to be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Removal and relocation of the trees requires approval by the Planning and Building and Public Works Departments. After the project is completed,the visual character of the site will substantially be the same as it currently exists. However,since old pavement,street striping, landscaping and fencing will be replaced with new there will be a general aesthetic enhancement of the project area. There will be a temporary degradation of the existing visual character in the area during construction. However,construction of the project is anticipated to last approximately six months and as such,impacts during construction can be considered less than significant. Less than significant impacts would occur. Page 30 I HB -579- Item 12. - 83 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources:l,4) Discussion: Existing sources of light and glare in the project area include streets lights and vehicular headlights. Currently,street lights are located on utility poles and would be relocated as part of the project. There would be no new street lighting beyond what currently exists as a result of the proposed project. Although the project provides for increased capacity on Atlanta Avenue,there would not be an increase in traffic as a result of the project and therefore,the project would not result in more light and glare from vehicular headlights such that impacts would be significant. Other sources of light from the project would be lights from bicycles as a result of the proposed bike lanes. This potentially new light source, since it is likely - that bicyclists currently travel on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue,would be minimal and not result in a substantial increase in light and glare in the project area. No light standards are proposed for relocation or replacement within the mobile home park. Impacts would be less than significant. 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:20,21) Discussion: See discussion under d. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significanceEl © ❑ El of an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5? (Sources:20) Discussion: See discussion under d. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources:20) Discussion: See discussion under d. d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources:20) Discussion a—d: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The existing project area consists of roadway that has existed since 1927,and a mobile home park that was developed in the 1950s. There are no locally significant historic structures and the project site is not listed in the General Plan Historic and Cultural Resources Element. Although the mobile home park is at least 50 years old,it has been determined by the State Office of Historic Preservation, that the mobile home park is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. An archeological survey report was prepared by Bonterra Consulting in April 2010. The report indicates that three archeological sites(CA-ORA-149, CA-ORA-276 and CA-ORA-1654)have been identified within a half- mile radius of the project area. In addition,based on a review of the Native American Heritage Commission Page 31 Item 12. - 84 HB -580- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (NAHC)sacred lands database,archeological literature, and historic maps,CA-ORA-149 may.have extended into the project area at one time. Although existing site records place the archeological site outside of the project area,it is acknowledged that previous researchers had extended CA-ORA-149 east of Huntington Street into the Pacific Mobile Home Park site. However, it has been concluded that portions of the site east of Huntington Street would have been destroyed by construction of the mobile home park,the existing elevation of which is 2 to 5 meters below the original site surface. This is well below the depth of the archeological deposit of CA-ORA-149 estimated at less than two meters based on deBarros' 2005 data recovery excavations for the Pacific City project. Even so, because subsurface investigation of the project area did not previously occur, it could not be concluded that CA-ORA-149 is not present on the project site. Therefore,potential exists for small pockets of CA-ORA-149 to remain under the existing mobile home park,sidewalks,and streets. Site Survey In addition to a study of existing data, a survey of the project area was conducted on May 21,2009 by Bonterra Consulting. The survey focused on determining the presence of any remaining surface expressions of CA-ORA-149 on non-asphalt covered areas south of Atlanta Avenue within the project area. No previously unknown cultural resources were identified during the survey,but visibility was nearly zero as the majority of the project area is paved. Since the project area is mostly paved,the survey extended to an undeveloped, unpaved area parallel to the mobile home park and Delaware Street. However,this area is covered with gravel,has undergone similar grading to the project site, and is beyond the original archeological site boundaries. Although there were no cultural resources identified during the survey and study of available data,the historic use of the area increases likelihood of finding buried cultural resources during project construction-related activities. In addition,intact resources and human burials associated with CA-ORA-149 were discovered during archeological excavations for the Pacific City project,which is east of the project area,across Huntington Street. Therefore, an Extended Phase I Report was conducted to evaluate the subsurface soils within an unpaved area of the project site(located south of the existing Atlanta Avenue and north of the northern property line of the mobile home park)and determine whether any significant cultural deposits associated with CA-ORA-149 exist within the project site. The assessment was completed in combination with the geological soil auger borings conducted by WorleyParsons for the ADL testing as well as hand excavation of shovel test pits conducted by Bonterra. The subsurface site work identified a few cultural specimens(one artifact and 15 flakes)of poor contextual integrity and that the soil has been previously filled and disturbed and does not constitute an intact portion of CA-ORA-149 or an archeological deposit. In addition,the cultural materials that were discovered during the testing would not be significant nor would they warrant formal curation since they lack original provenience(intact,primary deposits)and show evidence of mixing with modern materials. Although the results of the testing suggest that although CA-ORA-149 may have extended onto the project site,based on the soil borings and hand excavations,no primary cultural deposit remains on the project site. However,to ensure impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant,the following mitigation measures are recommended: C>iJ><T-1: If cultural resources are encountered during during construction-related ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find, until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource.In the absence Page 32 HB -5 1- Item 12. - 85 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No lmpact of a determination, all archaeological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources. CULT-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notes the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and note a Most Likely Descendent(MLD). The designated MLD may make recommendations to the City for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. With implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ Q neighborhood, community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:4,5,22) Discussion: See discussion under c. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require Fici the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:4,5) Discussion: See discussion under c. c) Affect existing recreational opportunities? El El El 191 (Sources:4,5) Discussion a—c: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. There may be increased use of surrounding parks during construction by workers that may utilize the parks before, during and after work. However,the proposed project does not involve the creation of new homes or businesses that would substantially increase the use of existing parks and recreational facilities beyond the construction phase. The project will not affect nor does it include expansion of existing recreational opportunities. Although the project will provide additional travel lanes on Atlanta Avenue,the additional lanes will bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its primary arterial designation of the General Plan Circulation Elements and Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH)as well as provide for the forecasted build-out capacity. Therefore,the increased capacity of Atlanta Avenue is not anticipated to provide for growth not already anticipated by the General Plan. As such,the project would not require the addition or expansion of recreational facilities. Less than significant impacts would occur. Page 33 Item 12. - 86 HB - 2- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 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 ❑ ❑ 21 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) Discussion: See discussion under c. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ 99 Williamson Act contract? (Sources:1) Discussion: See discussion under c. c) involve other changes in the existing environment which, ❑ ❑ ❑ 191 due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources-1) Discussion a—c: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The existing project area consists of roadway that has existed since 1927, and a mobile home park that was developed in the 1950s. The project does not propose any changes that would affect existing farmland or agricultural uses and would not result in conversion of farmland/agicultural uses as there are none within the vicinity of the project site. The site is not zoned for agricultural uses,nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. Finally, the project area is not mapped as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impacts would occur. XVII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment?(Source: 19) Discussion: The California Energy Commission calculated that in 2004,California produced 492,000,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide(CO2)emissions. On an individual basis, a project generally would not generate enough GHG emissions to create a significant impact on global climate change. For instance,the proposed project would result in a total of approximately 173 tons of CO2 emissions during construction. This represents a negligible amount when compared to the overall contribution of the State's GHG emissions impacting global climate change. A project's potential impact would be its incremental contribution of GHG emissions when combined with all other GHG emission sources to cause significant cumulative impacts that could result in global climate change impacts. The proposed project has the potential to result in GHG emissions from both construction and operation Page 34 HB -583- Item 12. - 87 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant . Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact of the proposed street widening. Short-term/Construction Construction GHG emissions would include emissions produced from material processing,emissions from construction equipment and vehicles,and emissions from travel delay due to construction. These emissions would be produced at different levels throughout construction. The project would result in a total of approximately 173 tons of CO2 emissions during construction. Implementation of a traffic control plan would manage traffic and reduce travel delays during construction to the extent possible. The largest source of GHG emissions during construction would occur from construction equipment exhaust. Generally,measures that are employed to reduce emissions from construction equipment would also reduce GHG emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 includes measures such as limiting equipment idling time and ensuring that equipment is properly maintained that would control equipment exhaust. In addition,all construction vehicles are required to use CARB approved on-road diesel fuel,when locally available,to reduce emissions of CO,ROG and particulate matter during construction. While there is no specific threshold of significance for GHG emissions, it is reasonable to apply the same requirements for criteria pollutants in that significance occurs when a project results in a cumulatively considerable net increase of GHG emissions. Therefore,since the project's contribution of CO2 emissions is minor and measures would be implemented to further reduce GHG emissions during construction, impacts from GHG emissions during construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of GHG emissions and impacts would be less than significant. Long-term/Operational The project does have potential to produce GHG emissions from vehicles traveling along Atlanta Avenue. However,the highest level of GHG emissions from mobile sources, specifically carbon dioxide(CO2),occur at "stop-and-go"speeds(0—25 miles per hour). The proposed.street widening project would provide for additional capacity on Atlanta Avenue but would not generate increased traffic volumes. In addition,the project would relieve congestion by enhancing operations and improving travel times. By eliminating an existing"choke point" on Atlanta Avenue,thereby reducing"stop-and-go"speeds,the project may result in reduced CO2 emissions. Again,there is no specific threshold of significance other than to reasonably consider whether a project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in GHG emissions. Based on the scope of the project including the project's potential to reduce CO2 emissions,the project would not result in significant impacts from GHG emissions. Less than significant impacts would occur. b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse ❑ ❑ ® ❑ gases?(Source: 19) Discussion: One of the main strategies of the Caltrans Climate Action Program to reduce GHG emissions is to make California's transportation system more efficient. As discussed above,the highest levels of CO2 emissions occur when vehicles travel at"stop-and-go"speeds. The purpose of the proposed project is to eliminate a"choke point"on Atlanta Avenue and reduce an area currently experiencing queuing and"stop-and-go"speeds. The project also proposes to add a Class-H bike lane and would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its NIPAH designation,which is administered by the Orange County Transit Authority(OCTA), a member of Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG). Transportation control measures in the AQMP are provided by SCAG and include those contained in the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP). The proposed project is identified in the 2008 RTP and is consistent with Travel Demand Management strategies identified in the RTP including enhancing non-motorized and transit modes of transportation in the area. The proposed project is consistent with the Caltrans Climate Action Program Page 35 Item 12. - 88 H -5 4- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and the 2008 RTP. Projects that are consistent with these programs would be consistent with other programs and policies of a broader context such as AB 32. Therefore,the project would not conflict with applicable policies, plans or programs adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant. XVIII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources:1-23) Discussion: The project,during construction,could result in disturbances to migratory bird species. In addition, there is potential for cultural resources to be discovered during construction-related ground-disturbance. However, with mitigation,impacts would be less than significant. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, El 19 but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources:1-23) Discussion: As discussed throughout the document,the proposed project would have less than significant impacts for the majority of impact areas. Therefore,the project's contribution in the context of cumulatively considerable adverse impacts would be less than significant. The project does require mitigation for potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality,biological resources,and cultural resources. However,all of the identified potentially significant impacts can be mitigated during project construction and therefore do not represent a cumulatively considerable significant impact. Mitigation for impacts identified in the area of population and housing are due to relocation of 14 residents that would occur as a result of acquisition of additional right-of-way for the project and not due to substantial increases in population or indirect growth that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (Sources:1-23) Discussion: As discussed throughout the document,the project would result in less than significant impacts(i.e.— traffic,noise,hazards)or less than significant impacts with mitigation(air quality and housing)in areas with the potential to have adverse effects on human beings. Page 36 HB - 85- Item 12. - 89 XIX. 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 Conceptual Project Plans See Attachment#2 5 Project Narrative See Attachment#3 6 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map " 8 CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 9 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 10 Trip Generation Handbook, 7`s Edition,Institute of Traffic " Engineers 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 13 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " 14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code " 15 Noise Study Report(April 2010) GA illasenorAklanta Ave.Widening\CEQA-NEPA\Draft EA 09-001 (July 2010).doc Page 37 Item 12. - 90 HB -586- (L 16 Traffic Study (March 2009) 17 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment " (October 2009) 18 Phase lI Environmental Site Assessment " (March 2010) 19 Air Quality Report&Global Climate Change Analysis " (November 2009) 20 Historic Property Survey Report&Archeological Survey " Report(April 2010) 21 State Historic Preservation Office concurrence letter " (June 2010) 22 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment Form " (February 2009) 23 Caltrans Approved Preliminary Environmental Study(PES) " (January 2009) 24 Summary of Mitigation Measures Attachment No.4 Page 38 HB -587- Item 12. - 91 Attachment 1 —Project Location 5 LOCBtlOn Z3 _ Project Locative 1 s 1 ATTACHMENT N®. Item 12. - 92 NB -588- gu . I 7F tl F�.= Ram- s:r NGTON`°ST t] ELAW4RE,3T HUS lTl a ` y r— _ — — • _ A NTA r o , v a` a` i T . ;. ,�h4+„�j¢�._. ,,r �.. .�: � :;. �a.. - '. '",: � .; .:,.• 9 is ate" ri t .> ' z., 1 .1r �Y\ 1; l' ...'Q a ��. a { G "'N i,e• a ,�t 1., ry�� i� , 's y� { u I °! i Y��,. {� •i ,,�" � E >73S �di ��� 'z' �* �'�`� n '�.k�t r Q �x EF � a �.��. �. f� �� w• Yx Y r 3 !" � t�k�`�"t f,'s� � a�,' ''�+l.�N,^1 ,,. ,... x{'r ��,r .�-� c..` � � �,l..` '1 2xF "� '�. �'u�.�., -W� �k � :x9 j _• !� ► � � c � _ ', c �,;.. +M .: -mot r ? 4 '�: A 0 - tl • I • n n t i r � .r:c� sf� r :L",z. r ,r �a,r•<: �. „cC,7 . r .>'."5 .s: ?,'� r , i , � s;�: ,r•, ., ri a ,,.r ,;: '� c? ,; b Fs„r4+��, :.,.. � d2 ,r a 2� A� .,,.4�, ir.:, ,• !+.~<.,e r �•i.. » tL.,°f:n�*.�'�hh'�j ` f.-...�f� u :.�. �.si. ,�I9. 3 i-i. ea r":k u✓ c6 i _y1}` a t t:, .ham^�3k,�'� 1,+. ;i J .32 WIN?.(.' � l,.R.t� u..�t� ,flkix1r,. ov' j Y fi}. ♦ R dell xY _w r?iE r c E.1�7).r;i�v.» T � r! �.41 y + !M .t r r i �� r �1Yv Y1 �.�,M�1��r�`' � !?.l- .� '"f�iYP�� e�1?,� !�a1�1►�i�; •ui� sI � i 7s e.,� w + a o .. ;.� ,.IY , t� ..s� u.,;,a ss< y;�,..• r,,,, �t� c�+,,t s '. r;s�' f i�r v�� -' r���,"> e, 'U...l :: .,,P„.,�x. ��A .: :...:: ,rei..... ..,d .�a .s.., n ,,. .h•.. ,y Y, ,e, ,5 ,.., ..., .,., r'J ;.a5 k�•'E� ,.r.', ., .v ,., i i''3n �YS�rr,, NAM,t� Ms",. �+,i'�r,.'Gi:.,.:....%...,h3,.,:d. -�,'YIv'?r......•s.!r..y„ a�'v,atL:."F,,�.:..k;.:,:e.,„.:.. ..("n`.vt�i a,.:,;..,arv..,.�.F..,A..aa.,d.rn.:n�.,.',,_.',��.�..,'.'4$.° .,t'�'�''?.,'f_,.�+,r.Yx.,k.,k%rie it,„.v:.«{4.`1,#<�,y S..b'.a.r,�,'>r+'q�t^..:$�'°.:„r�,.....rvk„>r*a�'rn.'ay t,..trM�..�s`..y.1 S �..,'',t.._:,.,. f: � 5` ...d.:...:.✓-;,"+_f � :'.e,:K".".3,v ry1 i# .s(..:a'i::M"{vr4C�.,`'." ;^2`t r rtht r!.V'�`n.t...3 i t.3,.1��.`"xs�SP � , > .usY�. ,, s� �a,, ;fir .. x} _.1 .. .. a'�r ,: � ,:„t� r� t, r'x� i .$..:, +.r a �. 5. $�• � J; ,t ;..5.'� -a�:'.,.� z ".�iila} e�r�"�.h rt�,'x:5 s ,:..._.:r , $ r ' :•: 4; .,,., w x�St,.�•. ;._..An �1. vt :, ; �t 1 "at � �tx;� rt� ..�,i�� tt.� t� :S r4i^ri s tts3 x+'t :�i S .rl ! .•v �" i '� 1 - #' "r; �f f <i:,•is���( ,��( x.h S �a err+rt 2..y:+lry c � r', � y. �,,,£ .c,.x"-.J r � r1"� �i;�, �:n i ' at': � � .�.t�`. �� �.,5 ( �"�k�•`n:�1 �'{Y'.t f �� ' �_. ;.'/r 4 � f 3 b 1't_ 'i � {.b� j t, iFx t �. i t'.: _.='k..1,, w'�s 1 °' .e a ^>K tc`:"�,. f..y ,.�`�, 'r".i s �;r.rx•.,; $.4,�xc: ,r,."».., �"r? �� - • 1 �� - �� �• ®� — 11 ��n�nl� a __Ili � Project Narrative Project: Atlanta Avenue Widening,CC-1319 Application: EA/CDP/CUP Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Contact: Jonathan Claudio,Senior Civil Engineer Phone#: (714)374,5380 Date: July 24,2009 The City proposes to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with die primary arterial street classification ill the General Plan Circulation Element. The project site is bounded by single-family residential, apartment and condominium uses to die north and the east,by the Waterfront Hilton Hotel property to the south, and die Pack City mixed-use development (currently under construction) to the west. As the proposed street widening project will provide the build-out traffic capacity forecasted and bring this segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with tine County's Master Plan of Arterial Highways,the Orange County Transportation Authority has approved grant funding to the City for die engineering, right-of-way, and construction phases of this street widening project. The current budget constraints, however, have limited the City's ability to provide tine local matching fhmds required to receive the grant funding. Consequently, die right-of-way and construction phases of this project may be delayed until the 2010/11 fiscal year. The General Plan Circulation Element designates Atlanta Avenue as a primary arterial street,both in the current and in the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways. As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk,curb,gutter,a bike lane,and 2 trough lanes in each direction of travel,separated by a striped median. Currently,this segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction,a striped median,and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. The proposed street improvements will provide ail additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. The project's scope of work primarily includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping,curb,gutter, sidewalk, air 8 feet tall screen wall atop a variable height (7 ft. max.) retaining wall,landscaping, reconstruction of a 26 ft. wide on-site circulation road, utility adjustment and relocation. Since this street widening project proposes to remove and reconstruct the south curb line of Atlanta Avenue an additional 27 ft. (approx.) to tine south, it will be necessary to relocate the 5 utility poles mid overhead lines currently located within the existing southerly parkway area. The mndergrounding of the existing overhead utility lines,however,is not included within die scope of this project. In accordance with die City's franchise agreements,the utility companies will be responsible for the relocation and/or adjustment of their facilities which may be in conflict with the proposed City street improvements. The mixed-use Pacific City development located immediately west of the project site has recently widened Atlanta Avenue between 1"Street and Huntington Street to its ultimate location. This has resulted in the segment of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street as the lone remaining "choke point" on Atlanta Avenue between 1' Street and Beach Boulevard. The existing choke point creates a 26 ft. (approx.) offset in the south curb alignment at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street. Since the narrowing roadway requires motorists traveling eastbound on Atlanta Avenue to make additional motorist decisions,there is a greater potential for merging accidents and motorists inadvertently driving vehicles off of die street. The proposed street widening would help to minimize this accident potential and provide for improved traffic safety. Furthermore, this segment of Atlanta Avenue is ail existing transit route with a proposed Class II bicycle trail. The current transit activity turning from Huntington Street and stopping on Atlanta Avenue is constrained due to the substandard width of the existing roadway, the tight turning radius at the southeast corner of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street,and the presence of cyclists who share the roadway on this segment of Atlanta Avenue. Widening the roadway to provide 2 eastbound travel lanes and a designated bike lane will help to reduce the impacts of the existing bus stop (located approx. 100 ft. east of Huntington Street) and improve the ability of the roadway to accommodate bus turns. Consequently, the overall traffic operations inn die area will be enhanced with the proposed street widening by minimizing delays and the associated impacts. - 1 - CADocuments and Settings\villasejTocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK10D\Project Narrative Rev 7 24 09(2).doc �T TAHN` NCB. Item 12. - 96 H -592- The existing public street right-of-way along this segment of Atlanta Avenue varies from 60 ft.wide (30 ft.north and 30 ft. south of street centerline) at Huntington Street to 85 ft. wide (55 ft. north and 30 ft. south of street centerline) at Delaware Street. Construction of the proposed street improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue (i.e., the public street right-of-way is proposed at 55 ft.south of street centerline). Along with'the acquisition of this 25 feet wide by 630 feet long(approx.) strip of land from the Pacific Manufactured Home Park located at 80 Huntington Street (APN 024-291-16),the City anticipates that 8 manufactured homes (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501,and 502) will also need to be relocated in order to construct the proposed street widening project. The ultimate location of these units is not known at this point, however, as real estate negotiations with the Park owner and the affected residents cannot commence until the City receives Federal authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase. The foreseeable alternatives include on-site relocation to a comparable unit, off-site relocation to another park with a comparable unit, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufactured home. The City's real estate consultant will ensure that all relocation work for this project shall comply with the applicable City,State,and Federal laws. Although the City has received authorization to proceed with the engineering phase,the construction of this project is contingent upon a number of factors includung: 1) the City's ability to obtain the Federal, State, and local approvals required to proceed with the right-of-way and construction phases; 2) negotiating the successful land acquisition and subsequent relocation of the Pacific Manufactured Home Park residents directly affected by the construction of the proposed street widening project; and 3) the availability,of Federal grant and local matching funds. As previously stated,the right-of-way and subsequent construction phase of this project may be delayed until the 2010/11 fiscal year. - Based upon the current scope of work, the construction'phase is estimated to last for approximately 6 months from the date die contractor is given the notice to proceed by the City. Jonathan Claudio,Project Engineer Date -2- C:\Documents and Settings\villaseJTocal Settings\Temporary Intemet Files\OLK1OMProject Narrative Rev 7ATTACHMENT No V. 3. HB -593- Item 12. - 97 Attachment No. 4 Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure • Displace substantial POP-1: Upon Federal authorization to proceed with right-of-way acquisition, the City numbers of existing shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of housing,necessitating the Federal Uniform Act. Notification to and discussions with the impacted residents the construction of shall occur as soon as feasibly possible pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act. The replacement housing City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and elsewhere relocation is implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. • Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere • Violate any air quality AQ-1: The City shall require, by contract specifications, implementation of the standard or contribute following measures: substantially to an o All work shall be done in accordance with the "GREENBOOK"Standard existing or projected air Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2009 Edition, as written and quality violation promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. o The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke, dust, equipment • Expose sensitive exhaust, or any other air contaminants into the atmosphere in such quantity as receptors to substantial will violate any federal, State or local regulations. (Greenbook Section 7-8.2) pollutant o The contractor shall comply with Caltrans'Standard Specification Section concentrations 7-1.O1F and Section 10 of Caltrans'Standard Specifications (1999). o The contractor shall apply water or dust palliative to the site and equipment as frequently as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. o The contractor shall spread soil binder on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and all project construction parking areas. o The contractor shall wash trucks as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust. o The contractor shall properly tune and maintain construction equipment and vehicles and use low-sum fuel in all construction equipment as provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. o The contractor shall develop a dust control plan documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and expedited revegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to adjacent uses and residents. o The contractor shall locate equipment and materials storage as faraway from residential as practical. o The contractor shall establish environmentally sensitive areas for receptors within which construction activities involving extended idling of diesel equipment would be prohibited to the extent feasible. o The contractor shall use track out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. o The contractor shall require that all transported loads of soil and wet materials shall be covered prior to transport, or provide adequate freeboard to Attachment No. 4-Page I Item 12. - 98 NB -54- reduce PMloand deposition ofparticulate matter during transportation. o The contractor shall route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling along local roads. o The contractor shall install landscaping as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown particulate in the area. o The contractor shall implement a street sweeping program with Rule 1186- compliant PMio-efficient vacuum units on at least a 14-day .frequency. o The contractor shall abate dust nuisance by cleaning,sweeping and spraying with water, or other means as necessary. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) o The contractor shall provide a self-loading motorized street sweeper equipped with a functional water spray system. The sweeper shall clean all paved areas within the work site and all pave haul routes at least once a day. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) • Interfere substantially BIO-1: Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall with the movement of implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and any native resident or avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and ABTA species, and appropriate agency migratory fish or consultation. wildlife species or with established native Nesting habitat for protected or sensitive species: resident or migratory 1) Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September 1 wildlife corridors or and January 31 whenever feasible. impede the use of 2) Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 native wildlife nursery and August 31, a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified sites biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active nest of a ABTA protected species is identified onsite (per established thresholds), a 250 foot no- work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 3) Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. NOISE-1: The City shall require by contract specifications the following measures: • A substantial temporary o Ensure that all construction equipment has sound-control devices. or periodic increase in o Prohibit equipment with un-muffled exhaust. ambient noise levels in o Site staging of equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. the project vicinity o Limit idling of equipment whenever possible. above levels existing o Note adjacent residents in advance of construction work. without the project o Educate contractors and employees to be sensitive to noise impact issues and noise control methods. o Install temporary acoustic barriers between the mobile home removal and construction activities and the row of mobile homes to remain closest to Atlanta Avenue. Acoustical barriers should provide a Sound Transmission Page 2 HB -595- Item 12. - 99 Class Rating of 25 and should be situated in a manner to provide an uninterrupted continuous barrier between all mobile home removal and road construction activities. During the mobile home removal activities, the barriers should stretch from the east edge of the property to the west and zig-zag between homes where necessary. After removal of the mobile homes and prior to construction of the drive aisle within the mobile home property, the barrier can be straightened to stretch more directly from the east property line to the west property line. CULT-1: If cultural resources are encountered during construction-related ground- • Cause a substantial disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop adverse change in the work on the project site in the event of a potential find, until a qualified archaeologist significance of an has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement archaeological resource appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction pursuant to 815064.5 personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing • Disturb any human activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the remains,including archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a those interred outside determination, all archaeological resources shall be considered significant. If the of formal cemeteries resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources. CULT-2: If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent(MAD). The designated MAD may make recommendations to the City for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. Page 3 Item 12. - 100 HB -596- ATTACHMENT #4 Ha -597- I,em ,z _ ,a, RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 I. This document serves as the Response to Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project as of September 3, 2010 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction,these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments,Responses to Comments, Errata to Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001, and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of September 3, 2010. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. The Errata to Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 is provided to show clarifications and corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)No. 09-001. Based on the information contained in the public record, the decision-makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The draft MND was made available for public review from August 5,2010 to September 3,2010. The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001. A Notice of Completion and copies of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09- 001 were filed with the State Clearinghouse on August 5, 2010. The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 2010081014 to the proposed project. A copy of the Notice of Completion and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning and Building Department,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648. Item 12. - 102 HB -598- An official 30-day public review period for Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 was established by the State Clearinghouse. It began on August 5,2010 and ended on September 3, 2010. Public comment letters were received by the City of Huntington Beach through September 3,2010. Notice of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on August 5,2010 as well as advertised on the City's website. Notices were also sent to property owners and tenants within a 500' radius of the project site. Copies of the document were made available to agencies, groups,organizations,and individuals at the following locations: City Hall—City Clerk's Office City Hall—Planning&Zoning Counter Central Library On the City's website III. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of September 3,2010 are contained in Appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. All comments are referenced by number with the responses directly adjacent to the reference number for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment that was submitted on draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 that raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations,and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 30 days. The public review period for Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-016 was established by the State Clearinghouse on August 5, 2010 and expired on September 3,2010. The City of Huntington Beach received comment letters through September 3,2010. Copies of all documents received as of September 3, 2010 are contained in Appendix A of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment that raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001,do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a"comment acknowledged"or similar reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. 2 HB -599- Item 12. - 103 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS—DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (MND NO.09-001) State Departments Department of Transportation DOT-1: The comment states that the DOT has no comment at this time. Comment acknowledged. Native American Heritage Commission NAHC-1:This comment states that the NAHC is a trustee agency pursuant to the Public Resources Code and states that the City, as the lead agency, must assess the project's potential to have significant adverse impacts on cultural resources pursuant to CEQA. The area of potential effect(APE)has been determined and the project has been analyzed for potential impacts on cultural resources within the APE. The analysis of impacts and proposed mitigation measures can be found on pages 31 —33 of the draft MND. Comment acknowledged. NAHC-2: The comment states that the NAHC performed a Sacred Lands File search and Native American Cultural Resources were not identified within one-half mile of the APE. The comment also suggests early consultation with Native American tribes during the process. The technical studies performed for the analysis incorporated in the draft MND include consultation with the NAHC and Native American tribes. The conclusions and recommended mitigation measures in the draft MND are based, in part, on the information obtained from the NAHC and discussion with Native American tribes. NAHC-3: The comment states that the City should contact the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The City has received a letter from the OHP stating that the mobile home park property is not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. NAHC-4: The comment cites existing codes and laws requiring Native American consultation. The tribes listed on the NAHC tribal contact list were consulted during preparation of the technical study and the draft MND. Comment acknowledged. NAHC-5: The comment states that lead agencies should consider avoidance when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project and outline provisions in the event of discovery of resources during construction. The proposed mitigation measures include language that would require all construction activity to cease in the event that resources are discovered during construction. The mitigation measures also require that a qualified archeologist assess the find and provide for the protection or scientific removal of the resources. NAHC-6: The comment states that the results of the Sacred Lands File search are confidential and exempt from the California Public Records Act. However,the Native Americans on the contact list are not prohibited from disclosing the nature of the cultural 3 Item 12. - 104 H g -600- resources. The comment also cites several codes that protect confidentiality of cultural resources. Comment acknowledged. NAHC-7: The comment states that lead agencies are required to work with Native American tribes identified by the NAHC if the initial study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. It should be noted that the initial study did not indicate that Native American human remains are within the APE nor is it likely that human remains would be present. The comment points out that CEQA guidelines provide for the dignified treatment of Native American human remains and associated grave liens. This is acknowledged and the recommended mitigation measures in the draft MND include language requiring dignified treatment of Native American human remains should they be discovered during construction. The comment also cites several codes and laws regarding requirements for Native American consultation and procedures for the accidental discovery of human remains during construction. These procedures are included in the proposed mitigation measures. Finally the comment states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Comment acknowledged. NAHC-8: The comment reiterates that lead agencies should consider avoidance when significant cultural resources are discovered during project planning. As previously indicated,the proposed mitigation measures include provisions for the protection or scientific removal of resources as recommended by a qualified archeologist in the event they are discovered during construction. Local/Regional Agencies Huntin-aton Beach Environmental Board EB-1: The project is seeking a Section 6005 Categorical Exclusion pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). Caltrans is the lead agency for environmental review under NEPA. The applicable provisions of the Federal Uniform Act for the relocation will be evaluated by the City with assistance from the City's Real Estate/Relocation Consultant and detailed in the required Relocation Plan. EB-2: A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan(MMRP)will be adopted for the project. The MMRP will ensure compliance with all required mitigation measures, including AQ-1. EB-3: Mitigation measure AQ-1 is required to be included in any contracts and plans for the project. Compliance with the measure cited in the comment will be verified through the provisions of applicable regulations of agencies such as SCAQMD and CARB, among others. Compliance with the regulations of these agencies include verifiable measures such as limitations on vehicle idling and soil and equipment haul times, fuel type and construction equipment specifications, watering of the construction site, street sweeping and other similar measures, which would ensure that no air contaminant is discharged in a quantity that would violate the applicable regulations of these agencies. 4 HB -601- Item 12. - 105 EB-4: Comment acknowledged. Undergrounding existing overhead utilities will be considered. However,it should be noted that the ultimate relocation of the utilities will be determined by Southern California Edison. EB-5: The comment states that relocation of displaced dwellings/residents to an existing area in the mobile home park along the eastern boundary should be considered. Although a relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable at this time, the draft MND project description does identify this area as a potential relocation site and, as such, the site will be evaluated further as an option in the event of relocation. Comment acknowledged. EB-6: The comment states that relocation of displaced dwellings/residents to an existing area along Delaware Street and the eastern boundary of the mobile home park should be considered. Although the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable at this time, the draft MND project description does identify this area as a potential relocation site and as such, the site will be evaluated further as an option in the event of relocation. Comment acknowledged. EB-7: Comment acknowledged. The comment will be forwarded to the Public Works Department for consideration. Oreanizations/Individuals Roger Savoie, Jr. SAVO-1: The comment letter summarizes the commenter's opposition to the project and will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission for consideration. Comment acknowledged. The comment also states that while the draft MND states that the number of residents to be relocated is 14,the actual number is 16 since the commenter, a resident of the mobile home park,has two sons living in his dwelling with him. This will be corrected in the Errata(see Section V). It should also be noted that this does not change the significance of the impacts identified on page 8 of the draft MND. Hart, King& Coldren HKC-1: The comment consists of a cover letter and states that the purpose of the comment letter is to"preserve the rights of the Park property owner to challenge the project..." and indicates that it is the desire of the property owner to "work out a mutually favorable result with the City." Comment acknowledged. HKC-2: The comment states that because the statute of limitations is short for challenge under CEQA,the commenter may be forced to file a lawsuit to preserve the rights of the property owner. Comment acknowledged. The comment suggests that the City place the project and MND"on hold until there is funding for the Project acquisition and relocation." Although this comment does not relate to the environmental analysis in the draft MND, it should be noted that the associated coastal development permit and conditional use permit that would constitute action for carrying out the project have not been scheduled for action at this time. In addition,the project is funded through 5 Item 12. - 106 HB -602- the Regional Surface Transportation Program(RSTP),but must complete environmental review prior to receiving right-of-way funds. HKC-3: The comment summarizes the commenter's position that an EIR is required for the project and contends that there is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the project. The points of this comment are further detailed in the body of the letter and are responded to accordingly in the following responses(HKC-4 through HKC-19). HKC4: The comment states that the MND does not provide a public necessity for the project and purports that this is required for projects involving the taking of a private property. The comment cites the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1240.030,which provides that public necessity be established for a project in order to exercise eminent domain to acquire property. Comment acknowledged. The draft MND discloses environmental impacts of the project to the public and decision-makers. The draft MND, in accordance with CEQA,is not required to weigh the necessity or adequacy of benefits of the project to the public,nor does it make recommendations as to whether the project should be approved or denied. The comment states that the MND "admits that there is no current funding source that would allow the Project to be built within the near future." However,the MND states that the City anticipates receiving federal funds to construct the project,but cannot receive the funding until federal authorization to proceed is granted after environmental review is completed. The comment states that the "MND alleges that the Project is made necessary by the previous approval of the mixed use Pacific City development...." The draft MND states that the project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the primary arterial designation specified in the General Plan. Atlanta Avenue was designated as a primary arterial prior to consideration of the Pacific City project. The Pacific City project has already widened Atlanta Avenue to its ultimate configuration,which leaves a"chokepoint"on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue. While the project would alleviate the"chokepoint" and improve traffic safety in the project area,this is not the primary purpose of the project. The comment states that the traffic study fails to assess whether a signal light at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street without the project would relieve any existing traffic obstruction and states that it is clear that the project, without a traffic signal light,will not relieve traffic congestion. As stated in the draft MND,the above-mentioned intersection is currently being signalized as part of the Pacific City project. The traffic study for the project compares existing and future traffic conditions with and without the project. Since the traffic signal is not part of the project and would be operating prior to implementation of the project,there is no requirement for the project traffic study to evaluate the project's traffic conditions without the signalization of the Atlanta Avenue/Huntington Street intersection. Additionally,as the traffic signal is not part of the proposed project,there is no requirement to analyze the installation of the traffic signal with or without the project. The comment further summarizes the traffic discussion in the draft MND and cites excerpts from the traffic analysis that states that there is a greater potential for accidents due to the"chokepoint"that occurs within the subject segment of Atlanta 6 Hg -603- Item 12. - 107 Avenue as well as the existing transit stop and lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The comment states that the MND does not provide evidence of a greater number of accidents at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street and therefore, the conclusions in the draft MND are not supported. The comment also states that some of the"most heavily traveled roads, highways and Interstates in Southern California have well marked lane reductions without any significant reductions in safety." Finally, the comment states that the traffic study"provides substantial evidence to the contrary of the MND justification for the project." The comments related to the traffic study and proposed improvements to traffic circulation and safety are,in the context of the comment, made to point out that the draft MND does not provide a justification of public necessity for the project. As mentioned previously in this response,the role of the draft MND is to assess and disclose the project's potential impacts, including beneficial impacts, on the environment and is not required to provide a justification for the project. However,it should be noted that the draft MND states that the project would help to minimize accident potential and vehicular conflicts and provide for improved traffic safety and does not assert that the project will result in a decrease of accidents in the project area, although that could be the case. The information in the analysis comes from a Traffic Study prepared for the project by a qualified professional as well as from the City's Transportation Division. In addition,the comment provides information regarding roads and highways in' Southern California without any evidence to support the claim. Furthermore,although the comment does not state that the traffic analysis is inadequate in assessing the project's impacts on traffic and transportation,the analysis and conclusions in the draft MND are supported by substantial evidence that the project will not result in significant traffic impacts. HKC-5: The comment cites CEQA and case law to make the point that CEQA requires an EIR when there is a fair argument that the project will have significant environmental impacts. The comment also points out that CEQA requires that"environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have a significant impact." Comment acknowledged. HKC-6: The comment summarizes the project description of the draft MND and indicates that while the draft MND discloses that the project requires a conditional use permit and a coastal development permit it does not describe the potential conditions of approval for the conditional use permit and coastal development permit. The draft MND analyzes the aspects of the project that necessitate the above-mentioned discretionary permits,but does not make findings for approval of the discretionary permits. CEQA does not mandate that the draft MND make recommendations for or identify conditions of approval on the discretionary permits unless they would reduce an environmental impact or result in environmental impacts. All aspects of the project including those that trigger the discretionary permits have been analyzed in the draft MND. The comment states that the MND should analyze the relocation of the residents and states that the MND reasons that the relocation cannot be analyzed"because the City has not yet obtained funding for the project." See Responses HKC-4 and HKC-12. 7 Item 12. - 108 NB -604- The comment also states that the lack of funding"does not prevent the City from performing an analysis of whether there is sufficient room for relocation within the Park for those mobile homes." The comment concludes that the project description is inadequate. The project description of the draft MND mentions potential alternatives for relocation of the residents, including on-site relocation. Because the exact relocation site is speculative at this point,the actual relocation is not further described in the project description. The comment states that the City is"deliberately trying to avoid preparing an EIR by segmenting the Project so that it does not include relocation of Park residents." CEQA requires environmental review of all direct impacts and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a project. The draft MND indicates that relocation of residents is necessary for the acquisition of right-of-way required to construct the project. As such,the draft MND identifies the displacement of the residents as a result of the right-of-way acquisition as a potentially significant impact and provides mitigation to ensure that the impact(displacement of the residents)would be reduced to a less than significant level. The actual relocation site of the residents is speculative and therefore,not reasonably foreseeable. Thus,the impacts of the physical relocation would be analyzed as a separate project in accordance with CEQA. The comment further states that the project will "displace several families and result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings." The comment cites CEQA case law to illustrate the point. See Response HKC-12. In addition,the draft MND acknowledges that the displacement of people/housing is a potentially significant impact and proposes mitigation to ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The residential community characteristic of the area will not be lost. Unlike the project cited in the CEQA case,no new commercial or industrial uses are proposed and the project does not propose to convert any existing uses to another use nor does it propose a change in the zoning or land use designation of the area. Once the project is complete,the existing uses of the project area as a road and mobile home park would be the same. HKC-7: The comment states that there is a fair argument of significant project impacts on the environment and states that the MND contains several factually unsupported findings regarding significant environmental impacts. Comment acknowledged. The specific details of the purported"factually unsupported findings"regarding impacts and the commenter's proposed fair argument are detailed in subsequent comments. HKC-8: The comment states that the MND incorrectly finds that the project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agency over the mobile home park. The comment states that the project requires a conditional use permit for the block wall, which is not currently permitted, and would"impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park owner." This is incorrect. The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO)permits the proposed block wall subject to a conditional use permit. Any conditions of approval adopted for the conditional use permit would be the responsibility of the City as the project applicant. The proposed block wall would not impact any scenic coastal views since it would be replacing an existing wood fence, and more importantly,there are no scenic coastal views in the project area. In addition,the removal of trees is addressed in the draft MND in both 8 HB -605- Item 12. - 109 the Biological Resources and Aesthetics section. The removal of trees would be subject to replacement at a two to one ratio. See pages 30 and 31 of the draft MND for the analysis on the project's impacts on aesthetics. See also Response HKC-16. HKC-9: The comment states that the MND fails to discuss whether the project complies with the requirements for a coastal development permit. The project's potential impacts on coastal resources and access are analyzed in the Land Use and Planning section of the draft MND. The draft MND concludes that the project will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources and does not conflict with the California Coastal Act. The comment also states that the MND fails to analyze potential impacts of the project's displacement under the Ellis Act. However,the City Attorney's office has reviewed the Ellis Act and indicated that it would not apply to the project as proposed. If there are aspects of the project that are determined to be subject to the provisions of the Ellis Act as the project progresses,the project would be required to comply with any applicable requirements of the statute. The comment states that an EIR is required to analyze the scope of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit and impacts from any conditions associated with the permits. A conditional use permit and coastal development permit are required based on aspects of the proposed project (the proposed block retaining wall and development in the coastal zone,respectively), the scope of which has been adequately described in the project description and analyzed, in whole,throughout the draft MND. Project approval would be subject to standard conditions and code requirements. No conditions with the potential to cause significant environmental impacts are recommended or foreseeable at this time. Any conditions of approval with the potential to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are recommended or adopted during consideration of the project's discretionary permits,would need to be analyzed and likely recirculated for public review and comment. HKC-10: The comment states that the MND "wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community" and states that an EIR is required to analyze the impacts to the mobile home park. As stated in the comment,the project would remove eight mobile homes,reconstruct an existing access road/Fire lane and construct a block retaining wall along the project's property line. However, in relation to the existing configuration of the mobile home park,the access road/Fire lane will be reconstructed so that the park configuration will be the same as it currently exists. The block wall will result in a grade separation similar to the grade separation that currently exists. In addition,the comment states that the proposed block wall will impede open access to the street. However,no access points to the mobile home park property will be permanently removed and the block wall will replace an existing wood fence. The project does not propose to physically divide the mobile home park from any current access, infrastructure or services that are currently provided. HKC-11: The comment states that the project would result in significant growth inducing impacts and that preparation of an EIR is required. The comment also states, and cites CEQA case law,that a project's conformity with the General Plan"does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects." The draft MND analyzes the project's potential impacts regarding population growth both directly and indirectly. The 9 Item 12. - 110 NB -606- project does not propose new uses or development(i.e.—a new residential subdivision or a new commercial shopping center)that would result in direct growth-inducing impacts nor does it result in significant indirect growth-inducing impacts(i.e.—a new road, improvements to or installation of new utilities). Although the project provides for increased capacity on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue,it would not induce substantial population growth in the area;particularly since the area surrounding the project site is largely built out or entitled for development. In addition,the project would bring the subject segment into compliance with its General Plan classification, which would accommodate population growth already assumed by the General Plan and improve the level of service on Atlanta Avenue compared to existing conditions. The applicability of the cited case law to the proposed project is inconsequential. The project cited involved construction of sewer lines and a new road in an undeveloped area, which would be a catalyst for development in the area. The court determined that the impacts of development that would likely occur as a result of the project were potentially significant and needed to be evaluated in an EIR. The proposed widening of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street would not spur development in the area that would result in substantial population growth. In addition,the case law is cited to point out that a project's conformity with the General Plan does not exempt it from having to prepare an EIR when there is a fair argument that the project would result in significant impacts. In the context of impacts on population growth,for which the case is cited, evidence has not been presented that the project would result in significant growth-inducing impacts such that a fair argument exists to require an EIR. HKC-12: The comment states that the"MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan." The comment also asserts that the use of a future study cannot substitute as mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND and concludes that an EIR is required. The draft MND identifies the displacement of people/housing as a potentially significant impact. The impact(i.e.—displacement of people/housing) can be mitigated by requiring relocation of those displaced in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. The proposed mitigation measure would ensure that all displaced people would be relocated pursuant to applicable laws,which would be defined and implemented through the required relocation plan. The relocation plan would not defer mitigation rather it would ensure that mitigation of the potentially significant impacts is implemented,thus reducing the impact to a less than significant level. The draft MND provides several relocation alternatives,but since the City cannot negotiate with the mobile home park property owner and affected residents prior to receiving authorization for funding,the actual relocation site is purely speculative at this point. Consequently,the relocation site(s)is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. HKC-13: As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the draft MND,the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern such that significant impacts would result from an increased rate or volume of runoff causing erosion and/or 10 HB -607- Item 12. - 111 flooding. Although the project does include grading and relocation of an existing fire access lane and drainage catch basin,the mobile home park site would maintain the same drainage pattern that presently exists. In addition,the project will require an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)to ensure that the project will not cause significant impacts to water quality from runoff during construction. Since the project is not proposing new uses or development that would increase impervious area within the project area or result in additional runoff volumes, post construction drainage would not impair the capability of the existing drainage system of the mobile home park to "adequately contain drainage flows." HKC-14: The comment states that an EIR is required"to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulate matter to a less than significant level." The comment misinterprets the draft MND in the percent reduction attainable for PMIo emissions from construction mitigation. The comment states that the"MND leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50%reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter,not just 50%thereof." The draft MND concludes that the localized significance threshold (LST)will be exceeded for PMIo. The LST for PMIo in Huntington Beach is 14 pounds per day. The project, without mitigation,would result in emissions of 21.8 pounds per day. Although the model cannot quantify the amount of PMIo emissions with mitigation, it is reasonable to assume that a reduction of 50 percent of the total emissions can be achieved with mitigation. A 50 percent reduction in emissions from implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 would result in 10.9 pounds per day. This would result in emissions below the established threshold and therefore,the impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. It should be noted that the conclusions regarding air quality impacts in the draft MND are based on an air quality report prepared for the project by a qualified professional. In addition, a 50 percent reduction is documented in air quality data for other projects in the City and in some instances, reductions of greater than 50 percent have been achieved with similar mitigation and compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. HKC-15: The comment states that the MND"erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting from the project." The comment also asserts that an EIR is required to study the project's impacts of increased emissions from"additional traffic enabled by the Project." While the project would provide for additional capacity on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue, it would not generate additional traffic volumes such that"long term emissions"would be cumulatively significant. Compared to existing conditions,the project may reduce vehicle emissions that would result from traffic congestion and vehicle idling. This reduction may be even greater in the long-term since congestion in the project area would likely worsen as the City approaches buildout. The comment asserts that widening the road will lead to increased traffic on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue and that the increase in traffic will result in a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. However,no data are provided to support this claim. It is important to clarify that the proposed road widening project would not result in direct increases in traffic that are typically associated with new uses or development that would generate vehicle trips. In addition,the project does not indirectly result in significant traffic impacts since it would not induce growth(Refer to Response HKC- 11). After project completion,there may be more vehicles utilizing the subject 11 Item 12. - 112 H B -608- segment of Atlanta Avenue;however,this would represent a shift in vehicles that are likely already driving in the area and not an increase in new vehicle trips. Therefore, an increase in cumulatively considerable vehicle emissions is not anticipated and impacts,as concluded in the draft MND,would be less than significant. HKC-16: The comment states that the MND"fails to contain a tree replacement plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will be eliminated." The draft MND discloses that the project includes the removal of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park property and identifies the City's standard policy to replace the trees at a two to one ratio. The draft MND also includes a mitigation measure that would protect nesting bird species and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)during project construction. A plan for replacement of the trees would be included as part of the project's landscaping plan that would be required for the project subject to review and approval by the City. The MND correctly identifies the removal of trees as a potential impact and includes the City's standard condition for tree replacement,which would sufficiently mitigate the impact. Because the replacement of trees is a standard City policy,it does not need to be identified as a mitigation measure. Additionally, specific details of the replacement trees in the draft MND are not necessary to provide an adequate analysis of the project's impacts. HKC-17: The comment states that the MND"wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will increase the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feet more than 25 dBA up to 98 dBA...." The comment states that since the impact is concluded to be less than significant,the proposed mitigation measure is not evaluated as to whether it will reduce noise levels to a less than significant level and asserts that an EIR is required to make the determination. Although the project will result in construction noise levels exceeding daytime noise levels established in the City's Noise Ordinance,the Noise Ordinance exempts construction noise and therefore,the impact as to whether the project will result in noise levels exceeding established standards is correctly identified as less than significant. In addition, due to the short duration of project construction,the proposed daily construction hours(limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday) and the intermittent nature of construction noise during various stages of project construction,the project's temporary increase in noise beyond existing levels would be considered less than significant. It should be noted that the conclusions in the draft MND are based on a technical study,prepared by a qualified professional,of the project's noise impacts. Therefore,the draft MND sufficiently and accurately assesses the project's potential noise impacts pursuant to CEQA. Even though no mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level,a mitigation measure is proposed to reduce the annoyance of construction noise on residents within the project area. HKC-18: The comment states that the MND"insists,without any substantive discussion,that the minor mitigation measures proposed will suffice." The analysis in the draft MND is substantially supported by factual evidence and expert opinion,documented in technical reports, existing regulations and applicable codes and weighed against established thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures are recommended for those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant based on the 12 rig -609- Item 12. - 113 substantive analysis. The recommended mitigation measures are both feasible and adequate to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. The comment states that the MND also fails to "admit"significant effects in the areas of land use, housing,population,traffic, drainage and noise impacts. Each of the areas cited have been adequately analyzed and determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The comment then cites CEQA case law to provide an example of a project that adopted a negative declaration wherein the court found that there was substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental effects. However,there is no substantial evidence,in light of the whole record(including the comment letter)that provides substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental impacts. In addition,the draft MND includes analysis.that provides substantial evidence that the project,with mitigation, would result in less than significant environmental impacts. HKC-19: The comment states that the MND"fails to recognize" significant environmental impacts from relocation of residents,road widening, alteration of drainage and noise and fails to sufficiently mitigate impacts such that an EIR is required. The responses to HKC-3 through HKC-18 address all of the comments related to the potential impacts described. The draft MND has adequately analyzed the project as a whole and all potential environmental impacts have been determined to be less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level. None of the comments in the letter presents substantial evidence such that a fair argument can be made to require an EIR for the project. The comment also states that the MND"demonstrates that the Project is not necessary or viable at this time." As mentioned in Response HKC-4,the role of the draft MND is not to provide justification for the project. In addition,the project has been proposed by the City's Department of Public Works and is programmed and funded as a RSTP project. Therefore,the project would be considered a viable project and, as such, all direct impacts and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts have been analyzed pursuant to CEQA. 13 Item 12. - 114 HB -610- V. ERRATA TO RECIRCULATED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 The following changes to Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 and Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. Revisions are below as excerpts from the Initial Study text,with a line dffeugh deleted text and bold and dou le- underlined font beneath inserted text. In order to indicate the location in the Initial Study where text has been changed,the reader is referred to the page number of the Initial Study. Population and Housing=page 7 Along with the acquisition of this 25 feet wide by 630 feet long(approx.)strip of land from the mobile home park immediately south of Atlanta Avenue, eight homes(Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201,301, 302,401, 501, and 502)consisting of44-16 residents will also need to be removed in order to construct the proposed street widening project. The removal of the homes and displacement of the 4-416 impacted residents is subject to the relocation requirements under the Federal Uniform Act. The Federal Uniform Act,passed by Congress in 1970,is a federal law that establishes minimum standards for federally funded programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property or displace persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. Population and Housing=page S While eight homes with 4-41_16 residents would not necessarily be considered a substantial relocation, in order to ensure that impacts to the 4416 residents that would require relocation is less than significant,the following mitigation measure is recommended: Mandatory Findings of Significance—page 36 Mitigation for impacts identified in the area of population and housing are due to relocation of 4416 residents that would occur as a result of acquisition of additional right-of-way for the project and not due to substantial increases in population or indirect growth that would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. 14 HB - 11- Item 12. - 115 APPENDIX A Comments on Draft MND No. 09-001 (Comment Period 8/5/10—9/3/10) 15 Item 12. - 116 H - 12- STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINFSS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZ.ENEGGER Governor (DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION = . District 12 m 3347 Michelson Drive,Suite 100 Irvine,CA 92612-8894 Tel:(949)724-2267 949 724-2592 Flex your power! Fax: ( ) Be energy efficient! September 2,2010 Ms.Jennifer Villasenor File: IGR/CEQA City of Huntington Beach SCH#: 2010081014 2000 Main Street Log#: 2568 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SR-39 Subject: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Dear Ms. Villasenor: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project. The project proposes to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange County Transportation Authority's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The project site is located within the City of Huntington Beach. T-)OT-1 The California Department of Transportation, District 12 is a commenting agency on this project,and has no comment at this time. Please continue to keep us informed of this project and any future developments which could potentially impact State transportation facilities. If you have any questions or need to contact us, please do not hesitate to call Zhongping(John)Xu at(949)724-2338. Sincerely, CHRISTOPHER HERRE Branch Chief, Local Development/Intergovernmental Review c: Terry Roberts,Office of Planning and Research "Caltrans improves mobility across California" HB -613- Item 12. - 117 SIMOFCAMRN1A AmoW Schmumm=KGov®rnor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 9t6 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 36a SACRAMEWO,CA 96614 (916)60-6261 Fax(916)667.6390 web Site www.nahc.ca.00v A e-mail:tts nahc@pacbell.net �400!� 0 August 18, 2010 e f fps 1� Ms.Jennifer vllasenor, Acting Senior Planner �g 9 CITY OF HUNTIi+IGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re:SCH#2010081014: Notice of Completion: proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project(CDP No.2009-001: CUP No. 2009-019) located in the City of Huntington Beach; Orange County, California. Dear Ms. Vilisenor: The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) is the state'trustee agency' pursuant to Public Resources Code§21070 for the protection and preservation of California's Native American Cultural Resources. (Also see Environmental Protection Information Center v. Johnson(1985) 170 Cal App. P 604). The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA-CA Public Resources Code§21000-21177, amendment effective 3/18/2010)requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource, OKI that includes archaeological resources, is a 'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental impact Report(EIR) per the California Code of Regulations§15064.5(b)(c)(f) CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as Na substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of physical conditions within an area affected by the proposed project, including ...objects of historic or aesthetic significance. The lead agency is required to assess whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect(APE), and if so,to mitigate that effect. State law also addresses Native American Religious Expression in Public Resources Code§5097.9. The Native American Heritage Commission did perform a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search in the NAHC SLF Inventory, established by the Legislature pursuant to Public Resources Code§5097.94(a)and Native American Cultural Resources were not identified within one-half mile of the APE identified for the project. However, there are Native American cultural resources in close proximity to the APE. Early consultation with Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed are the names of the culturally affiliated tribes and OC-9- interested Native American individuals that the NAHC recommends as'consulting parties,' for this purpose, that may have knowledge of the religious and cultural significance of the historic properties in the project area(e.g. APE). We recommend that you contact persons on the attached list of Native American contacts. A Native American Tribe or Tribal Elder may be the only source of information about a cultural resource.. Also,the NAHC recommends that a Native American Monitor or Native American culturally knowledgeable person be employed whenever a professional archaeologist is employed during the'Initial Study' and in other phases of the environmental planning processes. Furthermore the NAHC recommends that you contact the Califomia Historic A t ►( U Resources information System(CHRIS) at the Office of Historic Preservation(OHP) 1v C~3 Item 12. - 118 H - 1 - Coordinator's office(at(916)653-7278, for referral to the nearest OHP Information Center of which there are 10. Consultation with tribes and interested Native American tribes and interested Native American individuals, as consulting parties, on the NAHC list,should be conducted in compliance with the requirements of federal NEPA(42 U.S.C. 432143351) and Section 106 and 4(f) of federal NHPA(16 U.S.C.470[f)jet se), 36 CFR Part 800.3, the President's Council on Environmental Quality(CSQ;42 U.S.C.4371 et seq.) and NAGPRA(25 U.S.C. 3001-3013), as appropriate. W.C-Ll The 1992 Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties were revised so that they could be applied to all historic resource types included in the National Register of Historic Places and including cultural landscapes. Consultation with Native American communities is also a matter of environmental justice as defined by California Government Code§65040.12(e). Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project. Also, Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health& Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions for accidentally discovered archeological resources during construction and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a project location other than a'dedicated cemetery. Discussion of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate. The authority for the SLF record search of the NAHC Sacred Lands Inventory, established by the California Legislature, is California Public Resources Code§5097.94(a) and is exempt from the CA Public Records Act(c.f. California Government Code §6254.10). The results of the SLF search are confidential. However, Native Americans on the attached contact list are not prohibited from and may wish to reveal the nature of identified cultural resources/historic properties. Confidentiality of"historic properties of OM religious and cultural significance' may also be protected the under Section 304 of the NHPA or at the Secretary of the Interior' discretion if not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary may also be advised by the federal Indian Religious Freedom Act(cf.42 U.S.C, 1996)in issuing a decision on whether or not to disclose items of religious and/or cultural significance identified in or near the APE and possibly threatened by proposed project activity. CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission if the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEQA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American, identified by the NAHC, to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens. Although tribal consultation under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA; CA Public �, Resources Code Section 21000—21177) is'advisory' rather than mandated,the NAHC does request'lead agencies'to work with tribes and interested Native American individuals as 'consulting parties,' on the list provided by the NAHC in order that cultural resources will be protected. However,the 2006 SB 1059 the state enabling legislation to the Federal Energy Policy Act of 2005, does mandate tribal consultation for the'electric transmission corridors. This is codified in the California Public Resources Code, Chapter 4.3, and§25330 to Division 15, requires consultation with California Native American tribes, and identifies both federally recognized and non-federally recognized on a list maintained by the NAHC HB -615- Item 12. - 119 Health and Safety Code§7050.5, Public Resources Code§5097.98 and Sec. §15064.5(d) of the California Code of Regulations(CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of 0g C_I any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. . Note that§7052 of the Health&Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Again Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in 415370 of the California Code of Regulations(CEQA Guidelines), when significant cultural resources are discovered PAR C- during the course of project planning and implementation. Please feel free to contact me at(916)653-6251 if you have any questions. Sinc rely, Dave Singleton Program Analy Attachment: Li t of Culturally Affiliated Native American Contacts Cc: State Clearinghouse Item 12. - 120 HB -616- . 1 2 CERTIFIED 3 ORIGINAL 4 5 6 7 EXCERPTED TRANSCRIPT OF : 8 City of Huntington Beach City Council Meeting l 9 January 18 , 2011 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 l/- 21 22 23 Reported by : Miriam Baltes , CSR #9704 24 25 Pages 1 - 37 Page 1 Veritext National Deposition&Litigation Services 866 299-5127 a Ji CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interdepartmental Communication TO: Robin Lugar, Assistant City Clerk Kim De Coite,Administrative Assistant FROM: Scott Field, Assistant City Attorney DATE: June 16, 2011 SUBJECT: Pacific Mobilehome v. City of Huntington Beach (Atlanta Widening) Robin and Kim: The attached transcripts pertain to the lawsuit challenging the Mitigated Negative Declaration approved for the Atlanta Widening Project. Plaintiff employed a court reporter to listen to the videos and prepare transcripts of the City Council and Planning Commission meetings that resulted in the approval of the Atlanta Widening project. However, as the Assistant City Clerk and Secretary to the Commission,you both need to certify the transcripts as true and correct. Consequently, I need to have you both compare the transcripts to the videos. If you have any corrections,please make them directly on the transcript and initial them. Please keep track of the number of hours spent on this project so that I can recover the cost of this project from the Plaintiffs. Finally, would you both give me a date by which you will complete the certification procedure. If possible, could you complete it by June 23? Thanks in advance for all your hard work. 66558.doc oE��xTIINNGTpyB OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY P.O.Box 190 Paul D'Alessandro,Assistant City Attorney 6F�ppkTY`P`�� 2000 Main Street Scott Field,Assistant City Attorney Neal Moore,Sr.Deputy City Attorney Huntington Beach,California 92648 John Fujii,Sr.Deputy City Attorney Jeann fer McGrath Telephone: (714)536-5555 Daniel K.Ohl,Deputy City Attorney City Attorney Facsimile: (714)374-1590 Mike Vigliotta,Deputy City Attorney VIA E-MAIL TO blifti kelaw'.com AND FIRST CLASS MAIL � May 3,2011 Boyd Hill Hart,King&Coldren 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor Santa Ana, CA 92707 Re: Public Records Act Request Dated April 8,2011 ' Dear Mr. Hill: This letter is written in response to your Public Records Act Request to the City of Huntington Beach dated April 8,2011, seeking written evidence or correspondence submitted to or transferred from the City of Huntington Beach with respect to compliance with CEQA with respect to the Atlanta Widening Project,including material between the City and CalTrans, OCTA, and any other public agency. In responding to your Request,the City is excluding the over 400 pages of records it produced on January 21,2011,in response to your December 28,2010 request. This Response is limited to the period after January 21,2011. Finally,pursuant to Government Code § 6254(a), interagency memoranda that are not retained in the ordinary course of business are exempt from disclosure under the PRA. It is the City's practice to automatically delete all electronic correspondence after 90 days,unless it is specifically saved by City Staff by saving it in a separate electronic file,or printing a copy of it. I also note that your request seeks not merely correspondence,but"evidence,"a term that I do not understand in the context of your Request. However,interpreting the term broadly,the City will make available to you for inspection, and will copy at the usual cost,the files of Jo Claudio and Larry Taite,the two Public Works employees responsible for the Atlanta Widening Project. There are materials in those files such as submittals to CalTrans and OCTA that are responsive to your Request. Boyd Hill Hart,King & Coldren Re: Public Records Act Bequest Dated April 8,2011 May 3,2011 Page 2 Enclosed with this letter are printed copies of some responsive electronic communications from January 21,2011 to the present. However,the communications to and from Jo Claudio and Larry Taite are still being assembled and are expected to be made available to you on May 10, 2011. Sincerely, SCOTT F. FIELD Assistant City Attorney SFlty Enclosures c: Robin Lugar,Assistant City Clerk 63677.doc i -----Original Message----- From: Jim Kaufinan [mailto.jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov] Sent: Friday,January 28, 2011 3:41 PM To: Claudio,Jonathan Cc: Krause,Tina; Olmos,Tony;Robert Enriquez Subject:Re:Atlanta Avenue Widening-Relocation Process My best time is also Wednesday thru Friday in the afternoon. We may also be having a bridge meeting on Wednesday afternoon according to my response to you on that one. Jim Kaufman District Local Assistance Engineer E Department of Transportation,District 12 (949) 756-7805 i Robert Enriquez/D 12/Calt rans/CAGov To "Claudio,Jonathan" 01/28/201103:31 <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org> PM cc Jim Kaufman <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>, "Krause, Tina" <TKrause@surfcity-hb.org>, "Olmos, Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfeity-hb.org> Subject Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening- Relocation Process(Document link: Jim Kaufman) Hello Jonathan- Currently,my schedule is allows for Wednesday,Thursday and Friday afternoon next week. Please choose a date and time soon to lock me in. Thank you. ROBERT P. ENRIQUEZ, Branch Chief Right of Way Utilities,Local Programs, Excess Land and Relocation Assistance Program Branches District 12-Irvine Office (949) 724-2406 "Claudio, Jonathan" <TCaaudio@surfeit To y-hb.org> <robert enriquez@dot.ca.gov>,Jim Kaufman<jim kaufinan@dot.ca.gov> 01/26/2011 10:53 cc AM "Olmos,Tony" <Tony.Olmo s@surfcity-hb.org>, "Krause, Tina" <TKrause@surfcity-hb.org> 2 Subject Atlanta Avenue Widening- Relocation Process Good morning gentlemen. In anticipation of the approval of the necessary FTIP amendment,and subsequent Caltrans authorization to proceed with the Right-of-Way phase,the City would like to meet with you both to present the overall project schedule and obtain feedback and guidance from Caltrans Right-of-Way and Local Assistance staff. As promised,we would like to meet with you as early as possible in order to ensure that all parties are on the same page before beginning this critical phase of the project. Please respond to this email with 2 or 3 date/time slots of when you are both available to meet,hopefully within the next couple of weeks. Once I've coordinated with staff, I will send you a confirmation email. Thank you for your continued efforts to keep this project moving forward—Jonathan i i r 3 i Villasenor, Jennifer From: Claudio,Jonathan Sent: Thursday,February 03,2011 4:26 PM To: Villasenor,Jennifer Subject: Atlanta Widening-Public Comments/HKC Correspondence Hi Jennifer. Our Real Estate consultant is requesting a copy of all public correspondence that we've received through the various public hearings that we've held. I'm assuming that the report you took to Council for the MND had all of those as attachments,right? If so,can you please send me the.pdf so that 1 can forward to OPC? Thanks"jo i 1 i i 0210912011 14:15 Hart,King&Coldren TAX)7145467457 P.0021002 HART, KING Cx COLDREN Boyd L HH111 bhillChkc.low.com File No.36608.00514811-8789-7352v.1 February 9, 2011 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714) 374-1557 ,City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street C4 4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: City Council c/o Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk Re- Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009.001 Notice of Intent to Cornmence CEQA Action Honorable Members of the City Council: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, under Public Resources Code section 21167,5, Petitioner, Pacific Mobilehome Park, L4C, Intends to file a Petition under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") to commence an action against Respondent, City of Huntington Beach, challenging the City's final decision to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No, 2009-001 on January 18, 2011. The challenge is based on the City's failure to comply with CEQA requirements to study the entire Project, the City's failure to disclose study and mitigate all of the Project's potentially significant environmental impacts, and the City's failure to prepare an environmental Impact report for the Project, which divides an established community, The Petition will seek a writ mandating the City to vacate and set aside Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 and to comply with all CEQA requirements pertalnlng to Project environmental review and approval, Sincerely yours, H RT,-KING COLDREN Boyd Hill cc: By E-Mail only to the following: Mark Hodgson Gary Hodgson Jim Hodson Jennifer Villasenor, City Associate Planner Scott Hess, City Director of Planning and Building Mike Vigliotta, Assistant City Attorney Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432,8700 1 www,hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7467 0210912011 14:15 Hart,King &Coldren TAX)7145467457 P.0011002 HART, KING & COLDREN Facsimile'Transmission Cover Sheet DATE; February 9, 2011 PAGES (Incl. cover sheet): 2 TO: Ms, Joan L. Flynn COMPANY: City of Huntington Beach FAX NO.: (714) 374-1557 PHONE NO.: (714) 536-5227 FROM: Boyd L. Hill FILE NO.: 36608.005/4824-5254-5544v.1 RE: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Mitigated Negative Declaration No, 2009-001 Notice of Intent to Commence CEQA Action MESSAGE: Please see attached, Thank you. ❑ ORIGINAL WILL NOT FOLLOW ® ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY: U. S. MAIL If there are any questions regarding this FAX transmittal, please call Boyd Hill at (714)432- 8700. CAUTION: PRIVILEGED ANDIOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION This message Is Intended only for the use of the individual to which it was addressed and may contain Information that Is privileged, confidential and exempt from°disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employer or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us Immediately by telephone and return the original to us at the address below via United States Postal Service, A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714,432,87001 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 City ®f Huntington Beach ® e� r 2000 Main Street o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERIC g JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERIC NOTICE OF ACTION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.09-001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING MND) February 3, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department APPELLANT: Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 REQUEST: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. PROPERTY OWNER: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-flay: City of Huntington.Beach; Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way: between Huntington Street and Delaware Street; Pacific Mobile Home Park: 80 Huntington Street(south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street. PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Villasenor On Tuesday, January 18, 2011 a public hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Hart, King and Coldren of the Planning Commission's Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 (Atlanta Avenue Widening MND). The Huntington Beach City Council approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 with findings and mitigation measures. Enclosed are the Findings, Mitigation Measures, and the Action Agenda from the January 18,2011 meeting. If you have any)uestj ns, please Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner at(714) 374-1661. Joan L. Flynn; CMC City Clerk JF:rI c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Jennifer Villasenor, Senior Planner Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,CA 92707 Attachments: Findings and Mitigation Measures MND 09-001 City Council Action Agenda for 1-18-11 Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan . Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone:714536-5227) FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of 30 days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address construction noise and pollutant emissions and potential impacts to biological resources, cultural resources and population and housing. Mitigation measures were generally designed to minimize construction related impacts within and surrounding the project area as well as ensure that relocation of the impacted residents complies with the provisions of existing federal laws enacted to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project will widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter;-a-bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. Additional beneficial impacts include construction of a new ADA accessible sidewalk and Class 11 bike lane along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue does not currently have a sidewalk or designated bike lane. Because the current roadway narrows at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue, traffic flow is often impeded when the bus makes stops at this location. In addition, bicyclists are currently forced into travel lanes due to the roadway narrowing and the existing transit stop configuration. The project would improve the current conditions with the installation of the proposed improvements and would improve traffic safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users traveling within the project area. Finally, all potential adverse impacts resulting from construction of the project can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. As soon as feasibly possible, the City shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Uniform Act and other applicable laws. Notification to and discussions with the impacted property owner and residents shall occur as soon as feasibly possible pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act. The City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and relocation is implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. 2. The City shall require, by contract specifications, implementation of the following measures: a. All work shall be done in accordance with the "GREENBOOK" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2009 Edition, as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. b. The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke, dust, equipment exhaust, or any other air contaminants into the atmosphere in such quantity as will violate any federal, State or local regulations. (Greenbook Section 7-8.2) c. The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standard Specification Section 7-1.01 F and Section 10 of Caltrans' Standard Specifications (1999). d. The contractor shall apply water or dust palliative to the site and equipment as frequently as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. e. The contractor shall spread soil binder on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and all project construction parking areas. f. The contractor shall wash trucks as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust. g. The contractor shall properly tune and maintain construction equipment and vehicles and use low-sulfur fuel in all construction equipment as provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. h. The contractor shall develop a dust control plan documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and expedited re-vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to adjacent uses and residents. i. The contractor shall locate equipment and materials storage as far away from residential as practical. j. The contractor shall establish environmentally sensitive areas for receptors,within construction activities involving extended idling of diesel equipment would be prohibited to the extent feasible. k. The contractor shall use track out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. 1. The contractor shall require that all transported loads of soil and wet materials shall be covered prior to transport, or provide adequate freeboard to reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate matter during transportation. m. The contractor shall route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling along local roads. n. The contractor shall install landscaping as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown particulate in the area. o. The contractor shall implement a street sweeping program with Rule 1186-compliant PM,o-efficient vacuum units on at least a 14-day frequency. p. The contractor shall abate dust nuisance by cleaning, sweeping and spraying with water, or other means as necessary. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) q. The contractor shall provide a self-loading motorized street sweeper equipped with a functional water spray system. The sweeper shall clean all paved areas within the work site and all pave haul routes at least once a day. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) 3. Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency consultation: a. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September 1 and January 31 whenever feasible. b. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 and August 31,. a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite (per established thresholds), a 250-foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. 4. The City shall require by contract specifications the following measures: a. Ensure that all construction equipment has sound-control devices. b. Prohibit equipment with un-muffled exhaust. c. Site staging of equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. d. Limit idling of equipment whenever possible. e. Notify adjacent residents in advance of construction work. f. Educate contractors and employees to be sensitive to noise impact issues and noise control methods. g. Install temporary acoustic barriers between the mobile home removal and construction activities and the row of mobile homes to remain closest to Atlanta Avenue. Acoustical barriers should provide a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 25 and should be situated in a manner to provide an uninterrupted continuous barrier between all mobile home removal and road construction activities. During the mobile home removal activities, the barriers should stretch from the east edge of the property to the west and zig-zag between homes where necessary. After removal of the mobile homes and prior to construction of the drive aisle within the mobile home property, the barrier can be straightened to stretch more directly from the east property line to the west property line. 5. If cultural resources are encountered during construction-related ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find, until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources. 6. If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The designated MLD may make recommendations to the City for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods.. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. ACTION AGENDA Tuesday, January 18, 2011 MAYOR 41 CITY COUNCIL, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL and PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Joe carchio Mayor CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Don Hansen Devin Dwyer Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember 1"9 zoos 4:30 PM - Study Session, Room B-8 Connie Boardman Matthew Harper 6:00 PM -Regular Meeting Councilmember Councilmember Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Keith Bohr Joe Shaw Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Councilmember Councilmember http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov The City Clerk will recess the 4:00 PM portion of the meeting to 4:30 PM due to an anticipated lack of quorum 4:30 PM - ROOM B-8 CALL TO ORDER -4:30 PM ROLL CALL Shaw, Harper, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Dwyer, Boardman All Present(Boardman arrived at 5:01 PM) ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION None PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) None STUDY SESSION 1. Review of Economic Development Strategy -The Agency retained Linda S. Congleton &Associates to create an Economic Development Strategic Plan for the City of Huntington Beach. The Plan will provide practical strategies that can be implemented by the Agency and City. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION - 5:42 PM CLOSED SESSION 2. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9, the City Council shall recess into -1- closed session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region v. City of Huntington Beach, Administrative Civil Liability Action, Complaint No. R8- 2010-0004. 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54966.9, the City Council shall recess to Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the receipt of a claim by AT&T (Claim # 2110-038) pursuant to the Tort Claims Act which claim shall be available for public inspection. 4. City of Huntington Beach v. Hayes, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 2008-00073768, and City of Huntington Beach, et al. v. Carol Martin, et al. Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2009- 00333445; regarding the Affordable Housing Covenant at Brisas del Mar, located at 409 E. Utica. 6:00 PM — COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY MEETING — 6:11 PM CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY None ROLL CALL Shaw, Harper, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Dwyer, Boardman All Present PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - To be led by Cub Scout Pack 1 INVOCATION - To be announced by Mayor Carchio In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does.not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. ANNOUNCEMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS RECEIVED AFTER AGENDA DISTRIBUTION City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced Late Communications: #10, #16 AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Carchio to call on Environmental Board Chair Robert Schaff to present the annual Environmental Awards to Russ & Susan Kadota for the residential award and the Shipley Nature Center for the business/institutional award. Mayor Carchio to call on Sustainable Tourism Committee Chair Shirley -2- Dettloff and President/CEO Steve Bone to present the Marketing and Visitors' Bureau new publication "Steps toward a Sustainable Huntington Beach." Mayor Carchio to call on Economic Development Director Stanley Smalewitz to present the Mayor's Award to Real Property Agent Tina Krause. PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) 10 Speakers COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING Shaw, Harper, Carchio, Dwyer, Boardman reported. Councilmember Harper announced his appointments of Tom Herbel to the Public Works Commission, Erik Peterson to the Planning Commission, Ken Dickerson to the Finance Board and Valerie Dickerson to the Investment Advisory Board Councilmember Shaw announced his appointment of Angela Rainsberger to the Investment Advisory Board Council voted to move Item #16 to this portion of the meeting agenda. Approved 7-0 CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None CITY CLERK'S REPORT 1. Reading of the title of Ordinance No. 3907 amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 2.16 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and amending Section 2.15.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to the duties of the Finance Department After the City Clerk read by title, introduced Ordinance No. 3907, as amended to add the following language to sections 2.15.030 sections (i), (j), (k) and(I): "in furtherance of the City Treasurer's duties under the Charter. Approved as amended 7-0 CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approve and adopt minutes Recommended Action: Approve and adopt the minutes of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority regular meeting of December 20, 2010 as written and on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Approved 6-0-1 (Boardman abstain) -3- 3. Receive and file the City Treasurer's November 2010 Investment Summary Report Recommended Action: Receive and file the Monthly Investment Report for November 2010, pursuant to Section 17.0 of the Investment Policy of the City of Huntington Beach. Approved 7-0 4. Approve project plans and specifications and award construction contract in the amount of$392,250.00 to Garcia Juarez Construction Inc., Brea California, for the Gravity Sewer Installation and Lift Station Demolition, Oceanhill Lift Station #15, CC-1368 Recommended Action: A) Approve the project plans and specifications for the Gravity Sewer Installation and Lift Station Demolition, Oceanhill Lift Station #15, CC-1368; and, B) Accept the lowest responsive and responsible bid submitted by Garcia Juarez Construction Inc., in the amount of$392,250.00; and, C) Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract in a form approved by the City Attorney; and, D) Authorize the Director of Public Works to approve up to $58,850 in construction contingency which is 15-percent of the contract bid amount. Approved 7-0 5. Approve and authorize execution of an Amended and Restated Site Lease Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and T-Mobile West Corporation for an existing wireless telecommunications system located on the Civic Center rooftop Recommended Action: Approve and authorize Mayor and City Clerk to execute the "Amended and Restated Site Lease Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and T-Mobile West Corporation, a Subsidiary of T-Mobile USA Inc., a Delaware Corporation Located on the Civic Center Rooftop." Approved 7-0 6. Adopt resolutions requesting authorization by the City and approval from Cal Trans for temporary closure of streets for certain special events in 2011 Recommended Action: A) Adopt Resolution No. 2011-01, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing the Closing of Main Street to Vehicular Traffic for Certain Special Events;" and, B) Adopt Resolution No. 2011-02, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Requesting Caltrans Approve the Closing of Pacific Coast Highway and Certain Ingress and Egress for the Surf City USA Marathon Run;" -4- and, C) Adopt Resolution No. 2011-03 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving the Temporary Closure of Portions of Goldenwest Street, Garfield Avenue, Huntington Street, Twin Dolphin Drive, Edwards Street, Ellis Avenue, Talbert Avenue, Seapoint Street, Inlet Drive, Overlook Drive, Summit Drive, Varsity Drive, Main Street, Walnut Avenue and Central Park Drive for the Surf City USA Marathon Run;" and, D) Adopt Resolution No. 2011-04, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Requesting Caltrans Approve the Closing of Pacific Coast Highway for the Huntington Beach Fourth of July Parade and Fireworks;" and, E) Adopt Resolution No. 2011-05, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing Street Closure for the Fourth of July." Approved 7-0 7. Authorize the Mayor and Fire Chief to execute the Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Fire F.R.I.E.N.D.S. (Firesetter Regional Intervention Education Network and Delivery System) Program Agreement Recommended Action: Authorize the Mayor and Fire Chief to execute the Orange County Fire Authority "Agreement Regarding Sharing, Treatment, and Nondisclosure of Confidential Information Pursuant to Fire F. R. I. E. N. D. S. Program." Approved 7-0 8. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) C-9-0622 with the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) approving participation by the City of Huntington Beach -in the Traffic Light Synchronization Program (TLSP) project along Brookhurst Street Recommended Action: Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Memorandum of Understanding C-9-0622 By and Between Orange County Transportation Authority and the Cities of Anaheim, Fountain Valley, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Huntington Beach, Westminster and the State of California Department of Transportation for the Brookhurst Street Traffic Light Synchronization Program Project." Approved 7-0 9. Receive and File the 2009 Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report(CAPER) Recommended Action: Approve to receive and file the 2009 Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report. Approved 7-0 -5- 10. Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with VF Outdoor, Inc. a California Corporation (Vans) for the potential Development of a Skate Park on Center Avenue near Gothard Street Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action: A) Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with VF Outdoor, Inc. a California Corporation (Vans) for the development of a skate park on a 2.7 acre Agency owned property located on Center Avenue, near Gothard Street; and, B) Authorize the Agency Chairperson and Agency Clerk to sign all necessary documents to execute the Agreement. Approved 6-0-1 (Dwyer abstain) 11. Adopt Resolution No. 2011-06 designating Bob Hall, Lori Ann Farrell, Joyce M. Zacks, and Jennifer Lampman as persons authorized to execute financial transactions in the name of the City of Huntington Beach Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2011-06, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Authorizing the Manual and/or Facsimile Signature of Bob Hall, Lori Ann Farrell, Joyce M. Zacks, and Jennifer Lampman" as persons authorized to execute financial transactions in the name of the City of Huntington Beach. Approved 7-0 PUBLIC HEARING 12. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (HAND) No. 09-001 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval - Atlanta Avenue Widening MND) Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 09-001 with findings and suggested mitigation measures. 5 Speakers Approved 7-0 ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 13. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3908 amending Municipal Code Chapter 10.12 relating to speed limits on 90 street segments Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance 3908, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 10.12 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Speed Limits." Approved 6-1 (Carchio no) 14. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3906 which changes the title of City Administrator to City Manager pursuant to the revised City Charter as -6- e adopted by a vote the City's electorate Recommended Action: After the City Clerk reads by title, approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3906, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 2.08 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to the City Administrator." Approved 7-0 COl1NCILMEMBER ITEMS 15. Submitted by Councilmember Connie Boardman - Consider changing the start time of Study Sessions to 5:00 p.m. and City Council meetings to 7:00 p.m. for the first nine (9) weeks of the year (through May 2, 2011) Recommended Action: The City Charter (section 303a) allows the City Council to set the meeting time by ordinance or resolution. I request that staff prepare a resolution changing the meeting time of the Study Session from 6 A9 4:00 p.m. to 7 00 5:00 p.m. for the first nine meetings of the year(through May 2, 2011). and dy Sessions begin at 5.00 p.Fn., with the Closed Session following the Study Session. City Council meetings will continue to start at 6:00 P.M. f^F the Feet of +her, Approved as amended 7-0 16. Submitted by Councilmember Devin Dwyer- Request directing the Police Department to post Arrest Log information on the City website, and "Habitual Drunk Drivers" information on the Police Department's Facebook page Recommended Action: DiFeGt the P91iGe DepaFtment to begin posting theiF Arrest Log on the PeliGe cemputeF in the Police DepaFtment lobby to allow individuals to aG-cess the information if they have no etheF means to aec;.ss the website.. r ISG7 Direct the Police Department Chief NOT to post information regarding the arrest of "Habitual Drunk Drivers"and their photo on the Police Department Facebook page. Approved as amended 4-3 (Harper, Hansen, Dwyer no) 17. Submitted by Councilmember Keith Bohr - Direct City Attorney to revise City's sign Ordinance as it relates to political signs Recommended Action: Direct the City Attorney to bring back to the City Council a revised ordinance as outlined for their consideration and to have the City Attorney analyze Fountain Valley's political sign ordinance. Approved as amended 6-1 (Harper no) -7- COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Harper, Carchio, Bohr, Dwyer, Boardman reported ADJOURNMENT- 9:48 PM Adjournment to a Special Meeting on Monday, January 24, 2011, at 5:00 PM in the Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. There will also be a Special Meeting on Friday, January 28, 2011, at 8:30 AM at the Huntington Beach Central Library, Rooms C and D, 7111 Talbert Ave., Huntington Beach, California. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Monday, February 07, 2011 at 5:00 PM in (doom B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS LOCATED UNDER THE "GOVERNMENT" TAB AT http://www.huntin-qtonbeachca.-gov -s- Council/Agency; Meeting Held:/ Deferred/Continued to: Appr ved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied .�,, �"Ci Cle ' Signa e Council Meeting Date: January 18, 2011 Department ID Number: PL11-001 CITY OF HUNTINGTON REACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 09-001 (Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval - Atlanta Avenue Widening MND) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Hart, King, and Coldren, on behalf of the Pacific Mobile Home Park property owners, of the Planning Commission's approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 09-001. MND No. 09-001 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project, a City proposal to widen Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification of the General Plan Circulation Element and the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). The reasons for the appeal are cited in the appeal letter and include the appellant's assertion that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be required for the project (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). Financial Impact: Not Applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 09-001 with findings and suggested mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on October 26, 2010: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001, WITH FINDINGS AND REVISED MITIGATION MEASURES (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: FARLEY, LIVENGOOD, SCANDURA, SHIER BURNETT, SPEAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: DELGLEIZE, MANTINI ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED HB -497- Item 12. - 1 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): A) "Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 with findings for denial." B) "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Location: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way (between Huntington Street and Delaware Street) Pacific Mobile Home Park (80 Huntington Street, 92648 — south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 09-001 MND No. 09-001 represents a request to analyze the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with a proposal to widen Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its General Plan classification as well as the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. The only action for consideration at this time is on the mitigated negative declaration, which is necessary to maintain funding for the project (refer to Section B. Background of this report). Action on MND No. 09-001 would not constitute action on the project as construction of the street widening project also requires approval of a coastal development permit for development in the coastal zone and a conditional use permit for the proposed height of the retaining wall. The coastal development and conditional use permits require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and would be scheduled for a future meeting. The street widening improvements will result in an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. Construction of the street widening improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue (i.e., the public street right-of-way is proposed at 55 feet south of street centerline). The additional 25 feet of right-of-way would come from an approximately 25 feet wide by 630 feet long strip of land from the Pacific Mobile Home Park located immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. The acquisition of the 25 feet would impact eight dwelling units (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501, and 502) within the park. The impacted residents would need to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. In addition, the project's Item 12. - 2 HB -498- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 scope of work includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7 feet max.) retaining wall, landscaping (including the removal or relocation of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park), reconstruction of a 26-foot wide drive aisle (circulation road) and two emergency access gates within the mobile home park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. B. BACKGROUND: The Atlanta Avenue Widening Project was initially identified in the 2006 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP) and 2008 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The project has been authorized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to receive funding through the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is the administering agency for FHWA and the lead agency for environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Funding for the project is awarded in three phases: preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction. Each phase cannot begin until the City receives Federal authorization to proceed. The City is currently working with Caltrans to obtain Federal authorization for the right-of-way phase in accordance with the timelines established by OCTA for the obligation of funds. The Federal authorization to proceed cannot be granted until environmental review for the project is completed pursuant to NEPA. Caltrans, as the lead agency for NEPA, will issue NEPA compliance pending completion of the City's CEQA process. In addition, the City cannot begin any work on the acquisition of right-of-way, including negotiations with the mobile home park property owners and impacted residents, prior to receiving Federal authorization to proceed. Therefore; the City is in the process of completing CEQA review in order to maintain funding for the project as well as begin discussions with the owners and residents of the mobile home park. Zoning Administrator Action On September 15, 2010, the Zoning Administrator (ZA) considered MND No. 09-001. Staff presented an overview of the project, the potential environmental impacts and discussed the CEQA process. Staff disclosed that five comment letters were received during the 30-day public review and comment period for the MND. The comment letters were forwarded to the ZA, along with responses to each of the comments raised in the letters, prior to the meeting. It was stated that a change in the number of displaced residents (from 14 to 16) was made to the MND based on one of the public comment letters. Staff noted that the change did not affect the conclusions of the MND. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, four members of the public, including three residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, asked questions related to project timing, potential relocation sites, site access during construction and relocation compensation requirements. The speakers did not voice support of or opposition to the project nor did they raise any issues regarding the environmental analysis in the MND. The appellant did not attend the meeting. The ZA approved the MND with findings and the recommended mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). On September 27, 2010, an appeal of the ZA's decision to the Planning Commission was filed by the appellant. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on October 26, 2010, to consider the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of MND No. 09-001. Staff presented an overview of HB -499- Item 12. - 3 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 the project and the proposed mitigated negative declaration and discussed the appeal issues. During the public hearing, three members of the public spoke including the appellant. The appellant reiterated the appeal issues in the September 27, 2010, appeal letter (ATTACHMENT NO. 7) and asked about the City's funding for the project. One member of the public read a statement from a resident of the mobile home park that was not able to attend the meeting. A copy of the statement is included in the appeal letter (ATTACHMENT NO. 2). The comments in the statement primarily raised an issue about the justification for the project and contended that the project is not necessary to alleviate traffic congestion. The third speaker stated that he lives in one of the mobile homes that would be impacted by the project and inquired about the project timeline. The Planning Commission asked questions about the project timeline and future approvals required for the project. The Planning Commission also asked staff to provide an explanation about the relocation process and what protections are provided under the Federal Uniform Act. The Planning Commission approved the MND with a revised mitigation measure to begin discussion with the impacted residents and property owners "as soon as feasibly possible" rather than "upon federal authorization" to ensure that if the project moved forward without federal funding discussions would commence as soon as allowable under applicable laws. The mitigation measure was also revised to ensure compliance with all applicable laws for a future relocation project in addition to compliance with the Federal Uniform Act. The changes are reflected in the Planning Commission and staff recommendation (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) for approval of the MND. D. APPEAL: An appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of MND No. 09-001 was received on November 5, 2010, from Hart, King, and Coldren on behalf of the Pacific Mobile Home Park property owners. The appeal letter cites 10 reasons for appeal and incorporates by reference a letter, dated November 4, 2010, sent from the appellant to Caltrans. The reasons for the appeal are cited and discussed in the Analysis section of this report. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The 10 issues in the appeal letter and the appellant's letter to Caltrans are discussed in the following analysis section. Additional analysis regarding each of the 10 appeal issues is provided in the Planning Commission Staff Report (ATTACHMENT NO. 6) and the Response to Comments (ATTACHMENT NO. 4). Staff is recommending that the City Council approve MND No. 09-001 as none of the issues raised in the appeal letter present substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental impacts. Issue #1 There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the proposed Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. The appellant states that the MND does not provide a public necessity for the project and purports that this is required for projects involving the taking of a private property. The draft MND discloses environmental impacts of the project to the public and decision-makers. The draft MND, in accordance with CEQA, is not required to provide substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project. Item 12. - 4 HB -500- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 Issue #2 An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered, would require preparation of an EIR. The appeal letter asserts that the project involves the relocation of mobile home park residents and that an EIR is required to analyze the relocation. The MND identifies the displacement of people/housing as a potentially significant impact. The impact (i.e. — displacement of people/housing) can be mitigated by requiring relocation of those displaced in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act and other applicable laws. The Federal Uniform Act includes specific provisions for carrying out relocation projects. The proposed mitigation measure would ensure that all displaced people would be relocated pursuant to applicable laws, which would be defined and implemented through the required relocation plan. It should be noted that the project description of the MND identifies potential alternatives for relocation of the residents, including on-site relocation, off-site relocation, monetary compensation for those displaced residents that no longer choose to reside in a manufactured home or within the City, and reconfiguration of the existing mobile home park. Because the nature of the relocation is speculative at this point, the actual relocation is not further described in the project description. Consequently, the nature of a relocation project, including actual relocation site(s) is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. Issue #3 An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, particularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resource impacts. Although the appeal letter does not go into detail about these issues, the same issue areas were cited in the appeal letter of the Zoning Administrator's approval and included in the Planning Commission analysis of these issues. Below is an analysis of the issues raised with respect to the issue areas mentioned in the appeal letter based on the more detailed assertions made in the Planning Commission appeal letter. Land Use The appeal letter states that the MND incorrectly finds that the project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agency over the mobile home park. The letter states that the project requires a conditional use permit for the block wall, which is not currently permitted, and would "impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park owner." This is incorrect. The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) permits the proposed block wall subject to a conditional use permit. Any conditions of approval adopted for the conditional use permit would be the responsibility of the City as the project applicant. The letter states that the MND fails to discuss whether the project complies with the requirements for a coastal development permit. The project's potential impacts on coastal resources and access are analyzed in the Land Use and Planning section of the MND. The MND concludes that the project will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources and does not conflict with the California Coastal Act. The letter also states that the MND fails to analyze potential impacts of the project's displacement under the Ellis Act. However, the HB -501- Item 12. - 5 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 City Attorney's office has reviewed the Ellis Act and indicated that it would not apply to the project as proposed. If there are aspects of the project that are determined to be subject to the provisions of the Ellis Act as the project progresses, the project would be required to comply with any applicable requirements of the statute. The letter states that an EIR is required to analyze the scope of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit and impacts from any conditions associated with the permits. A conditional use permit and coastal development permit are required based on aspects of the proposed project (the proposed block wall and development in the coastal zone, respectively), the scope of which has been adequately described in the project description and analyzed, in whole, throughout the draft MND. Project approval would be subject to standard conditions and code requirements. No conditions with the potential to cause significant environmental impacts are recommended or foreseeable at this time. Any conditions of approval with the potential to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are recommended or adopted during consideration of the project's discretionary permits, would need to be analyzed in accordance with CEQA. The letter states that the MND "wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community" and states that an EIR is required to analyze the impacts to the mobile home park. As stated in the letter, the project would remove eight mobile homes, reconstruct an existing access road/Fire lane and construct a block retaining wall along the project's property line. However, in relation.to the existing configuration of the mobile home park, the access road/Fire lane will be reconstructed so that the park configuration will be the same as it currently exists. The block wall will result in a grade separation similar to the grade separation that currently exists. In addition, the letter states that the proposed block wall will impede open access to the street. However, no access points to the mobile home park property will be permanently removed and the block wall will replace an existing wood fence. The project does not propose to physically divide the mobile home park from any current access, infrastructure or services that are currently provided. Housing The letter states that the "MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan." The letter also asserts that the use of a future study cannot substitute as mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND and concludes that an EIR is required. The MND identifies the displacement of people/housing as a potentially significant impact. The impact (i.e. — displacement of people/housing) can be mitigated by requiring relocation of those displaced in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. The proposed mitigation measure would ensure that all displaced people would be relocated pursuant to applicable laws, which would be defined and implemented through the required relocation plan. The relocation plan would not defer mitigation rather it would ensure that mitigation of the potentially significant impacts is implemented, thus reducing the impact to a less than significant level. The MND provides several relocation alternatives, but since the City cannot negotiate with the mobile home park property owner and affected residents prior to receiving authorization for funding, the actual nature of the relocation is purely speculative at this point. Consequently, a relocation site(s) is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. Item 12. - 6 HB -502- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 Growth The letter states that the project would result in significant growth inducing impacts and that preparation of an EIR is required. The letter also states, and cites CEQA case law (City of Antioch vs. City Council of the City of Pittsburg), that a project's conformity with the General Plan "does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects." The MND analyzes the project's potential impacts regarding population growth both directly and indirectly. The project does not propose new uses or development (i.e. — a new residential subdivision or a new commercial shopping center) that would result in direct growth-inducing impacts nor does it result in significant indirect growth-inducing impacts (i.e. — a new road, improvements to or installation of new utilities). Although the project provides for increased capacity on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue, it would not induce substantial population growth in the area; particularly since the area surrounding the project site is largely built out or entitled for development. In addition, the project would bring the subject segment into compliance with its General Plan classification, which would accommodate population --growth already assumed by the General Plan and improve the level of service on Atlanta Avenue compared to existing conditions. The applicability of the cited case law to the proposed project is inconsequential. The project cited involved construction of sewer lines and a new road in an undeveloped area, which would be a catalyst for development in the area. The court determined that the impacts of development that would likely occur as a result of the project were potentially significant and needed to be evaluated in an EIR. The proposed widening of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street would not spur development in the area that would result in substantial population growth. In addition, the case law is cited to point out that a project's conformity with the General Plan does not exempt it from having to prepare an EIR when there is a fair argument that the project would result in significant impacts. In the context of impacts on population growth, for which the case is cited, evidence has not been presented that the project would result in significant growth- inducing impacts such that a fair argument exists to require an EIR. Air Quality The letter states that an EIR is required "to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulate matter to a less than significant level." The letter misinterprets the MND in the percent reduction attainable for PM10 emissions from construction mitigation. The comment states that the "MND leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50% reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter, not just 50% thereof." The MND concludes that the localized significance threshold (LST) will be exceeded for Mo. The LST for PM10 in Huntington Beach is 14 pounds per day. The project, without mitigation, would result in emissions of 21.8 pounds per day. Although the model cannot quantify the amount of PM10 emissions with mitigation, it is reasonable to assume that a reduction of 50 percent of the total emissions can be achieved with mitigation. The conclusions regarding air quality impacts in the MND are based on an air quality report prepared for the project by a qualified professional. A 50 percent reduction is documented in air quality data for other projects in the City and in some instances, reductions of greater than 50 percent have been achieved with similar mitigation and compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. A 50 percent reduction in emissions from implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 would result in 10.9 pounds per day. This would result in emissions below the established threshold and therefore, the impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. HB -503- Item 12. - 7 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 The appeal letter states that the MND "erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting from the project." The letter also asserts that an EIR is required to study the project's impacts of increased emissions from "additional traffic enabled by the Project." While the project would provide for additional capacity on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue, it would not generate additional traffic volumes such that "long term emissions" would be cumulatively significant. Compared to existing conditions, the project may reduce vehicle emissions that would result from traffic congestion and vehicle idling. This reduction may be even greater in the long-term since congestion in the project area would likely worsen as the City approaches buildout. The letter asserts that widening the road will lead to increased traffic on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue and that the increase in traffic will result in a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. However, no data are provided to support this claim. It is important to clarify that the proposed road widening project would not result in direct increases in traffic that are typically associated with new uses or development that would generate vehicle trips. In addition, the project does not indirectly result in significant traffic impacts since it would not induce growth. After project completion, there may be more vehicles utilizing the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue; however, this would represent a shift in vehicles that are likely already driving in the area and not an increase in new vehicle trips. ThereforEF, an increase in cumulatively considerable vehicle emissions is not anticipated and impacts, as concluded in the MND, would be less than significant. Drainage As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the MND, the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern such that significant impacts would result from an increased rate or volume of runoff causing erosion and/or flooding. Although the project does include grading and relocation of an existing fire access lane and drainage catch basin, the mobile home park site would maintain the same drainage pattern that presently exists. In addition, the project will require an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that the project will not cause significant impacts to water quality. from runoff during construction. Since the project is not proposing new uses or development that would increase impervious area within the project area or result in additional runoff volumes, post construction drainage would not impair the capability of the existing drainage system of the mobile home park to "adequately contain drainage flows." Noise The appeal letter states that the MND "wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will increase the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feet more than 25 dBA up to 98 dBA...." The letter states that since the impact is concluded to be less than significant, the proposed mitigation measure is not evaluated as to whether it will reduce noise levels to a less than significant level and asserts that an EIR is required to make the determination. Although the project will result in construction noise levels exceeding daytime noise levels established in the City's Noise Ordinance, the Noise Ordinance exempts construction noise and therefore, the impact as to whether the project will result in noise levels exceeding established standards is correctly identified as less than significant. In addition, due to the short duration of project construction, the proposed daily construction hours (limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday) and the intermittent nature of construction noise during various stages of project construction, the project's temporary increase in noise beyond existing levels would be considered less than significant. It should Item 12. - 8 HIS -504- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 be noted that the conclusions in the draft MND are based on a technical study, prepared by a qualified professional, of the project's noise impacts. Therefore, the MND sufficiently and accurately assesses the project's potential noise impacts pursuant to CEQA. Even though no mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, a mitigation measure is proposed to reduce the annoyance of construction noise on residents within the project area. Biological Resources The letter states that the MND "fails to contain a tree replacement plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will be eliminated." The MND discloses that the project includes the removal of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park property and identifies the City's standard policy to replace the trees at a two to one ratio. The MND also includes a mitigation measure that would protect nesting bird species and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) during project construction. A plan for replacement of the trees would be included as part of the project's landscaping plan that would be required for the project subject to review and approval by the City. The MND correctly identifies the removal of trees as a potential impact and includes the City's standard condition for tree replacement, which would sufficiently mitigate the impact. Because the replacement of trees is a standard City policy, it does not need to be identified as a mitigation measure. Additionally, specific details of the replacement trees in the draft MND are not necessary to provide an adequate analysis of the project's impacts. Issue #4 The City presents no evidence of current traffic of (sic) safety problems on Atlanta Avenue that support the MND finding that the proposed Project is to eliminate a traffic "choke point." In addition, there would still be one lane of traffic on Atlanta Avenue to the west of the proposed Project. The suggested findings of the MND in Attachment No. 1 recognize that elimination of an existing "choke point" on Atlanta Avenue is a beneficial environmental impact of the project and does not describe elimination of the "choke point" as the project objective. In addition, the project description and traffic analysis of the MND state that the project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the primary arterial designation specified in the General Plan, which is the purpose of the project. The Pacific City project has already widened Atlanta Avenue from First Street to Huntington Street to its ultimate configuration, which leaves a "chokepoint" on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue. While the project would alleviate the "chokepoint" and potentially improve traffic safety in the project area, this is not the primary purpose of the project. The MND accurately describes existing conditions at the area of the "choke point" as one in which motorists are forced to make additional decisions as the roadway narrows. Due to existing conflicts from bicyclists riding within the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue and an existing OCTA transit stop, there is greater potential for merging accidents. Eliminating the "choke point" would alleviate the potential for accidents and is identified as a potential beneficial impact. The analysis in the MND is based on a traffic study that was prepared by a qualified professional and reviewed by the City's Transportation Division. The letter states that there would "still be one lane of traffic on Atlanta Avenue to the west of the proposed project." It is not clear what the appellant means by this statement. However, in the context of the entire appeal issue, the statement does not raise an environmental issue since it contends that no H B -505- Item 12. - 9 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 evidence of safety problems are presented to support the project's purpose of eliminating an existing "choke point." As previously stated, the purpose of the project is to bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the primary arterial designation of the General Plan, which would accommodate future growth and traffic projections assumed for buildout of the City under the General Plan. Issue #5 The traffic study relied upon by the City does not demonstrate non-Project future traffic or safety problems because it fails to take into account the recently installed traffic light at Huntington Avenue as the appropriate pre-project baseline. At the time the traffic study was prepared, the intersection at Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street was not signalized. Therefore, the traffic study correctly characterized existing intersection traffic conditions as unsignalized. The traffic study considered that the intersection would be signalized as part of another project (Pacific City) and therefore; future conditions with and without the project appropriately include signalization of the intersection. Issue #6 The Park is a strong established community that will be divided by relocation of many of its residents resulting from the proposed Project. The project would remove eight mobile homes with a total of 16 residents, reconstruct an existing access road/Fire lane and construct a block retaining wall along the project's property line. However, in relation to the existing configuration of the mobile home park, the access road/Fire lane will be reconstructed so that the park configuration will be the same as it currently exists. The block wall will result in a grade separation similar to the grade separation that currently exists. No access points to the mobile home park property will be permanently removed and the block wall will replace an existing wood fence. The project does not propose to physically divide the mobile home park from any current access, infrastructure or services that are currently provided. It should be noted that the appeal issue states that the project would relocate "many" of the mobile home park's residents. In addressing the potential impact of whether the project would result in displacement of a substantial number of people or housing, the MND states that the eight dwellings and 16 residents would not necessarily constitute a substantial number of people. In fact, based on 2000 census data, the project would impact approximately three and a half percent of the total mobile home park population. The percentage is even less when compared to the entire census tract and negligible when compared to Citywide population data. Issue #7 The Park residents include many economically and socially disadvantaged persons, including seniors, disabled, families with young children, and pending retirees who will be disproportionately impacted by the proposed Project, but who were not notified of the proposed Project until just before the decision on the environmental review. CEQA does not require that social and economic changes be considered as significant effects on the environment. However, if a physical change causes adverse social or economic effects on people, those effects may be used in determining whether the physical change is considered significant. The MND determines that the displacement of 16 residents is a potentially significant effect and proposes mitigation to ensure that the displacement of Item 12. - 10 HB -506- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 the impacted residents is consistent with all applicable laws, including the Federal Uniform Act, which provides for equitable relocation of displaced residents. In addition, the appellant does not provide any economic or demographic information on the impacted residents. According to available data on the mobile home park, taken from various sources including the 2000 Census and the 2008 Housing Element and compiled at the request of Caltrans, the impacted residents do not represent a disproportionate ratio of a disadvantage population group when compared to census tract and Citywide data. Finally, notice of the project was sent to residents of the mobile home park four times (including the City Council hearing). The first notice was sent on August 5, 2010 and stated the start of a 30-day public review and comment period. Subsequent notices were sent 10 days prior to each public hearing on the MND. Additionally, the Federal Uniform Act has minimum noticing requirements that the City must comply with for residents that would be displaced as a result of the acquisition'of additional right-of-way for the project. Issue #8 The Initial Study fails to includ (sic) environmental review of the proposed Project's foreseeable relocation of Park residents, foreseeable relocation of the Park's drainage system, and foreseeable conditional use and coastal development permit conditions. For analysis on the nature of the relocation, refer to the discussion under the Issue #2 heading on page five of this report. With respect to drainage, refer to the analysis under the Drainage heading on page eight of this report. In addition, the MND states that the project would relocate existing concrete v-gutters on the mobile home park site but would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the site. For analysis on the conditions for the conditional use and coastal development permits, refer to the discussion under the Land Use heading on pages five and six of this report. Issue #9 The purported mitigation measure for mobile home relocation fails to take into account that mobile homes cannot be relocated for various reasons, including their age, rules of other parks, and/or significant improvements attached to the land. The proposed mitigation measure requires relocation in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act, the regulations of which provide for consideration of all aspects of a relocation project. The required relocation plan must provide information on each dwelling unit including age, tenure, and value. In addition, the relocation plan must provide information on available spaces in comparable mobile home parks. Issue #10 The initial study fails to take into account and study the proposed Project's growth inducing and noise impacts. For analysis on growth inducing impacts, refer to the discussion under the Growth heading on page seven of this report. With respect to noise, refer to the analysis under the Noise heading on page eight of this report. Caltrans letter The letter addressed to Caltrans is attached to the appeal letter received by the City and is incorporated by reference. The letter to Caltrans raises the same issues that are presented Hg -507- Item 12. - 11 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 in the City appeal letter as well as previous appeal and comment letters. The Caltrans letter includes additional commentary and CEQA case law citations to further illustrate the appeal issues. However, no substantial evidence is provided that would constitute a fair argument that the project would result in significant impacts. The one additional issue raised in the Caltrans letter that has not been addressed in either this report or previous reports is with respect to public controversy over the project. CEQA does not require an EIR solely based on the existence of public controversy if there is no substantial evidence that the project would result in significant adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, this issue does not raise a legitimate CEQA concern. As the lead agency for NEPA review, Caltrans would not be able to categorically exclude a project if there are unusual circumstances such as substantial controversy on environmental grounds. However, it should be noted that Caltrans has issued a Categorical Exclusion Determination for the project indicating that Caltrans has considered unusual circumstances including the degree of controversy. The appellant cites the presence of "approximately 20 Park residents" at the Planning Commission hearing as well as a letter from a designated representative, the September 27, 2010, property owner appeal letter and an October 26, 2010, Orange County Register article as evidence of substantial controversy. While the degree of public controversy is not a determination for the City to make with respect to CEQA compliance, it should be noted that the City sent over 700 notices to the mobile home park property owners, residents and surrounding residents on three previous and separate occasions (not including the notification for the City Council hearing). In total, the City received two comment letters from State agencies, one comment letter from a local agency, three comment/appeal letters from the appellant (on behalf of the property owners) and two resident comment letters. A total of seven speakers, including the appellant, spoke at the two public hearings on the MND. Of the seven speakers, two speakers raised environmental issues that have been adequately addressed in the record. The referenced newspaper article summarizes the appeal and the pending issues slated for (at the time) the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. Although, the article is not entirely accurate, it does not, in staff's opinion, present evidence of substantial controversy on environmental grounds. F. SUMMARY: The analysis in the MND is substantially supported by factual evidence and expert opinion documented in technical reports, existing regulations and applicable codes and weighed against established thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures are recommended for those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant based on the substantive analysis. The recommended mitigation measures are both feasible and adequate to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record (including the appeal letter) that the project would result in significant environmental impacts. In addition, the draft MND includes analysis that provides substantial evidence that the project, with mitigation, would result in less than significant environmental impacts. None of the issues raised in the letter presents substantial evidence that the MND is inadequate or that a fair argument can be made to require an EIR for the project. Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No. 09-001 was prepared by staff and relies, in part, on consultant prepared technical studies in the areas of air quality, traffic, cultural resources, hazards and noise. On July, 29, 2010, the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) approved the processing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The draft MND Item 12. - 12 H - 08- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 1/18/2011 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL11-001 concluded that the project, as proposed, would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources, biological resources, and population and housing. A mitigation measure is recommended to reduce construction noise to surrounding residents but is not required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. A 30-day public review and comment period for draft MND No. 09-001 commenced on August 5, 2010, and concluded on September 3, 2010. During the comment period, the City received five comment letters, including a comment letter from the appellant. Prior to the Zoning Administrator public hearing on the draft MND, staff responded to each of the comments raised in the comment letters. A copy of the Response to Comments and all comment letters is provided as Attachment No. 4. Strategic Plan Coal: Maintain, improve and obtain funding for infrastructure and equipment Attachment (s): o hscrlovoil. 1. Suggested Findings and Mitigation Measures — Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 2. Appeal letter, dated November 5, 2010, from Hart, King, and Coldren 3. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 4 Response to Comments for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 (includes all comments, responses and errata to MND No. 09-001 5. Planning Commission Notice of Action, dated October 27, 2010 — Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 6. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated October 26, 2010 — Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 7. Appeal letter, dated September 27, 2010, from Hart, King, and Coldren 8. Zoning Administrator Notice of Action, dated September 16, 2010 — Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 9. 1 PowerPoint Presentation Hg -509- Item 12. 13 ATTACHMENT # 1 Item 12. _ ,4 He -510- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of 30 days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address construction noise and pollutant emissions and potential impacts to biological resources, cultural resources and population and housing. Mitigation measures were generally designed to minimize construction related impacts within and surrounding the project area as well as ensure that relocation of the impacted residents complies with the provisions of existing federal laws enacted to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project will widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. Additional beneficial impacts include construction of a new ADA accessible sidewalk and Class II bike lane along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue does not currently have a sidewalk or designated bike lane. Because the current roadway narrows at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue, traffic flow is often impeded when the bus makes stops at this location. In addition, bicyclists are currently forced into travel lanes due to the roadway narrowing and the existing transit stop configuration. The project would improve the current conditions with the installation of the proposed improvements and would improve traffic safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users traveling within the project area. Finally, all potential adverse impacts resulting from construction of the project can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. HB -511- Item 12. - 15 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. As soon as feasibly possible, the City shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Uniform Act and all applicable laws. Notification to and discussions with the impacted residents and property owners shall occur as soon as feasibly possible pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act. The City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and relocation is implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act and all applicable laws. 2. The City shall require, by contract specifications, implementation of the following measures: a. All work shall be done in accordance with the "GREENBOOK" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2009 Edition, as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. b. The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke, dust, equipment exhaust, or any other air contaminants into the atmosphere in such quantity as will violate any federal, State or local regulations. (Greenbook Section 7-8.2) c. The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standard Specification Section 7-1.01 F and Section 10 of Caltrans' Standard Specifications (1999). d. The contractor shall apply water or dust palliative to the site and equipment as frequently as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. e. The contractor shall spread soil binder on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and all project construction parking areas. f. The contractor shall wash trucks as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust. g. The contractor shall properly tune and maintain construction equipment and vehicles and use low-sulfur fuel in all construction equipment as provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. h. The contractor shall develop a dust control plan documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and expedited re-vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to adjacent uses and residents. i. The contractor shall locate equipment and materials storage as far away from residential as practical. j. The contractor shall establish environmentally sensitive areas for receptors within which construction activities involving extended idling of diesel equipment would be prohibited to the extent feasible. k. The contractor shall use track out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. I. The contractor shall require that all transported loads of soil and wet materials shall be covered prior to transport, or provide adequate freeboard to reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate matter during transportation. Item 12. - 16 HB - 12- m. The contractor shall route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling along local roads. n. The contractor shall install landscaping as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown particulate in the area. o. The contractor shall implement a street sweeping program with Rule 1186-compliant PM10-efficient vacuum units on at least a 14-day frequency. p. The contractor shall abate dust nuisance by cleaning, sweeping and spraying with water, or other means as necessary. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) q. The contractor shall provide a self-loading motorized street sweeper equipped with a functional water spray system. The sweeper shall clean all paved areas within the work site and all pave haul routes at least once a day. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) 3. Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency consultation: a. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September 1 and January 31 whenever feasible. b. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 and August 31, a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite (per established thresholds), a 250-foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. 4. The City shall require by contract specifications the following measures: a. Ensure that all construction equipment has sound-control devices. b. Prohibit equipment with un-muffled exhaust. c. Site staging of equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. d. Limit idling of equipment whenever possible. e. Notify adjacent residents in advance of construction work. HB -513- Item 12. - 17 f. Educate contractors and employees to be sensitive to noise impact issues and noise control methods. g. Install temporary acoustic barriers between the mobile home removal and construction activities and the row of mobile homes to remain closest to Atlanta Avenue. Acoustical barriers should provide a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 25 and should be situated in a manner to provide an uninterrupted continuous barrier between all mobile home removal and road construction activities. During the mobile home removal activities, the barriers should stretch from the east edge of the property to the west and zig-zag between homes where necessary. After removal of the mobile homes and prior to construction of the drive aisle within the mobile home property, the barrier can be straightened to stretch more directly from the east property line to the west property line. 5. If cultural resources are encountered during construction-related ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find, until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. if archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources. 6. If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The designated MLD may make recommendations to the City for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. Item 12. - 18 HB -514- ATTACHMENT #2 Ha -515- Item ,z _ ,9 HK& HART, KING & COLDREN (� 2010 MCI V1 -S 1 E 12- yd L.Hill r@h c aw.com November 5, 2010 T;� Our File I�Cie� 88 68':005/48it&C $' 2-0039v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o City Clerk Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project("Project") Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND") No. 2009-001 Dear Mayor and City Council: We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose property would need to be taken for the proposed Project. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the City's MND No. 2009-001 for the Project. The Park Owner's name and address are Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The appeal fee in the amount of$3,045.00 is enclosed herewith. The grounds for appeal are set forth in great detail in the enclosed November 4, 2010 letter to CalTrans and in its attachments, which CalTrans letter is incorporated into this notice of appeal letter by this reference. The grounds for appeal include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the proposed Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the proposed Project which invo ve, relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered, would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, particularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resources impacts. 4. The City presents no evidence of current traffic of safety problems on Atlanta Avenue that support the MND finding that the proposed Project objective is to A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 12. - 20 HB -516- HKIS!,,'N_- C HART. KING F COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 November 5, 2010 Page 2 eliminate a traffic "choke point." In addition, there would still be one lane traffic on Atlanta Avenue to the west of the proposed Project. 5. The traffic study relied upon by the City does not demonstrate non-Project future traffic or safety .problems because it fails to take into account the recently installed traffic light at Huntington Avenue as the appropriate pre-Project baseline. 6. The Park is a strong established community that will be divided by relocation of many of its residents resulting from the proposed Project. 7. The Park residents .include many economically and socially disadvantaged persons, including seniors, disabled, families with young children, and pending retirees who will be disproportionately impacted by the proposed Project, but who were not notified of the proposed Project until just before the decision on the environmental review. 8. The Initial Study improperly fails to includ environmental review of the proposed Project's foreseeable relocation of Park residents, foreseeable relocation of the Park's drainage system, and foreseeable conditional use and coastal development permit conditions. 9. The purported mitigation measure for mobilehome relocation fails to take into account that mobilehomes cannot be relocated for various reasons, including their age, rules of other parks, and/or significant improvements attached to the land. 10. The Initial Study fails to take into account and study the proposed Project's growth inducing and noise impacts. Please advise of the time and date of the City Council hearing on this appeal. Sincerely, HART, KING & COLDREN -C Boy Hill BLH/dr Enclosures: $3,045 appeal fee November 4, 2010 CalTrans Letter and Attachments H -517- Item 12. - 21 H C Kc,.w,-,f.. HART. KINO & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 November 5, 2010 Page 3 cc: Mark Hodgson Gary Hodgson Jim Hodgson Robert S. Coldren Travis Hopkins Mike Vigliotta Scott Hess Jennifer Villasenor Item 12. - 22 HB - 18- HART, KING & CCILDREN Boyd t-i411 bhili@hkclaw.com November 4, 2010 Our File Number.36608.005/4825-6509-5432v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND E-MAIL Facsimile No. (949)724-2267 Urn kaufman@dot.ca.gov charles baker@dot.ca..qov Jim Kaufman, Local Assistance Branch Chief Charles Baker, Senior Environmental Planner CalTrans District 12 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project("Project") Pacific Mobilehome Park Apgeal of MIND Substantial Controversy on Environmental Grounds Dear Mssrs. Kaufman and Baker: This firm represents the owner of the Pacific Mobiiehome Park, whose property would be taken for the proposed Atlanta Avenue Widening Project in the City of Huntington Beach. We understand that you are the District 12 Branch Chief for Local Assistance and Senior Environmental Planner who will be making the decision for CalTrans regarding the level of NEPA review for federal highway funding for the proposed Project. The purpose of this letter is to present information why the proposed Project should not be reviewed by CalTrans under a Categorical Exclusion. Under Section 771.117 (b) (1)& (2)of the Code of Federal Regulations, a project cannot be categorically excluded if there is substantial controversy on environmental grounds or it there are significant environmental impacts. Because the proposed Project will cause relocation of a substantial number of mobilehome park residents and reconfiguration of park drainage, which actions are not studied as part of the proposed Project, the proposed Project will have significant unmitigated environmental impacts. in addition, an organized group of Park residents and the Park owner have raised substantial controversy on environmental grounds regarding the proposed Project. At the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission hearing on the mitigated negative declaration for the proposed Project, approximately 20 Park residents showed up in apposition to the proposed Project, and a designated resident representative read the enclosed October 26, 2010 letter to the City Council. The enclosed October 26, 2010 resident letter, the enclosed September 27, 2010 Park owner letter, and the enclosed October 26, 2010 Orange County Register Newspaper article provide evidence of substantial controversy regarding the following environmental grounds: A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546,7457 HB -51 - Item 12. - 23 M;-.t='T. Ktif-tom T. COIDRENI Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 2 1. There are no current traffic or safety problems on Atlanta Avenue that support the MND finding that the proposed Project is needed to eliminate a traffic"choke point." 2. The traffic study relied upon by the City does not demonstrate future traffic or safety problems because it fails to take into account the recently installed traffic light at Huntington Avenue as the appropriate pre-project baseline. 3. The Park is a strong established community that will be divided by relocation of many of its residents resulting from the Project. 4, The Park residents include many economically and socially disadvantaged persons, including seniors, disabled, families with young children, and pending retirees who will be disproportionately impacted by the proposed Project. 5. The Initial Study improperly fails to include environmental review of the Project's foreseeable relocation of Park residents and of relocation of the Park's drainage system. 6. The purported mitigation measure for mobilehome relocation fail to take into account that mobilehomes cannot be relocated for various reasons, including their age, rules of other .parks, and/or significant improvements attached to the land. 7. The Initial Study failed to take into account and study the proposed Project's growth Inducing and noise environmental Impacts. 1. There is No Evidence in Support of the City's Project Objective Finding. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of informative and legally adequate environmental review. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592) An adequate project description must state the objectives to be accomplished by the project, including "the underlying purpose of the project." (See 14 Cat. Code Regs., § 15124 (b)) A project without a clearly stated objective cannot be reviewed to determine whether there are other alternatives to the proposed project that will cause less significant environmental impacts. (See In Re Bay Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163) The City finding regarding the Project objective must be supported by substantial evidence. (See Topange Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515 ["Section 1094.5 clearly contemplates that at minimum, the reviewing court must determine both whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's findings and whether the findings support the agency's decision."]) Here, the City finds that the objective for the proposed Project is to"eliminate [an alleged] choke point." (See August 5, 2010 City Environmental Checklist Form, Page 2) However, the City presents no evidence that the current Atlanta Avenue lane configuration creates a "choke point" causing traffic congestion or traffic safety issues. In fact, as the attached aerial photo demonstrates, the City recently installed a concrete median to the east of the project area restricting traffic to one lane that will not be eliminated by the proposed Project. Item 12. - 24 HB -520- t-IAPT. KfNG GOLORCN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4,2010 Page 3 The resident letter presents substantial evidence that there are no current traffic or safety issues, contrary to the City's finding that the current lane configuration creates a "choke point. As anybody who lives in the area of the intersection of Atlanta Ave. and Huntington St. know ... there is absolutely NO traffic issue that warrants adding 740ft of one lane to Atlanta Ave. We all drive this section of Atlanta, and use this intersection daily ... many of us several times a day. I cannot stress enough—as any citizen who drives this intersection knows ... there is no backup, no traffic jams, no rush hour jams, no lengthy wait at the intersection, no traffic hazard, no safety hazard that exists at this section of street and intersection in its current configuration. Currently, pedestrians,I bide riders and vehicles can easily commute and travel simultaneously ... with no extraordinary hazard or danger than is offered on any other street/sidewalk configuration in the city. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 2) Thus, the resident letter presents substantial evidence that there is no "choke point" caused by the current Atlanta Avenue lane configuration. The City's Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project candidly admits that there is no evidence that the proposed Project will result in less traffic congestion or safety: However, it should be noted that the MND states that the project would help to minimize accident potential and vehicular conflicts and provide for improved traffic safety and does not assert that the project will result in a decrease of accidents in the project area, although that could be the case. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 12[underline added)) Thus, the City's finding regarding the proposed Project objective is unsupported by evideri -, and the City is undertaking harm to the environment without justification. Therefore, the City's MND is invalid and an EIR must be prepared. (See Communities for a Better Environment V. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 46 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 ["if no EIR has beer,, prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy.is to order preparation of an EIR."]) HB -521- Item 12. - 25 HART. K;W G E C 0 L D R E N Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 4 2. The City,'s Traffic Study Cannot Be Used as Evidence to Support the Protect Objective Finding Because the Study Uses an Incorrect Baseline. Recognizing that there is no evidence of a current traffic congestion or safety problem with the current Atlanta lane configuration, the City attempts to manufacture evidence of a future problem by pointing to a traffic study that was previously used for the neighboring Pacific City project showing traffic congestion on the affected portion of Atlanta Avenue in the year 2030. According to that study, traffic circulation would not significantly improve as a result of Atlanta Avenue widening, but would significantly improve with the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection with Huntington Avenue. Based on that traffic study, the City required installation of a traffic light as mitigation for the Pacific City project but did not require the Pacific City project developer to widen Atlanta Avenue, thus evidencing that the City previously found that the current configuration of the affected section of Atlanta Avenue will not cause future traffic congestion. The City now attempts to use that same traffic study as justification for a Project that consists of the very mitigation measure that the City determined was not necessary to impose on the developer of the Pacific City project. That traffic study cannot be used as evidence of the objective for the proposed Project because it fails to account for the now-installed existing traffic signal: as the appropriate baseline for environmental review of the proposed Project. (See Communities for a Better Environment V. South Coast Air Quality District, supra, 48 CalAth at 320-321 ["A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the Impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis ...."D The City Staff Report candidly admits that the traffic signal is part of the pre-Project baseline, but incorrectly argues that the traffic study does not need to study the pre-Project baseline or the Project with a traffic signal included: Additionally, as the traffic signal is not part of the proposed project, there is no requirement to analyze the installation of the traffic signal with or without the project. (October 26,. 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 12) Thus, the traffic study does not study the incremental impacts from the proposed Project with the existing traffic signal Huntington Ave. traffic signal to determine whether or not there is evidence in support of the Project objective. Therefore, the MND cannot be valid because the environmental review uses an incorrect baseline. Item 12. - 26 HB -522- HART. KIFIG L COLDREN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CaiTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 5 3. An EIR is Required Because the Project will Physically Divide an Established Community. An EIR is mandated when a proposed project will physically divide an established residential community causing significant social or economic impacts. (See Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003) In Friends of °B" Street, the removal of 12 residences was cited as substantial evidence for requiring an EIR because of the impact in dividing an established residential community. CEQA makes clear that significant social or economic effects of physically dividing an established community resulting from a road project constitute significant environment effects: Economic or social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by the project. For example, if the construction of a new freeway or rail line divides an existing community, the construction would be the physical change, but the social effect on the community would be the basis for determining that the effect would be significant. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15131 (b); see also 14 Cal. Code Regs., Appendix G. IX (a) ["Would the project physically divide an established community."]) Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook makes clear that mobilehome park communities are to be considered cohesive established communities that can be disrupted by transportation projects physically dividing the parks: Community cohesion is the degree to which residents have a "sense of belonging" to their neighborhood, a level of commitment of the residents to the community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. Cohesion refers to the degree of interaction among the individuals, groups and institutions that make up a community. Transportation projects impacts tend to be more disruptive to cohesive.communities" (Section 4-6.1, Page 49) Displacement of mobile home.park resident may involve impacts not typically encountered by residents of more traditional houses or apartments." (Section 4-7.2, Page 55) N - 23- Item 12. - 27 K;-�-- IAAR.7. t1tils - COLDREta Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 6 Residents in mobile home parks often live in a "community within a community." Many parks have organized community activities for seniors set up around a recreation center. Planners should contact the park manager to determine whether or not there are organized activities." (Section 4-7.2, Page 56) The resident letter presents substantial evidence that the Park consists of an established mobilehome community: Let me tell you council members ... just because we live in mobile homes, doesn't mean they are meant to be moved on the whim of an unnecessary civil project .... All of us live in our homes and our location because we CHOOSE to live there. We are a strong community—we are friends, and neighbors ... we help each other, and look out for each other. We have a secure, safe and enjoyable lifestyle. These are our HOMES ... we have worked, planned and made specific decision because of the incredible lifestyle offered us in this location in this community. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 2) The Park has many features of an established community, including a central clubhouse with a pool, jacuzzi, billiard table, library, exercise room and kitchen; and Including centrally organized resident social activities and emergency planning. Meanwhile, the City fails to present evidence that the. Park is not an established residential community. Instead, the City dismissively and incorrectly argues that because there will not be commercial encroachment, that the existing park residential community will be preserved: Finally, unlike the "Friends of B Street" case, there is no evidence that the project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic; in fact the community character will be enhanced with the improved road and landscaping. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 6) The City's argument incorrectly interprets the Friends of "B" Street holding pertaining to disruption of the residential character of the neighborhood: Contrary to the City's argument, Friends of"B"Street makes clear that it was the physical disruption of an established residential community by displacement of 12 families (including commercial stores) that was the basis for its decision, not commercial encroachment. Item 12. - 28 1--1 -524- HART. Ktl,16 u, COLDRGN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CaiTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 7 Here, the City intends to displace 8 families of an even more established residential community, a mobilehome park. Therefore, under Friends of "B" Street, an EIR Is required to study the significant social effects of physically dividing the Park community as a result of the proposed Project. 4. The City Failed to Involve Disadvantaged Members of the Society From the Park in Early.Discussions of the Protect, Violating Principles of Environmental Justice. Cal.Trans is required to take into consideration environmental justice issues relating to a project. As Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook states, the disadvantaged people impacted by a project do matter: Do people count? Yes. it is important to determine if minority, low income, disadvantaged, and low mobility groups in the affected area would be disproportionately impacted by transportation decision and practices and to find ways to mitigate if such effects could not otherwise be avoided. In recent years the term "environmental justice" has risen to prominence, and this section briefly discusses it. Moreover, many of the aspects are aligned with the need for community participation in all phases of environmental planning;while this is not a new requirement, public agencies at all levels of government have not always actively sought out the opinions of all peoples affected by their plans and actions. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of peoples of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) To ensure that environmental justice is promoted, and see that programs and projects are implemented in a socially ,equitable fashion, the planner analyzing socioeconomic Issues should identify ethnic and racial minority and low-income population groups in the affected community and make contacts with the leadership in an informational outreach program. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) These various community groups must be involved early during the project development process, ideally when transportation plans are being developed at the regional level, well before the HB -525- Item 12. - 29 HART. htIAG COLDREN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4,2010 Page 8 official public hearings are held for specific projects as required by environmental laws. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) The resident letter written on the date of the official Planning Commission hearing under CEQA provides substantial evidence that the Park residents are economically disadvantaged and were left out of the environmental review process, contrary to established principles of environmental justice: I am writing this letter on behalf of the homeowners that are scheduled to have their homes demolished in Pacific Mobile Home Park due to the widening of Atlanta Ave. We do not agree this widening is in the best interest of the public, it is an irresponsible use of scarce public funds, and is a serious and destructive intrusion into the lives of the homeowners that will be affected, as well as the owner of Pacific Mobile Home Park. In addition, this is a very irresponsible use of the ultimate power of Government over Citizens ... Eminent Domain. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 1) The City's justification for the displacement of the homeowners, and the disregard of the property owner are both unacceptable. The justification is presented as a very matter of fact, very simple, very easy process. Nothing could be further from the trust, and there are numerous issues that have not been presented to the funding sources and decision makers who approve the funding for this project. You are planning on destroying our HOMES. There are seniors, disabled, families with young children, as well as pending retirees that are affected. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 2) CalTrans and OCTA as the funding approval agencies only get one side of the story—naturally, the Justification paints a perfect picture, that provides the impression this so called Improvement has to be done, or there are severe public consequences. Nobody at CalTrans or the Federal Highway Administration has heard the other side ... the homeowners, or the property owners side of the facts relative to the project. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 3) The attached excerpts from the resident letter provide substantial evidence that there are disadvantaged members of society affected by the proposed Project that were not consulted in Item 12. - 30 H -526- Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 9 advance whose opinions were not solicited, heard or noted until the official Planning Commission hearing on the proposed Project. Such evidence clearly demonstrates that the City has not even made token acknowledgement of the environmental justice concerns arising from the proposed Project. 5. The City Failed to Include the Entire Project in its Environmental Review, Failing to include Environmental Review of Relocation, Drainage and Government Condition Impacts, CEQA defines the term "Project" broadly to include the whole of an action, direct and indirect impacts on the environment, and any subsequent discretionary actions of the government agencies. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143J An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential effects of a proposed activity. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on Isolated pars of the whole. (See ld.) The October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report expressly admits at page 4 thereof that the proposed Project will require future approval of a conditional use permit for the block wall and a coastal development permit. However, the Initial Study makes no attempt to describe any potential conditions for approval of a conditional use permit or coastal development permit as part of the proposed Project. . The City Environmental Checklist Form at Page_ 3 also expressly admits that the Project environmental review does not include environmental review of any relocation alternatives, despite the listing of potential relocation alternatives: Potential relocation alternatives include on-site relocation, off-site relocation to another park or conventional dwelling unit, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufacturedimobile home. On-site relocation could occur by relocating the residents to an existing available space within the park or through reconfiguration of the park to include an adjacent undeveloped area along Delaware Street. Since the City cannot negotiate the relocation alternatives with the impacted residents until the aforementioned steps (Le. — environmental review, fedral authorization, land acquisition) are completed, it is uncertain where the impacted residents would be relocated. Therefore, the physical relocation is not reasonably foreseeable. At such time that the relocation sites) can be determined, the relocation would HB -527- Item 12. - 31 HART. K11d5 L, COLDP.EN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 10 be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. (August 5, 2010 City Environmental Checklist Form, Page 3) However, in the City's project narrative, the City makes clear that the relocation alternatives are "foreseeable" alternatives: The foreseeable alternatives include on-site reioation to a comparable unit, off-site relocation to another park with a comparable units, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufactured home. (City Project Engineer Project Narrative, Page 2) The City's position that it must put off considering the environmental impacts of potential conditions of foreseeable future governmental permits• and of potential alternatives for foreseeable relocation is based on faulty reasoning. The lack of present funding for relocation and lack of final permit approval do not prevent consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the presently foreseeable relocation alternatives or of the presently foreseeable conditions. Furthermore, during the Planning Commission hearing, it was revealed that the City has not prepared a hydrology study or prepared a drainage plan to study the environmental effects of relocation of a Park storm drain, but acknowledges it will have to do so prior to movement of the Park storm drain in order to assure continued proper Park drainage. Thus, the Project that was studied in preparation for the HIND does not include environmental review of all of the foreseeable components of the proposed Project, such as the government approvals, the relocation plan, and the movement of the Park storm drain. Therefore the MND is an invalid approval of merely a segment of the proposed Project. The City's promises that it will study the potential environmental effects of relocation, government conditions and drainage plans in the future do not excuse the failure to study foreseeable environmental effects during initial project environmental review 6. The MIND Does Not Provide for Adequate Mitigation of the Project's Significant Environmental Effects. A mitigation monitoring plan or program is only as good as the information contained in the environmental review about the significant impacts. Because the City failed to study the environmental impacts regarding relocation alternatives, government conditions the City cannot determine whether it mitigated all significant environmental impacts, especially those concerned with relocation. (See Sunsfrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 rBy deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of Item 12. - 32 1 HB -52 - HAVT. KMJG & COLOREN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 11 CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process."]) Environmental impacts pertaining to relocation of mobilehomes are more significant than environmental impacts from ordinary resident relocation. As Section 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook states: Displacement of mobile home park residents may involve impacts not typically encountered by residents of more traditional houses or apartments. First, the term "mobile home" is now somewhat of a misnomer as most units only move from the factory to a permanent site. The term "manufactured housing" is becoming more common, especially when applied to models constructed in the part quarter-century or so. Mobile home parks often occupy an unfavorable position in community planning and zoning due to their iow tax base and because conventional residential owner- occupants rarely want them to be located nearby because they feel they may affect their neighborhood's overall property values. Manufactured housing still suffers from financing and zoning barriers arising out of old attitudes towards mobile homes. Consequently, new parks that could be built to accommodate displaced mobile home owners are difficult to establish in some parts of California. When mobile home park occupants must relocate, themobile home is often sold In place due to the loss in value when it is not established on a pad or site and the relatively high cost of moving the home. Some parks charge a fee when a home remains, but this is usually less than the cost of transporting it. Also, an old mobile home may be considered obsolete or unattractive and so may not be allowed In other, or newer, parks. Therefore, changes in occupancy do not always resut in vacant spaces, and this limits the supply of spaces available to accommodate displaces. Too, often the rental rate for the mobile home is raised to "market levels"for a new owner. In cases where a vacant space does become available, the space is often filled as a result of a continuing agreement between the park management and local mobile home dealers who have what is tantamount to an option on the vacant site for their customers. Ng - 29- Item 12. - 33 t-TART. I:rNG & COLOPEN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 12 Normally, new parks will accept only new or. nearly-new manufactured housing units. When used units are accepted, park management often requires painting, new skirting and awnings, landscaping, and such. New parks are generally designed to accept "double wide" units" (the average size of new mobile homes is 1,210 square feet). This eliminates them as a source for more affordable"signle wide" units. Because of these special characteristics, it is often difficult to locate mobile home residents near their former area or with their neighborhood friends and relatives. This exacerbates the other - relocation impacts such as loss of support groups, commute time increases, and so forth. (Section 4-7,2, Pages 55 & 56) The resident letter presents substantial evidence that those particular mobilehome relocation impacts required to be studied and mitigated have not been studied or mitigated for the proposed Project: Also, the relocation plan outlined by the city is 100% NON committal ... you could at your option, relocate us anywhere you wanted, and offer very undesireable living arrangements. You should note ... all but one of the homes you want to "move" cannot] actually be moved ... you will have to replace/purchase new homes. An expense I think you may have underestimated. My home, for example is actually more square footage of traditional foundation and wood frame construction tha[n] is it mobile home ... in my case, you are literally destroying a "real home. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Pages 2-3) The City's mere reference to the future environmental review of a future relocation plan or to environmental review of a future conditional use/coastal development permit with future hydrlology studies as a mitigation "plan" fails to take into account the special circumstances of mobilehome relocation required to be considered by CalTrans. Furthermore, mitigation measures cannot be put off into the future by reference to a future "plan." (See Sunstrom V. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 306 ["The requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation measures recommended in a future study is in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CEQA."]) Item 12. - 34 HB -530- HART, Ktt•IG £ COLDREN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 13 7. There are Additional Unstudied and/or Unmitigated Environmental Impacts as Indicated by the Park Owner As the enclosed September 27, 2010 letter written on behalf of the Park Owner discusses, the City's analysis of other significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are deficient, including but not limited to its growth inducing impacts and noise impacts. CEQA requires that road widening projects which increase the capacity of the road include a study of the particular project growth inducing impacts. The City cannot excuse itself by relying upon its General Plan instead of studying project specific growth inducement impacts. (See City of Antioch v. City Council(1988) 187 Cal,App.3d 1325, 1332 ["conformity with the general plan for the area '.. does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement where it may be fairly argued that the project will general significant environmental effects."]) The October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, seeking to run away from the "choke point"justification for the Project, reveals that the real objective for the proposed Project is not to eliminate a "choke point," but instead to increase traffic capacity: The MND states that the project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the primary arterial designation specified in the General Plan. Atlanta Avenue has been designated as a primary arterial since 978, long before consideration of the Pacific City project. The Pacific City project has already widened Atlanta Avenue from the First.. Street to Huntington Street to its ultimate configuration, which leave a "chokepoint" on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue. While the project would alleviate the "chokepoint" and improve traffic safety in the project area, this is not the primary purpose of the project. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Pages 11- 12) Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook expressly states that capacity improvements are growth inducing and must be.studied: A traditional shorthand way of looking at growth inducement is as the removal of obstacles to growth, and is specified as such in the CEQA Guidelines highlighted previously. Capacity improvements should be considered removal of transportation related obstacles to growth. By this given definition, a project to increase capacity in a highway can be understood as growth inducing. That does not make it a "bad" project, however. The conclusion: sought from HB -531- Item 12. - 35 HK!.--,�,�-. 0 14APT Kth1G & COLE)PE-r! Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page '14 the analysis is whether or not the future project capacity will exceed the predicted traffic capacity as needed by the planned population of the area. The identified excess capacity Is an indicator of the likely significance of the growth induced or facilitated by the project. (Section 4-3, Page 39) Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook also makes clear that the City of Antioch requirement to study particular project impacts still holds true even for road widening projects in already established urban areas: If any growth is expected, the discussion must be more analytical than a statement that.growth will occur anyway and local agencies have the power to control growth rates and patterns. The discussion should not be loaded down with generic explanations of the typical relationship between transportation and growth; it should be specific to the project and affected area. (Section 4-3. Page 39) The City's vain attempt to distinguish City of Antioch is thus without merit because the proposed Project will provide for increased capacity, as admitted by the City. Therefore, the City failed to include, study and/or mitigate for the proposed Project's growth inducing impacts in violation of CEQA. In conclusion, on behalf of the Park Owner and the Park residents, we request that CalTrans refuse to issue a categorical-exclusion for the proposed Project, but instead require the City to prepare an EIR/EIS in connection with the proposed Project. Sincerely, HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L. Hill Enclosures: September 27, 2010 Park Owner Letter October 26, 2010 Resident Letter October 26, 2010 Orange County Register Newspaper Article Aerial Photo Item 12. - 36 FIB - 32- HART. VC11-AG Ec 1COLORF111 Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 15 cc: Mark Hodgson Gary Hodgson Jeff Hodgson Robert Coldren Travis Hopkins Mike Vigliotta Scott Hess Jennifer Villasenor HB - 33- Item 12. - 37 l — October 26,2©I D October 25, 2010 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Attn: City Council, Attn: Dept. of Public Works Dear community leaders, Due to previous business commitments that cannot be changed, I am sending this correspondence to be read and presented in my absence. I am writing this letter on behalf of the homeowners that are scheduled to have their homes demolished in Pacific Mobile Home Park due to the widening of Atlanta Ave. We do not agree this widening is in the best interest of the public, it is an irresponsible use of scarce public funds, and is a serious and destructive intrusion into the lives of the homeowners that will be affected, as well as the owner of Pacific Mobile Home Park. In addition, this is a very irresponsible use of the ultimate power of Government over Citizens...Eminent Domain. The City of Huntington Beach has stated several items that are priorities, and reasons for justification: • Street Capacity • Traffic Safety • Accommodation of Local Transit • Bicycle Safety • The City's General Plan • Development of adjacent property These Justification items provided by the City are all based on a flawed premise that there are actual traffic, and safety issues, (there are not 1). The general premise is the current street capacity is inadequate. This is not true---the current street capacity is indeed adequate, and would still be adequate in the event of further development in adjacent empty land. In addition,just because something is on the General Plan, does not mean it's correct or the right thing to do. The Mobile Home Park has been in place far longer than the current General Plan.. (the park has been in place since the said 50's). This private property should Item 12. - 38 HB -534- —?— October 26,2010 have been acknowledged and respected when the decision to take this property as a part of the General Plan was made. It was a wrong decision. Overall, the justification provided for this project is basically political rhetoric, and could be applied to and used as a generic justification for any potential street widening, in any city in this country. 1. As anybody who lives in the area of the intersection of Atlanta Ave. and Huntington St. knows...there is absolutely NO traffic issue that warrants adding 740ft of one lane to Atlanta Ave., We all drive this section of Atlanta, and use this intersection daily...many of us several times a day. I cannot stress enough-----as any citizen who drives this intersection knows... there is no backup, no traffic jams, no rush hour jams, no lengthy wait at the intersection, no traffic hazard, no safety hazard that exists at this section of street and intersection in it's current configuration. Currently, pedestrians, bike riders and vehicles can easily commute and travel simultaneously.. with no extraordinary hazard or danger that is offered on any other street/ sidewalk configuration in the city. There is absolutely nothing that warrants the destruction of our homes and lifestyle for the addition of 740ft of one lane of asphalt. In addition, now that a light has been put in to manage the intersection_this is without question a safe and well managed intersection...WITH NO TRAFFIC OR SAFETY HAZARDS OR LIMITATIONS f 2. Based on the fact that there is no real need or impending traffic flow disaster if this widening does not occur, the point needs to be made this is a very irresponsible use of funds. With the current economic and revenue crisis, I am quite sure there are many, many better uses for this funding. 3. The City's justification for the displacement of the homeowners, and the disregard of the property owner are both unacceptable. The justification is presented as a very matter of fact, very simple, very easy process. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there are numerous issues that have not been presented to the funding sources and decision makers who approve the funding for this project. You are planning on destroying our HOMES. There are seniors, disabled, families with young children, as well as pending retirees that are affected. The environmental impact study states although homes will have be destroyed, and individuals moved...it can easily be done and this potential negative effect mitagated... Let me tell you council members...just because we live in mobile homes,doesn't mean they are meant to be moved on the whim of an unnecessary civil project.... All of us live in our homes, and our location because we CHOOSE to live there. We are a strong community.—.we are friends, and neighbors..we help each other, and look out for each other. We have a secure, safe and enjoyable lifestyle. These are our HOMES...we have worked, planned, and made specific decisions because of the incredible lifestyle offered us in this location in this community. Also...the relocation plan outlined by the city is 100% NON committal_._ you could at your option, relocate us anywhere you wanted, and HB -535- Item 12. - 39 —3— October 26.20I0 offer very undesireable living arrangements. You should note.-all the but one of the homes you want to "move" can actually be moved...you will have to replace/ purchase new homes.. An expense I think you may have underestimated. My home, for example is actually more square footage of traditional foundation and wood frame construction that is it mobile home... in my case, you are literally destroying a "real" home...... 4. Obviously, the City employees who request this funding will have a very positive "spin" on the justification. This is expected, as these projects are what keep them employed. They cannot be expected to have an objective opinion, since they are being well paid to have the opinion that will keep them employed, and keep the projects flowing... Cal Trans and OCTA as the funding approval agencies only get one side of the story--naturally, the justification paints a perfect picture, that provides the impression this so called improvement has to be done, or there are severe public consequences.. Nobody at Caltrans or the Federal Highway Administration has heard the other side... the homeowners, or the property owners side of the facts relative to the project. In closing, I would like to point out to the Government employees I have written to... We do understand there can be many valid reasons to destroy homes under eminent domain_ There are indeed traffic needs, areas of urban distress and degradation, as well as needs of overall public housing, or public buildings that can justify the taking of homes and property. If there were indeed an overwhelming traffic issue or problem, some terrible safety issue, discarded or dangerous housing that provides an outlet for drugs or some community hazard, etc..etc. we are quite capable of understanding this, and would realize the destruction of our homes and forced change in our lifestyles is valid, and something we need to accept. This is absolutely not the case here. The City is set to destroy one of the few remaining classic, and culturally, historically, and architecturally significant pieces of property not only in the city of Huntington Beach, but in Southern California. Under objective analysis, everything about this project's justification is weak and rhetorical....it is a classic example of everything that is and can be bad about Government. The fact is...there is no actual need to destroy our homes, implement this unnecessary widening, and spend very scarce public funds so irresponsibly. Thank you for your time. I am happy to discuss this further, and provide additional detail to any City, Caltrans, OCTA, or FHA employee who needs further clarification as to the points make in this statement. Item 12. - 40 HB - 36- —4— October 26,2010 Sincerely Rod Stolk, 80 Huntinton St., #302 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 HB -537- Item 1.2. - 41 t CXVC t Ut THE ORANGE COUNTY 'F 'GI V&7_30 1 �d H.B. mobile home park owner fights city's property seizure By JAIMEE LYNN FLETCHER 2010-10-25 11:41:39 HUNTiNGTON BEACH—The owner of a mobile home park is ' ? challenging a city street-widening project that would require the city - to take eight mobile homes by eminent domain, saying the city did not sufficiently study the potential impacts of the project. — i -- Attorneys representing Pacific Mobilehome Park have a filed an appeal that is expected to be reviewed Tuesday by the Planning Commission on the city's environmental review for the project to widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington and Delaware streets. City staff suggests the commission pass a mitigated negative declaration,which means the possible environmental impacts are not significant enough to do an in-depth study of the project. Boyd L..Hill contends the city did not appropriately study the environmental impacts of the project and officials have not established a public necessity to take the eight mobile homes and possibly relocate its residents. "(The city's report)provides evidence that the project is both not needed and not presently viable," Hill wrote in a letter to the city. The project was first recognized in 2006 by the Federal Statewide Transportation improvement Program to widen the street and bring it up to standards to qualify as a primary arterial highway,which means including two lanes each way, a bike lane and a sidewalk, among other improvements. Atlanta Avenue currently has one lane in each direction in the proposed project area. The city will have to obtain federal funding in three stages to get the project under way: preliminary engineering, right-of-way, in which they would acquire the needed land to build out the street, and construction. City staff reported they cannot yet get into negotiations to discuss the possible taking of the eight units from Pacific Mobilehome Park because they have not received the go-ahead from the federal government to pursue this part of the project. The city also identified some possible alternatives to relocating the residents outside their park, including offering them payment for their home or relocating them to a different area within the park. The city's zoning administrator on Sept. 15 approved waiving the need for an in-depth environmental report, saying widening the street would not have any significant impacts on a variety of areas including air quality,noise and cultural resources, among other criteria. Hill disagrees, saying possibly having to relocate 16 residents should have prompted the city to take a deeper look. He added That he doesn't believe the city looked hard enough at the impacts on traffic, noise and drainage near the mobile home park. "A road-widening project that will displace several families and result in the loss of the residential hfln://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=272699 1114/2010 Item 12. - 42 Ng -538- community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly,"Hill wrote. Roger Savoie Jr.,who lives in one of the units that would be taken by the city, said the city should leave the street, and his mobile home, alone. "There are about two days a year where widening Atlanta would be beneficial.The rest of the year, it's not necessary," he wrote in a letter to the city. "My only hope is that funding doesn't happen and that this ridiculous project doesn't happen." In addition to securing federal funding for the project, the city will also have to obtain a coastal permit, a conditional use permit and city approvals for the project,which would come to the commission for separate hearings. City staff reported the earliest construction would begin on the project is 2013. Contact the writer: 714-796-7953 or Lfletcher@ocregister.com 0 Copyright 2010 Freedom Communications.All Rights Reserved. Privacy Poll cY I User Ac regment I Site Ma htip://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregistcr&id=272699 11/4/2010 Ng -53 - Item 12. - 43 HART. KING COLDREN Boyd L.Hail bhill@hkciaw.com September 27, 2010 Our File number:36608.005l4840-1342-0039v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Scott Hess, Director of Planning Planning and Building Department Re: Atlanta Avenue Wideninq Project ("Project") Areal of Zoning Administrator Approval of MitigafedNe_gative Declaration ("MND")No. 2009-001 Dear Commissioners- We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose property would need to be taken for the proposed Project_ This letter constitutes the Park Owner's appeal of the Z oni,rb,, Administrator's approval of the City's MND for the Project. The appeal fee in the amount cf $2,002 is enclosed herewith. The grounds for appeal are as follows: 1. There is no substantial evidence r of public necessity for the Project v�f , involves the taking of private Park properly on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents,which relocation, if considered, would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, parlicutarly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise biological resources impacts. THE MND CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PROJECT PUBLIC NECESSITY In order for the Project which encompasses the taking of private Park properly to be lawful, the City must establish the public necessity for the Project. (See Code Civ. Proc., 1240.030) The MND does not point to any anticipated Park change in use that will justify building out the adjacent street to the maximum general plan width. In addition, the MND candidly admits ghat there is no current funding source that would allow the Project to be built.within the near future. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714-432,8700 1wv4w.Mclaw,com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 12. - 44 HB -50- City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 2 The MND alleges that the Project is made necessary by the previous approval of the mixed use Pacific City Development just west of the Project, which Development widened Atlanta Avenue to its ultimate location, leaving an alleged "choke point" along Atlanta Avenue where the.Park is located. According to the MND, the existing 26 tool offset in the south curb alignment at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street "requires additional motorist decisions" and creates "a greater potential for merging accidents and motorists inadvertently driving vehicles off of the street_" Neither the MND nor the traffic study attached thereto provide evidence to support this conclusion regarding the alleged safety issues pertaining to the existing-south curb offset. The MND provides no evidence of a greater number of accidents at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, no evidence of a greater number of vehicles running off the street, and no evidence of traffic backups resulting from the south curb offset. Indeed, some of the most heavily traveled roads, highways and interstates in Southern California have well marked lane reductions without any significant reductions in safety. The traffic study attached to the MND provides substantial evidence to the contrary of the MND justification for the Project. The traffic study demonstrates that regardless of the Project there will be significant traffic obstruction at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street unless there is a traffic signal light placed at that intersection. With a traffic signal light, traffic obstruction at the intersection is avoided. The traffic study glaringly fails to study whether a signal light without the Project would relieve any existing traffic obstruction, although it is clear from the traffic study that the Project without a traffic signal light will not. Therefore, the MND does not provide evidence of the public necessity for the proposed Project and its relocation of Park resident mobile homes. Instead it provides evidence that the Project is both not needed and not presently viable. THE MND CONTAINS AN INADEQUATE PIECEMEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEOA," Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq.) is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. CEOA is to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish 8.Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.41h 105, 112) An EIR is the heart of CEOA. Its purpose it to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn_ v. Regents of University of California (1988)47 Cal.3d 376, 391, fn.2) A negative declaration is proper only it the public agency determines based on an initial study HB - 41- Item 12. - 45 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 3 that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080 (c) (1) & (d), 14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15063 (b) (2), 15070 (a)) An EIR must be prepared whenever there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental impact. (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68. 75) A proper initial study requires that "all phases of project planning, implementation and operation be considered." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15063 (a) (1)). Indeed, an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of informative and legally adequate environmental review. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Hensler(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592) An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143) For these reasons, CEOA mandates that environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have a significant impact. (See City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452) CEOA defines the term "project" broadly to include the whole of an action, direct and indirect impacts on the environmental, and any subsequent discretionary actions of the government agencies. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 1143) The MND describes the Project as the widening of the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the City's General Plan Element. Currently there is one lane of traffic on the south side. The Project will add an additional lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The MND lists the scope of the Project to encompass condemnation of Park land, removal and relocation of eight mobile homes, clearing and grubbing of the land, construction of an asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-feet tall concrete block wall atop retaining wall possibly 7-feel in height, landscaping that includes the removal of 25 mature trees, reconstruction of a circulation road within the Park, construction of two emergency access;. gates within the Park, utility and fire hydrant relocation, relocation of a drainage catch basin, relocation of utility poles and overhead lines. The MND states that the Project will require approval of a conditional use permit for the block wall and a coastal development permit. However, the MND makes no attempt to describe any potential conditions for approval of a conditional use permit or coastal development permit. Despite its acknowledgement that the Project will require relocation of eight mobile homes, the MND inappropriately claims that the City cannot conduct environmental review for the relocation Item 12. - 46 HB -5 - City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 4 impacts because the City cannot yet determine whether relocation from the Park will be required because the City has not yet obtained funding for the Project. The City's reasoning here is faulty. The lack of current funding for the Project, while relevant to whether there is public necessity for the Project, does not prevent the City from performing an analysis of whether there is sufficient room for relocation within the Park for those mobile homes that will be moved. Therefore the MND description of the Project is inadequate and incomplete. It appears that the City is deliberately trying to avoid preparing an EIR by segmenting the Project so that it does not include relocation of Park residents. Under CEQA, there is a mandatory finding of significance if the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (14-Cal. Code Regs., § 15065) A road widening project that will displace several families and result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. (See Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003) Therefore, by improperly segmenting or piece-mealing the Project, the City violates CE0A. An EIR rather than the MND should have been prepared. THERE iS FAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate only it project revisions avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects that are identified or that should have been identified in the initial study to the point where no significant effect on the environmental would occur. (See Pub. Res. Code.§ 21064) Under CEQA a significant effect on the environment means a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21068) Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of significant environmental impacts that an agency should evaluate for a project in its initial study. The initial study checklist is included in the MND. The MND initial study checklist contains several erroneous andlor factually unsupported findings regarding significant environmental impacts and/or mitigation thereof: 1. Land Use and Planning. a. Conflict with Existing Land Use Regulation. The MND inc __ ,-, that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agenry over the Park_ The MND expressly states that the City will need to issue a new conditional use permit for the large (possibly as high as 15 feet) block wall that will be part of the Project. Such a wall is not currently permitted under the Park conditional use permit and would impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park Owner. However, the MND fails to discuss what conditions HB -543- Item 12. - 47 City of Huntington Beach Manning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page S might be involuntarily imposed on the Park Owner and the impacts of those conditions on the existing conditional use permit. The MND also fails to address any impacts of a 15 foot wall ore removal of existing mature trees on the scenic coastal views of nearby residents. The MND also reveals that it will need an additional coastal.development permit but fails to discuss whether the Project complies under the requirements for such a permit and fails to address the potential impact of Project's displacement of housing under the Ellis Act. Thus, an EIR is needed to analyze the scope of the new conditional use permit and coastal development permit required for the Project, including the impact of any conditions that would be associated with such permits. C. Divide an Established Community. The MND also wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community. The MND clearly will remove 8 mobile homes from the Park and thus divide them from the Park community, reconfigure an access road within the Park, and impose a block wall that will result in grade separation and impede open access to the street. These are definite physical changes to the environment that will divide and segment the established Park community. Therefore, an EIR is needed to analyze the Project impacts to the Park community. 2. Population and Housing- a. Induce Substantial Population Growth. The MND erroneously claims that the City need not study the growth inducing impact of the street widening because it is within growth projected by the City's General Plan. The growth inducing impacts of a street widening project must be studied and discussed in an EIR regardless of whether they are anticipated by the City's General Plan. (See City of Antioch v. City Council(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332 ("conformity with the general plan for the area ... does not insulate a. project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects"]) Therefore, an EiR is required to evaluate the Project's growth inducing impacts. b/c. Need for Replacement Housing. The MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan. There is nothinn in the lack of present funding that prevents the City from determining the potential place any of relocation housing at the current time. The use of a future study or plan cannot substituse :}e, mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND. (See Sunslrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307) Thus, an EIR is required that includes a relocation plan. 4. Hydrology and Water Ouality. C. Alter Drainage Pattern. The MND erroneously claims that the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area despite its admission in section Item 12. - 48 1-1 - 44- City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 6 4_a. that the existing storm drain at the south side of Atlanta Avenue will be relocated and that there will need to be reconstruction of the Park on-site drive aisle and a grade change. Grade and location changes can substantially alter the ability of the existing on-site drainage system to adequately contain drainage flows. Those impacts to the Park drainage system should be studied in an EIR. 5_ Air Ouality. The MND makes unsupported assumptions about mitigation of short term air quality impacts and erroneously fails to consider long term air quality impacts of the Project_ alb. Violate Air Standards/Sensitive Receptors. With respect to the short term impacts, the MND acknowledges that construction of the Project will cause significant air quality impacts. The MND admits that the mitigation measures, if completely successful "can" at the maximum. only result in a 50 percent reduction in particulates matter. The MND then leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50 percent reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter, not just 50% thereof.' An EIR is required to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulates matter to a less than significant level. e. Cumulative Increase in Emissions. The MND erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting from the Project. An EIR is required to study the impact of increased future emissions from additional traffic enabled by the Project. 7. Biological Resources. The MND improperly fails to contain a tree replacement plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will be eliminated. 10. Noise. The MND wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will incres.--e the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feet more that 25 dBA up to 98 dBA, an intolerable amount despite what the City ordinance allows during daytime. The mitigation measures suggested thus are not evaluated as to whether they bring the noise levels to a less than significant level. An EIR is required to determine mitigation measures that wilt reduce Project noise for Park residents to a less than significant level. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. While the MND admits to all three, mandatory findings of significance, the MND insists, without any substantive discussion, that the minor mitigation measures proposed will suffice. The MND also fails to admit to all of the significant effects, including land use, housing, population, traffic, drainage and noise impacts. in essence, the Project is similar in many respects to the project in the Friends of T" Street case where an EIR was required: In the present case the adoption of a negative declaration was an abuse of discretion. The city's initial study revealed that the short HB - 45- Item 12. - 49 U City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 7 term effects of the "B" Street Project include increased dust and auto exhaust, disruption of business during the construction of the project, and increased bank erosion and possible loss of wildlife habitat along San Lorenzo Creek during construction of a bridge. Among the long term effects of the project are increased traffic, increased noise, paving and removal of grass and garden areas, the removal of vegetation, landscaping, shrubs and hedgerows, the removal of 153 mature trees (some more than 80 years old) which presently tine the street, and the elimination of on-street parking on "B" Street and Center Street, aggravating present parking problems that already exist in the area. Two neighborhood stores would be removed, and 12 families would be displaced due to the removal of residential structures. The project would result in the foss of the residential community characteristic of the area, and a decrease in residential property values_ The residential desirability of adjacent properties would be adversely affected by the increased noise and exposure to traffic, reduced setbacks of the structures from the street, and the loss of on-street parking. The conversion of single-family dwellings to commercial or multi- family use would be accelerated. The project would also result in a decreased visual or aesthetic quality of the area due to the removal of the trees, grass and garden areas, and the decrease in the setback of the structures from the street. This evidence indicated that a finding of significant environmental effect was mandatory. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 15082.) The trial court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence that the "B" Street Project might have a significant environmental effect. (Friends of"6"Street v. City of Hayward, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1003) (continued on next page] Item 12. - 50 HB - 46- 1 a�~Ai City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27. 2010 Page 8 In conclusion, the failure of the MND to recognize the numerous significant environmental impacts resulting from relocation of residents, road widening, alteration of drainage and noise and the failure of the MND to sufficiently mitigate impacts resulting from the. Project require the preparation of an EIR. The MND faits to analyze the whole of the Project and demonstrates that the Project is not necessary or viable at this time. An EIR should be prepared to appropriately analyze the Project. Sincerely, HART, KING & COE_DREN j � i Q V Boyd All BLHIdr Enclosure: $2,002 appeal fee cc: Mark Hodgson . Robert S. Coldren Fred Wilson, City Administrator HB -547- Item 12. - 51 a,r ` , to ' �' S�h v,.�GY'W' •'' �' k t4 .r,..,"°` •� ."+ 1 }s. ;::'� ,,� ?� � ,"� g - H � i�� � i� jA+�� �!. �sx . ' ,xs<�11 ,.a f-_,,�' i ;:,r � � _:s,,, ..u1P, ;.,,m.„µal ,i•:, a w• a. Y'�'a�, o n �$ 1 .• q Y ... Z.+ ,:..... :. .a:. .,,k.3 :. •. ,. s:r t;_ :_.. ,. €, ;,?E ,,.ro. lr h A�s, ..ism d :,j:;. i .,,.... ..... ., .. ��qq,�,' ,..,, :' ,,d.:.c .,.:,! ".: . ;:,, „v. ., r "•4, y .,.. 'k�r� '\��& la - _ k L ;,V 1�x.�'r•:.f, d �R ,.,, ,, r. � ,rf' ,l a, .. .. ..�: :,:' _.axe": . .,. ,:., ...,il�q.,•,�. i,•..;.,,4'• �.�.. ...+-��,.y,?;i�� .`;t ,.�q ,�. t i�4-.. ,j!,..�',. b :.;i�'n ..,. ,. .'•_;. ` .:•.:,,. .-... ".. ,' °::,.•,: �, es!�+ rn 4: ''a�.d4' ..t k�� � •.�#7 �Q� ,ftfi. .t. :..+..'«r+x,»: 5, r = .- !• :: .- f: ., .: f ;:... , ,,.'�` t„+„x�,,...�ar..,wbk»:5; 3 {`t�nx F. k`. ,+ `'� 11yy�. (.is irf :'w: rt _: �'� })N' R. t!•t�t f _�t 4t' ,nM.. ,! 3 :t i'} � a::• t ':"k! ,ar 6v+�,;: r,ILq"uF!�uw'a r "•Y-+�L y"i°r,., .;a« 7. " s,cr+., �Sk+ ,!1; �'�' h ,<•.' fir. 'M' ,f:. .:\L"..,,.lt , 'mal ::rA:' �°:°,t:,rNSMp kg:� �Sx,. .:ANi'it°?. �".'Vt` ! ... _ .,t:, k�"•+H! , °9<'!.G,r {�.j .,5 n,'.. e i. .,4 ,,•.4fy `�j 3f � - ':r4EF' _ .. ..::. .. + .,.� _.. w„ '',• :.�. �. �:: eye - - 1 ,f -^{':Kk yjk4 y� n: LCL • M.year,+pw.Ana'...w°i'.N:lv�nn+'°- A�,Aa,...v,v,.•.a- c z... �, �.- :. a ' , y ,:ivu's+�M�•\LaNrm,".°iy.`,i A Ji,v fb Y r�tt - '+r �- f.:. v. � .{ i s .• �.,L,f, '. .;. P `t'ar 4H;eN' '•rwn'++Ip++NM+N{c4.»xb<,+Iir•,icrwMx'M•M/ '�` a t 6 % r I t ,.''.. .:::. .-' s if;!.A.,,:f,. ':w+i. .,9;.'.H.,,.• :...Y :..�:'h. .tcs 6r "I�x IF '.i•'_. IN AL w ' { �.3:-Y,14.•P:{ p. {Aid, ■{� .�l��q� �/��■■ ,.♦:"Y n•' 4 "tea ,,,,, .,s�'�, � try � �.S.r�i,�'yrAp L�; ,�.�,�, �! dd ;• `,.:v k f { e <:r:' `� �`'. : +k..i���! %..:, '- u• ;:, --�. .,bra �+�, �'Y{a*¢.�;� 1 x c a a, € f y � vy µ ,�.q"�. w'� zrp +na,.;3y d.Ma�i�'C>8':!,'!• � a:; C* � ,� a.R � { �.. ! x � � � r p�lldb tM}s:^"at ti.?. °ek ur t x ES 'L, f e� '.•.1�� .1: � M'.'! � .. �s.,; {; t' ,�t4!:x, ;p.a ,� a� 1:'s`'�.� d ��{ � Mi. �'' !1•=n'is.^:�.� of • : a '�1 ;r , Xt i R%fa.'ca�..,�y��,,.�.''K�,,�'• .'i•; ' t '.�' t'�::1.!��': .v., 3 Il�r. "'�`ro;J. 'r af.,3 y,�y'k` I P �, +, ;,«'k ,.,,r. %1 y' ''�. ,3k, �.s. : ' t ! 1�. }.i�,y. ..F ,� ,._ I'. � , a at+ '8 w, t+' A ..'�'• �In s : i ,:;. ,'� ;'N�.y .� l - ,. }: P -, ,. -'.;;..,_ .. � I t�v •✓ 15 .etf J'` $+i ri_ ...•::,3i. ., i.,,;.... r v` y ,». f n' / t - t,.,� k,dC .:.g +F 'ky;itt ,y,�N„Sf , u ,.py i< ..Sr r t -�\ Y.'.' J +,°p`•qF M'r� � 4 A� ! F:�i �' ; f� 4`. ',�'`�r:..: L fa,.., ' ', ,py, ,., 5 . l. .. ,tridrt¢ ,,3.• .t,:'f'f" S + ti� •7 5 € ,. : ,.k� � c .'b� �`•�` �." s^{. .Y t R. ,per, Ifi:- :: t'fr-: '+'�'� �,. - �{Ke�"���i.jg� `."�.k� tx,. ��o- '�l_-_ 1_, •if?-+� 1�.�� c''b� � 4 :1' ., a• t? t..:t.""! :; � .. < ,'W �;� ,>yd�w �'^r ,fie„'+' .s _ � �, ,r:.� � 3,, e yr R 55 �'"'' r.mYX^k. '•- i e e i. �},., .. . , „ A, .'. :." �P,,, �,,:., ,'3,h .g.N4 'i,.'"f" !, I S•7: .f�1! �i. 'i'" s 14:.,.! �►.. '�.,:::m 'Y'Sj xj rd �:,"y .°:;,:n a ,!.gxx x( P,. r �:,. c -:.,et;5,. .' �...,,. '�"\,..r...: ..„, <.'>%y ,.,t? •:;i. � °� ':;So- 1. ..f _...;..,..s:k ,. :,"., t. ._ r••...,* __s::.. i v.:, , ._':.; � ._: ..�tt•..l hi..... :.•Y w. y �..s, .... �;,q.: `:�'f�' .3 1.,:- l:''6 �. ..y ;.. -�;; •r y3. �»r k, k ` rH.'.,::-i rdi�`'�M -`:^: _:,::.,tkdt'A' '.y rt i,N 9 Y' -:�., ,.•-�Y:f?,,., T'n:. �.' ., n xr.,.; -«-;' a ,.......,w,. ., :pa:. .. ., .f �.. 2 'f �T'.' ;:`,' 5 ..,-:Y.,. m.e.. .. , ::. g ,,...,:. a :,..y,r, r ,,.., k.. .e m. :w ._-rr., t `: .. 4t...•} + � .�' }. x. I dp,..,r. � r z_,,. F....! SA ,.:.... .,r.. �a '� ,�?w _,,r .,.;! 1 ,,.,•.r,o?:w�.L,, 3q d -:L: � 'A•!: �•.:r'fk rµ4•': 2'MY T' ',�' �i -�r01'1 �' � k t! .J: _"4 f '1.Y Nr . ATTACHMENT #3, HA -549- Item ,2 . 53 1. PROJECT TITLE: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project Concurrent Entitlements: Coastal Development Permit No.2009-001; Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-019 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Jennifer Villasenor,Acting Senior Planner Phone: (714)374-1661 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 80 Huntington Street(south side of Atlanta Avenue,between Huntington Street and Delaware Street) (Refer to Attachment No. 1) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Jonathan Claudio, Senior Civil Engineer (714)374-5380 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Atlanta Avenue: Right-of-Way Manufactured Home Park:Residential—Medium High Density — 15 units/acre (RM-15) 6. ZONING: Atlanta Avenue:Right-of-Way Manufactured Home Park:Residential Manufactured Home Park—Coastal Zone overlay(RMP-CZ) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION(Describe the whole action involved,including, but not limited to,later phases of the project, and secondary support, or off-site features necessary for implementation): The City proposes to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. The General Plan Circulation Element designates Atlanta Avenue as a primary arterial street, both in the current and in the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways/County Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways (MPAH). As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped GWIlasenorAklanta Ave.Widening\CEQA-NEPA\Draft EA 09-001 (July 2010).doc Page I Item 12. - 54 H -550- median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median,and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. The mixed-use Pacific City project located immediately west of the subject site has recently widened Atlanta Avenue between I'Street and Huntington Street to its ultimate location. This has resulted in the segment of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street as the lone remaining"choke point" on Atlanta Avenue between I" Street and Beach Boulevard. The existing "choke point" creates a. 26 ft. (approx.) offset in the south curb alignment at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street. Since the narrowing roadway requires motorists traveling eastbound on Atlanta Avenue to make additional motorist decisions,there is a greater potential for merging accidents and motorists inadvertently driving vehicles off of the street. The proposed street widening would alleviate this "choke point" and help to minimize accident potential and provide for improved traffic safety. Proposed Street Improvements The proposed street improvements will provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the project's scope of work includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7 ft. max.) retaining wall, landscaping (including the removal or relocation of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park), reconstruction of a 26 ft. wide drive aisle (circulation road) and two emergency access gates within the mobile home park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation, including relocation of an existing drainage catch basin at the corner of Delaware Street and Atlanta Avenue. In addition, five utility poles and overhead lines currently located within the existing southerly parkway area will require relocation. In accordance with the City's franchise agreements, the utility companies will be responsible for the relocation and/or adjustment of their facilities. It should be noted that the project requires approval of a coastal development permit for development in the coastal zone and a conditional use permit for the proposed retaining wall. Acquisition of Right-of-Way The existing public street right-of-way along the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue varies from 60 ft. wide(30 ft. north and 30 ft. south of street centerline) at Huntington Street to 85 ft. wide(55 ft. north and 30 ft. south of street centerline) at Delaware Street. Consequently, construction of the proposed street improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue (i.e., the public street right-of-way is proposed at 55 ft. south of street centerline). The additional 25 feet of right-of-way would come from a 25 feet wide by 630 feet long (approx.) strip of land from the Pacific Mobile Home Park located immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. The acquisition of the 25 feet would impact eight manufactured/mobile homes (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302,401, 501, and 502)within the park. The impacted residents would need to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("The Uniform Act"). However, the relocation site is not known at this time since many steps are required before the City can begin relocation. That is, because the City anticipates receiving and using federal funds to construct the project,the City first has to obtain Federal authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase before it can begin negotiating with the mobile home park owner to acquire the necessary right-of-way. The federal authorization to proceed cannot be granted until environmental review for the project is completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After completion of environmental review and once the authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase is granted, negotiations to acquire the right-of-way can begin. If the City successfully negotiates land acquisition with the park owner, relocation of the residents would occur at that time. Potential relocation alternatives include on-site relocation, off-site relocation to another park or conventional dwelling unit, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufactured/mobile home. On-site relocation could occur by relocating the residents to an existing available space within the park or through reconfiguration of the park to include an adjacent Page 2 HB -551- Item 12. - 55 undeveloped area along Delaware Street. Since the City cannot negotiate the relocation alternatives with the impacted residents until the aforementioned steps (i.e. — environmental review, federal authorization, land acquisition) are completed, it is uncertain where the impacted residents would be relocated. Therefore,the physical relocation is not reasonably forseeable. At such time that the relocation site(s)can be determined,the relocation would be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. Construction Scenario It is estimated that project construction would take approximately six months. Once a contract is awarded, the contractor would provide a construction schedule to the City for review and approval. Although the entire project area has been previously graded, it is estimated that approximately 1,300 cubic yards of export soil and 1,800 cubic yards of import soil will be required to transition the existing grade of Atlanta Avenue, which slopes from west to east, to the "new" grades of the widened road and the reconstructed on-site improvements at the Pacific Mobile Home Park property. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The project site consists of the existing Atlanta Avenue right-of-way from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and the northern portion of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, a 256-space mobile home park developed in the late 1950s. The project site is approximately 2.6 acres in area. The existing Atlanta Avenue right-of-way consists of approximately 1.5.7 acres of the project area and the existing mobile home park property is the remaining 1.03 acres of the project area. The project area is bounded by single- and multi-family residential uses to the north and east. Although the project site includes the northern portion of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, the majority of the approximately 18.24-acre park, is located immediately south of the street widening site and the Waterfront Hilton Hotel is further south beyond the mobile home park. The Pacific City mixed use project site is located west of the project area. 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: Caltrans-approved Preliminary Environmental Assessment(PES)Form (January,2009) 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits,financing approval, or participating agreement): o Caltrans o Federal Highway Administration The proposed project is anticipated to receive Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) funding to construct the project. The City has been working with Caltrans to obtain the funding and has already received authorization to proceed with the engineering phase. Page 3 Item 12. - 56 H B -552- 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 ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ 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 19 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 11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment,but at.least one impact(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 addressed. 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 measur s V7, . posed upon the proposed project, nothi g f rther is required. Y ----- % l to Signature / Date-N "Al AC Printed Name Title Page 4 HB -553- Item 12. - 57 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. SIMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) 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 5 Item 12. - 58 HB -554- 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 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:1,2,5) Discussion: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The General Plan Circulation Element designates Atlanta Avenue as a primary arterial street,both in the current and in the 2010 Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways. As defined in the General Plan,the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk,curb, gutter,a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently,the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction,a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. The proposed project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its General Plan classification as well as the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH). The project is also consistent with the 2008 Regional Transportation Plan(RTP) of the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG). Other improvements of the project include a concrete block retaining wall,which would replace an existing wood fence separating Atlanta Avenue from the existing mobile home park south of Atlanta Avenue. The concrete block retaining wall requires a conditional use permit pursuant to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO),which is part of the project's entitlement request and analyzed as part of the scope of the project within this document. The project also requires acquisition of an additional 25 feet of right-of-way south of Atlanta Avenue. The right-of-way would be acquired from the existing mobile home park immediately south of Atlanta Avenue and would result in the removal of eight homes from their current location in the park. The residents of the eight homes would be required to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act and is further discussed under the Population and Housing section of this document. Finally, as the project site is located in the coastal zone,a coastal development permit is required subject to the requirements of Chapter 245 of the HBZSO. The coastal development permit is required to ensure that the project conforms to the California Coastal Act and would not be detrimental to coastal resources and access. As discussed throughout the document,the project would not cause significant environmental impacts to coastal resources and would be improving coastal access by providing a sidewalk and Class-II bike lane and improving an existing Orange County Transit Authority(OCTA)bus stop. After acquisition of 25 feet of the existing mobile home park for right-of-way,the resulting mobile home park would remain in compliance with the applicable development standards of the HBZSO such as lot size and setbacks. In addition,the resulting density of the mobile home park would be consistent with its General Plan land use designation of Residential Medium Density— 15 units per acre,even if all of the residents choose to relocate within the existing mobile home park. Based on the analysis above,the project would not conflict with any land use plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Less than significant impacts would occur. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan Page 6 HB -55 - Item 12. - 59 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact or natural community conservation plan?(Sources:1) Discussion: The project would not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan as no such plan is adopted for the City of Huntington Beach. No impacts would occur. c) Physically divide an established community? ❑ 11 ® ❑ (Sources:4) Discussion: Although the project involves a street widening project, it would not result in the division of an established community. The project would widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to its designated classification and improve circulation in the project area. In order to accomplish the proposed project,acquisition of 25 feet of additional right-of-way is required from the existing mobile home park immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. Upon completion of the construction,the mobile home park would have access and drive aisles in the same location as prior to construction and would not be physically divided. Less than significant impacts would occur. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either 11 Eln 11 directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:4,5) Discussion: The project does not include new residential units or commercial and industrial uses that would induce substantial population growth. The project proposes to widen Atlanta Avenue and therefore would be increasing capacity for the road and indirectly allow for population growth. However,the widening project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its General Plan Circulation Element designation and would not induce growth that was not previously accounted for in the General Plan. Impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing El 99 El 11 elsewhere? (Sources:4,5) Discussion: See discussion under c. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:4,5) Discussion b & c: The proposed project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. To accomplish the project, acquisition of 25 feet of additional right-of-way is required on the south side of Atlanta Avenue. Along with the acquisition of this 25 feet wide by 630 feet long(approx.)strip of land from the mobile home park immediately south of Atlanta Avenue,eight homes (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501, and 502) consisting of 14 residents will also need to be removed in order to construct the proposed street widening project. The removal of the homes and displacement of the 14 impacted residents is subject to the relocation requirements under the Federal Uniform Page 7 Item 12. - 60 H -556- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Act. The Federal Uniform Act, passed by Congress in 1970, is a federal law that establishes minimum standards for federally funded programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property or displace persons from their homes, businesses, or farms. The Uniform Acfs protections and assistance apply to the acquisition,rehabilitation,or demolition of real property for federal or federally funded projects. Alternatives for the relocation of the units would include on-site relocation, off-site relocation to another park or conventional dwelling unit, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufactured/mobile home. Because the City anticipates receiving and using federal funds to construct the project, the City first has to obtain Federal authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase before it can begin negotiating with the mobile home park owner to acquire the necessary right-of-way. The federal authorization to proceed cannot be granted until environmental review for the project is completed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). After completion of environmental review and once the authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase is granted, negotiations to acquire the right-of-way can begin. If the City successfully negotiates land acquisition with the park owner,relocation of the residents would occur at that time. Therefore, the ultimate relocation of the impacted mobile homes/residents is not known at this point because real estate negotiations with the mobile home park owner and residents cannot commence until the City completes environmental review and receives authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase. While eight homes with 14 residents would not necessarily be considered a substantial relocation, in order to ensure that impacts to the 14 residents that would require relocation is less than significant,the following mitigation measure is recommended: POP-1: Upon Federal authorization to proceed with right-of-way acquisition, the City shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Uniform Act. Notification to and discussions with the impacted residents shall occur as soon as feasibly possible pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act. The City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and relocation is implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. Compliance with the Federal Uniform Act will ensure the proper and fair treatment of the mobile home park owner and displaced residents in an efficient manner during the acquisition and relocation process. With implementation of POP-1,less than significant impacts would occur. 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: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated El El on the 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:1,6,13) ]Discussion: See discussion under b. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources:1,6,13) ❑ 19 El Page 8 HB - 57- Item 12. - 61 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: See discussion under b. iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including El 11 19 El liquefaction? (Sources:1,6,13) Discussion: See discussion under b. iv) Landslides? (Sources:1,6,13) Discussion: See discussion under b. b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,grading, or fill? (Sources:l,6,13) Discussion a,b c& d: The project includes the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project site is not identified as an area of potentially unstable slope areas in the General Plan Environmental Hazards Element and is not within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest active fault is the Newport-Inglewood fault located northeast of the project site. Based upon the City's General Plan(Figure EH-12)and Geotechnical Inputs Study,the project site is located within an area with moderate to high potential for expansive soil. In addition,the project site is in an area with a low potential for liquefaction(General Plan Figure EH-7). The project site is located in the seismically active region of Southern California. Therefore,the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The proposed development would be required to comply with the California Building Code(CBC),which includes regulations for projects to be designed to withstand seismic forces. In addition,the project is required to prepare a site specific geotechnical investigation, including subsurface exploration and laboratory testing,to further evaluate the nature and engineering characteristics of the underlying soils. The report will provide recommendations for the design and construction of the project,including recommendations to address liquefaction and expansive soil potential. Adherence to the seismic design and construction parameters of the CBC,the City's Municipal Code and recommendations outlined in a site specific geotechnical investigation,would ensure protection of of the project from impacts associated with seismic activity. Less than significant impacts would occur. The project site has been previously graded and developed with roadway,drainage facilities,walkways and Iandscaped areas. Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities,erosion will be minimized by compliance with standard City requirements for submittal of an erosion control plan,for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the project site due to previous grading,excavation,or placement of fill materials,these conditions would be remedied pursuant to the recommendations in the required geotechnical study for the project site. Less than significant impacts would occur. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or El 11 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:1,6,13) Page 9 Item 12. - 62 HB -55 - Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Refer to response under item b.for discussion of liquefaction and landslides. Subsidence is large-scale settlement of the ground surface generally caused by withdrawal of groundwater or oil in sufficient quantities such that the surrounding ground surface sinks over a broad area. Withdrawal of groundwater, oil, or other mineral resources would not occur as part of the proposed project and,therefore, subsidence is not anticipated to occur. However, in the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area,the site may be subject to ground shaking. The CBC and associated code requirements address lateral spreading and subsidence. Less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B 9 El of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources:1,6,13) Discussion: See discussion under b. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of El septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources:1,6,13) Discussion: The project does not involve new uses or development that would increase wastewater necessitating alternative wastewater disposal systems or soils capable of supporting them. No impacts would occur. IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project does not involve new residential,commercial or industrial uses that would generate a source of additional stormwater runoff that would exceed capacity of the existing storm drain system nor would it be a source of a substantial amount of additional polluted runoff. Surface runoff along the south side of Atlanta Avenue,along the mobile home park frontage,will continue to flow easterly towards the existing storm drain system at Delaware Street. Drainage in the mobile home park is conveyed via a network of concrete v-gutters and flows southerly to an existing sump system within the park and then out to the existing public storm drain system at Delaware Street. The street widening will require grading that may result in minor changes to the existing site elevation due to the relocation of the curb and gutter. Likewise,the reconstruction of the on-site drive aisle within the existing mobile home park will require grading work to transition from the"new"grades of the street widening to the existing elevations of the park. Ultimately, however,the storm water will continue to drain as it does today. Existing site conditions, including the amount of impervious area,site elevations,and drainage patterns would generally be the same upon completion of the project. Since the project site is greater than one acre, the project is subject to the provision of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit of the State Water Resources Control Board(SWRCB). The City must submit a Notice of Intent(NOI)to the SWRCB for coverage under the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and must comply with all applicable requirements,including preparation of a Page 10 HB -559- Item 12. - 63 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP)and applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations. The S WPPP will establish Best Management Practices(BMPs)for construction of the facility, including source,site and treatment controls to be installed and maintained at the site. In addition,all construction activities would comply with the City's Grading Manual and the Grading and Excavations Chapter of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code(HBMC). These guidelines include specifications to minimize the effects from erosion during construction. Therefore, compliance with the Statewide General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and all applicable codes,would ensure impacts on water quality would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere 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:4,5,14) Discussion: The project does not propose new residences or commercial or industrial uses that would require additional water demand that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies. The project would require minimal water for landscaping irrigation. The amount of post-construction impervious surface would remain the same as pre-project conditions(71%paving and buildings; 29% landscaping)and therefore,would not interfere with groundwater recharge such that there would be a lowering of the groundwater table or aquifer volume. Less than significant impacts would occur. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El El 19 11 site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under d. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the El El 0 site or 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:4,5,14) Discussion c& d: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The entire project site,which includes the segment of Atlanta Avenue proposed to be widened and the existing northern portion of the mobile home park south of Atlanta Avenue, has been previously graded. The project would not result in a significant change in existing topographical conditions or site elevations such that the existing drainage pattern would be altered resulting in substantial erosion and siltation on or off-site. In addition,the amount of post-construction impervious area relative to pervious area would remain the same as pre-project conditions. Given that the site conditions(ratio of pervious to impervious area)and elevations would remain relatively unchanged,an increased rate or amount of surface runoff that could result in on or off-site flooding is not anticipated to occur. Impacts would be less Page 11 Item 12. - 64 HB -560- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact than significant. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed 19 the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:4,5,14) )Discussion: See discussion under a&d. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El El 19 11 (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under a. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ® (� mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:7) Discussion: See discussion under j. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures El 9 which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources-7) Discussion: See discussion under j. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under j. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources:1) 11 ❑ Discussion g—j: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements. The project site is located in FEMA flood zone X and would not place housing or structures within a 100-year flood hazard area. The nearest flood control channel is located approximately 1,700 feet from the project site and would not pose a significant risk for potential flooding on the project site. The project site is mapped as a moderate tsunami run-up area in the Environmental Hazards Element of the General Plan. However the project does not propose new commercial or industrial uses or residences that would expose a substantial number of people to inundation by tsunami, seiche or mudflow. Impacts would be less than significant. k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction rXI El activities? (Sources:4,5,14) Page 12 HB -561- Item 12. - 65 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: See discussion under a. 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post 11 El 19 El - construction activities? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under a&d. m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater El El pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: The project does not include new uses that would involve vehicle or equipment fueling or maintenance,waste handling,storage,delivery areas or loading docks and outdoor work areas. AIthough project construction may include vehicle and equipment maintenance,material storage and outdoor work areas,the project is required to follow existing requirements for construction to ensure that impacts to water quality during construction would be less than significant. See discussion under a&d. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under a&d. o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under a&d. p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of El ® ® ❑ the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources:4,5,14) Discussion: See discussion under a& d. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:19) (Discussion: See discussion under e. Page 13 Item 12 - 66 H - 62- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant El El concentrations? (Sources:19) Discussion: See discussion under e. c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources:19) Discussion: See discussion under e. d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the El applicable air quality plan? (Sources:19) Discussion: See discussion under e. e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 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:19) Page 14 HB -563- Item 12. - 67 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion a—e: The project involves the widening of Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements including new curb, gutter,sidewalk,landscaping,and retaining wall. The City of Huntington Beach is located within the South Coast Air Basin,which is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The entire Basin is designated as a national-and State- level nonattainment area for Ozone,carbon monoxide(CO),respirable particulate matter(PMIo)and fine particulate matter(PM2.5). Sensitive receptors in the area include residents in nearby developments to the north,south and east. The nearest sensitive receptors would be residents of the existing mobile home park from which the project proposes to acquire right-of-way. These residents are within 50 feet of the project's construction boundary. The analysis in this section is based on a November 2009 Air Quality Report prepared by the Chambers Group. Air Quali Management Plan(AQMP)The project is designed to bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the General Plan designation and County of Orange Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH). The Orange County Transit Avthority(OCTA)is a member of the Southern California Association of Governments(SCAG)and is responsible for administering the MPAH. Since OCTA is a member of SCAG and SCAG developed the 2007 AQMP Transportation Conformity Budgets that were adopted by the SCAQMD as part of the AQMP,the project is considered consistent with the AQMP. In addition,projects that are consistent with the General Plan are generally considered to be consistent with the AQMP since the AQMP is based upon forecasted General Plan buildout and growth. Construction Emissions Construction emissions were calculated based on localized and regional significance thresholds for certain pollutants. The table below provides a summary of the project's construction emissions compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Emissions(Lbs/day) NOMEMONEW CO ROG NOx PM, PM2.5 S02 Estimated Construction Emissions for proposed 20.5 4.5 36.6 21.8 5.8 <1 project Regional Significance 550 75 100 150 55 150 Threshold Exceed Threshold? NO NO NO NO NO NO Localized Significance 1,711 N/A 197 14 9 N/A Threshold Exceed Threshold? NO NO YES NO The project would not result in an exceedence of any regionally significant thresholds,but would result in an exceedence of localized significance thresholds(LST)for PMIo. LSTs are developed based on the ambient concentrations of a pollutant for each source receptor area and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor to determine a project's localized air quality impacts. The SCAQMD has developed LSTs for projects 5 acres or less in total area. The City of Huntington Beach is in the North Coastal Orange County source receptor area. Page 15 Item 12. - 68 HB -054- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Since the project would result in construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD LST for PM19 mitigation is required. The project is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403—Fugitive Dust to control construction emissions. In addition, implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce construction emissions to a less than significant level. AQ-1: The City shall require, by contract specifications, implementation of the following measures: o All work shall be done in accordance with the "GREENBOOK"Standard Spec f cations for Public Works Construction, 2009 Edition, as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards,Inc. o The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke, dust, equipment exhaust, or any other air contaminants into the atmosphere in such quantity as will violate any federal, State or local regulations. (Greenbook Section 7-8.2) o The contractor shall comply with Caltrans'Standard Specification Section 7-I.OIF and Section 10 of Caltrans'Standard Specifications(1999). o The contractor shall apply water or dustpalliative to the site and equipment as frequently as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. o The contractor shall spread soil binder on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and all project construction parking areas. o The contractor shall wash trucks as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust. o The contractor shallproperly tune and maintain construction equipment and vehicles and use low-sulfur fuel in all construction equipment as provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. o The contractor shall develop a dust control plan documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and expedited revegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to adjacent uses and residents. a The contractor shall locate equipment and materials storage as far away from residential as practical. o The contractor shall establish environmentally sensitive areas for receptors within which construction activities involving extended idling of diesel equipment would be prohibited to the extent feasible. o The contractor shall use track out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. o The contractor shall require that all transported loads of soil and wet materials shall be covered prior to transport, or provide adequate freeboard to reduce PMIO and deposition of particulate matter during transportation. o The contractor shall route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling along local roads. o The contractor shall install landscaping as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown particulate in the area. o The contractor shall implement a street sweeping program with Rule 1186-compliant PMIo-efficient vacuum units on at least a 14-day .frequency. o The contractor shall abate dust nuisance by cleaning, sweeping and spraying with water, or other means as necessary. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) o The contractor shall provide a self-loading motorized street sweeper equipped with a functional water spray system. The sweeper shall clean all paved areas within the work site and all pave haul routes at least once a day. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) Page 16 HB -565- Item 12. - 69 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Since the Road Construction Model for calculating emissions does not have built-in methodology to quantify reductions from each of the listed measures, an estimate for mitigated PMio construction emissions is not available. Implementation of Rule 403 can result in up to a 50 percent reduction. Given that the project's emissions exceeded the LST by only 40 percent, it can be reasonably assumed that implementation of the recommended mitigation measures combined with compliance with Rule 403 would reduce the project's emissions below the threshold and to a less than significant level. Post-construction/Long-term emissions Typically,road widening projects are not assumed to have significant long-term air quality impacts. The project is not a development project that would introduce new residential,commercial or industrial uses that would be an indirect source of air quality pollutants. The proposed project would improve existing traffic operations and alleviate an existing"choke point"on Atlanta Avenue improving circulation and reducing potential vehicle queuing and idling. The "stop-and-go" speeds associated with the"choke point"and vehicle queuing are generally the largest source of vehicle emissions. Since the project would alleviate these issues, concentration of vehicle exhaust in the area may also be reduced. Therefore,the project would result in less than significant long-term/operational impacts to air quality. Odors Objectionable odors from the project may result during construction from equipment exhaust as well as from installation of the asphalt paving. However,construction is anticipated to last approximately six months. In addition,odor emissions would disperse rapidly from the site and would not cause significant effects affecting a substantial number of people. Odors from vehicle exhaust emissions after completion of the street widening would likely be less than pre-project conditions as the project would eliminate a point of congestion and reduce vehicle idling,thereby reducing the concentration of objectionable odors from vehicle exhaust in the project area. Less than significant impacts would occur. The project,with implementation of AQ-1,would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. In addition, since the project,with mitigation, would not result in an exceedence of established thresholds,the project would not result in exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. As the project is consistent with the AQMP and, with mitigation, does not result in an exceedence of thresholds for non-attainment pollutants and ozone precursors NOX and VOC, it would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts to air quality and less than significant impacts would occur. VI.TRANSPORTATIONI RAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? (Sources:16) Discussion: See discussion under b. Page 17 Item 12. - 70 H - ss- Native American Contacts Orangge County August 18, 2010 TI'At Society Gabrielino Tongva Nation Cindi Alvitre Sam Dunlap, Chairperson 6515 E. Seaside Walk, #C Gabrielino P.O.Box 86908 Gabrielino Tongva Long Beach , CA 90803 Los Angeles , CA 9w86 calvitre@yahoo.com sarndunlap@earthllnkmet (714) 504-2468 Cell (909)262-9351 - cell Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation David Belardes, Chairperson Anthony Rivera, Chairman 32161 Avenida Los Amigos Juaneno 31411-A La Matanza Street Juaneno San Juan Capistrang CA 92675 San Juan capistranq CA 92675-2674 DavidBelardes@hotrnall. arivera@juaneno.com (949) 293-8522 (949) 488-3484 (949) 493-4933 - Home (530) 354-5876 - cell Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Admin. Robert F. Doramae, Tribal Chair/Cultural Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 490 Gabrielino Tongva tattnlaw@gmall.corn Belfflower CA 90707 310-570-6567 gtongva@verizon.net 562-761-6417 -voice 562-925-7989 -fax Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Anthony Morales, Chairperson Alfred Cruz, Culural Resources Coordinator PO Box 693 Gabrielino Tongva P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno San Gabriel , CA 91778 Santa Ana , CA 92799 GTTribalcouncil@aol.com alfredgcruz@sbcglobal.net (626) 286-1632 714-998-0721 (626) 286-1758- Home 714-998-0721 - FAX (626) 286-1262-FAX 714-321-1944-cell This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Also, federal National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA),National Historic Preservation Act,Section 106 and fed oral NAGPRA. And 36 CFR Part 800.3. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans for consuft ton purposes with regard to cultural resources impact by the proposed SCH#M0081014;CEQA Notice of Completion;proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project(CDP No.2009-001, CUP No.2009-019);looted in the City of Huntington beach;Orange County,California. HB -617- Item 12. - 121 Native American Contacts Orangge County August 18, 2010 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Adolph 'Bud'Sepulveda, Vice Chairperson Bernie Acuna P.O. Box 25828 Juaneno 1875 Century Pk East#1500 Gabrielino Santa Ana ' CA 92799 Los Angeles , CA 90067 bssepul@yahoo•net (310) 428-7720 - cell 714-838-3270 (310) 587-2281 714-914-1812-CELL bsepul@yahoo.net Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Juaneno Bared of Mission Indians Aciachernen Nation Sonia Johnston, Tribal Chairperson Joyce Perry; Representing Tribal Chairperson P.O. Box 25628 Juaneno 4955 Paseo Segovia Juaneno Santa Ana , CA 92799 Irvine 7 CA 92612 sonia.johnston@sbcgiobal. 949-293-8522 net (714) 323-8312 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe Anita Espinoza Linda Candelana, Chairwoman 1740 Concerto Drive Juaneno 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1500 Anaheim , CA 92807 Los Angeles , CA 90067 Gabrielino (714) 779-8832 icandelarial QgabrielinoTdbe.org 310-428-5767-cell (310) 587-2281 United Coalition to Protect Panhe (UCPP) Rebecca Robles 119 Avenida San Fernando Juaneno San Clemente CA 92672 (949) 573-3138 This list is current only as of the date of this document Distribution of this flat does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. Also, federal National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA�National Historic Preservation Act,Section 106 and fed eral NAGPRA. And 36 CFR Part 800.3. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans for consultation purposes with regard to cultural resources Impact by the proposed SCHIl20f0081014;CEC IA Notice of Completion;proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Atlanta Avenue Widening.Project(COP No.2009-001, CUP Na 20094"9);located In the City of Huntington Beach;Orange County,California Item 12. - 122 HB -618- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD September 2nd, 2010 Jennifer Villasenor City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Atlanta Avenue Widening CC-1389 Dear Ms.Villasenor, At the September 2,2010 Environmental Board meeting,the members reviewed the draft mitigated negative declaration No. 09-001. The Board offers the following comments for your consideration. Land Use/Planning: 1. What type of environmental document pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act will be required to obtain federal authorization? This document should be reviewed Ft2 concurrently with the MND. It would be helpful to know what the Federal Uniform Act provisions are for properties affected by this project. Air Quality: 1. The project will result in localized significance thresholds for PM10 to be exceeded. Will a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan(MMRP)be prepared for proposed measures AQ-1? Should this plan be part of the MND? 2. How will the monitoring plan evaluate compliance with"The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke,dust, equipment exhaust, or any other air contaminant to the -3 atmosphere in such quantity as will violate any federal, state or local regulation"? Utilities/Service Systems: 1. Relocating utility poles provides an opportunity for possible undergrounding which provides for improved vistas and public safety. Evaluate placing relocated utilities underground. HB -61 9- Item 12. - 123 Population/Housing: 1. The Board recognizes the significant impact the project will have on a number of inconvenienced mobile homeowners. Use of area on eastern edge of mobile home park presently used for RV and boat storage could be considered for relocation of displaced mobile homes. (See La below) 2. Use of area east of block wall on eastern side of mobile home park(vacant property between block wall and Delaware St.)in conjunction with property above for relocation - of displaced mobile homes, and new landscaping. (Not sure of property ownership)(See Lb) haft I A v I.a .b ' 3 Hydrology/Water Quality 1. The Board recognizes innovative and environmentally friendly products exist for new street paving, such as permeable/pervious pavement which benefit storm water - management,and reduce effects of Urban Heat Island(UHI). The Board recommends exploring such materials. We appreciate the opportunity of reviewing this project. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Robert Schaaf Chairman,Huntington Beach Environmental Board 1. http://www.builditgreen.orglattachmentslwysiwyg/22/CD-Waste-Diversion.pdf Item 12. - 124 HB -620- RECENED August 31, 2010 Hello Jennifer, Dept. of Planning &Building I live in Space.502 and this is-my comment about Atlanta Avenue Widening Project. What a waste of taxpayers' money! I've lived by Atlanta for 5 years now. There are about 2 days out of the year where widening Atlanta would be beneficial. The rest of the year, it's not necessary. However, being a Federal government civil servant for over 30 years, I am well aware of how the government loves to waste money. Working for the government for so long has made me also aware that fighting city hall would be a waste of my time. My only hope is that funding doesn't happen and that this ridiculous project doesn't happen. t' V� One error that I see inthe Environmental Report is the amount of residents t that are impacted. You should add at least two more residents to the impacted 14 residents. My home has three residents in it, my two sons and -f myself. I am a FAA Electrical Engineer, on the verge of retiring, who in 2005 moved into his dream retirement home. This is the home you plan on taking from me soon. Also living on Space 502 is a senior at Cal State Fullerton and my other son who has a severe mental illness (paranoid Schizophrenic). I believe you have calculated only one resident in my home because I have not gotten around to officially notifying management that my two sons moved in with me. One moved in with me in 2007 and the other in 2008. My final comment is, "May your plans fall apart and the widening of Atlanta never happen!" Respectfully, Roger Savoie Jr. 80 Huntington St. #502 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ng -621- Item 12. - 125 ,i Cain+ -D H K C Dept.Jt� HART, KING & COLDREN gtC>urtt g Robert S.Wdmn rcoldren@hkclaw.com August 31, 2010 Our File Number:36608.005/4819-6055-9111v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714)374-1540 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Proiect("Proiect") Cover Letter re Comments on Miticiated Ne_aative Declaration("MND") Dear Ms. Villasenor: I am writing this cover letter to accompany the enclosed comment letter on the MND for the Project. We have previously expressed the desire to work together with the City to achieve a mutually favorable result with respect to the taking of portions of the Pacific Mobilehome Park and other changes to the Park resulting from the Project. We are submitting the enclosed comment letter to preserve the rights of the Park property owner to challenge the Project in the event we are not able to timely achieve a mutually favorable resolution. However, we do not want the comment letter to be misconstrued as a change in our desire to work out a mutually favorable result or as a current desire to litigate this matter. Given that the short time frame available for challenge under CEQA might force us to file litigation to further preserve the rights of the property owner, it is incumbent that we redouble our efforts to achieve a mutually favorable resolution within the next couple of months. �� Alternatively, it might make sense for the City to place the Project and MND on hold until there is funding for the Project acquisition and relocation. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkelaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 12. - 126 HB -622- HART, KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 2 We would be glad to meet with you to set up a framework and timetable for resolution of matters pertaining to the Project. Please contact me to set up a meeting. Sincerely, HART, KING obert . Coldr BLH/dr Enclosure: Comment Letter on MND for Project cc: Mark Hodgson HB -623- Item 12. - 127 HK&C HART, KING & COLDREN Robert S.Coldren rcoldren@hkclaw.com August 31,2010 Our File Number:36608.005/4847-3600-0519v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND U.S. MAIL (714)374-1540 Jennifer Villasenor Acting Senior Planner Planning and Building Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Proiect("Proiectl Comments on Mit/gated Negative Declaration("MND") Dear Ms. Villasenor: We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose property would need to be taken for the proposed Project. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's comments on the City's MND for the Project. The City should not approve the Project or the MND for the following reasons: 1. There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the , MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered, would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the I Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, �. particularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resources impacts. THE MND CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PROJECT PUBLIC NECESSITY In order for the Project which encompasses the taking of private Park property to be lawful, the City must establish the public necessity for the Project. (See Code Civ. Proc., 1240.030) The MND does not point to any anticipated Park change in use that will justify building out the !�- adjacent street to the maximum general plan width. In addition, the MND candidly admits that there is no current funding source that would allow the Project to be built within the near future. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 Item 12. - 128 H -624- HART, KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 2 The MND alleges that the Project is made necessary by the previous approval of the mixed use Pacific City Development just west of the Project, which Development widened Atlanta Avenue to its ultimate location, leaving an alleged "choke point' along Atlanta Avenue where the Park is located. According to the MND, the existing 26 foot offset in the south curb alignment at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street "requires additional motorist decisions" and creates "a greater potential for merging accidents and motorists inadvertently driving vehicles off of the street." Neither the MND nor the traffic study attached thereto provide evidence to support this conclusion regarding the alleged safety issues pertaining to the existing south curb offset. The t MND provides no evidence of a greater number of accidents at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, no evidence of a greater number of vehicles running off the street, and no evidence of traffic backups resulting from the south curb offset. Indeed, some of the most heavily traveled roads, highways and interstates in Southern California have well marked lane reductions without any significant reductions in safety. i The traffic study attached to the MND provides substantial evidence to the contrary of the MND justification for the Project. The traffic study demonstrates that regardless of the Project there will be significant traffic obstruction at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street unless there is a traffic signal light placed at that intersection. With a traffic signal light, traffic obstruction at the intersection is avoided. The traffic study glaringly fails to study whether a E signal light without the Project would relieve any existing traffic obstruction, although it is clear from the traffic study that the Project without a traffic signal light will not. i Therefore, the MND does not provide evidence of the public necessity for the proposed Project and its relocation of Park resident mobile homes. Instead it provides evidence that the Project is 2 both not needed and not presently viable. THE RAND CONTAINS AN INADEQUATE PIECEMEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq.) is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. CEQA is to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112) An EIR is the heart of CEQA. Its purpose it to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California(1988)47 Cal.3d 376, 391,fn 2) A negative declaration is proper only if the public agency determines based on an initial study H -625- Item 12. - 129 HART. KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 3 that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080 (c) (1) & (d); 14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15063 (b) (2), 15070 (a)) An EIR must be prepared whenever there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental impact. (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75) A proper initial study requires that "all phases of project planning, implementation and operation ... be considered." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15063(a)(1)). Indeed, an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua _non of informative and legally adequate environmental review. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Hensler(1991)233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592) An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors(1988)202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143) For these reasons, CEQA mandates that environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have a significant impact. (See City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452) CEQA defines the term "project" broadly to i include the whole of an action, direct and indirect impacts on the environmental, and any subsequent discretionary actions of the government agencies. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 1143) The MND describes the Project as the widening of the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the City's General Plan Element. Currently there is one lane of traffic on the south side. The Project will add an additional lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The MND lists the scope of the Project to encompass condemnation of Park land, removal and relocation of eight mobile homes, clearing and grubbing of the land, construction of an asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-feet tall concrete block wall atop a retaining wall possibly 7-feet in height, landscaping that includes the removal of 25 mature trees, reconstruction of a circulation road within the Park, construction of two emergency access gates within the Park, utility and fire hydrant relocation, relocation of a drainage catch basin, relocation of utility poles and overhead lines. 6 The MND states that the Project will require approval of a conditional use permit for the block wall and a coastal development permit. However, the MND makes no attempt to describe any potential conditions for approval of a conditional use permit or coastal development permit. Despite its acknowledgement that the Project will require relocation of eight mobile homes, the f MND inappropriately claims that the City cannot conduct environmental review for the relocation , ,ram Item 12. - 130 HB -626- HART, KING & COLOREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 4 impacts because the City cannot yet determine whether relocation from the Park will be required because the City has not yet obtained funding for the Project. The City's reasoning here is faulty. The lack of current funding for the Project, while relevant to whether there is public necessity for the Project, does not prevent the City from performing an analysis of whether there is sufficient room for relocation within the Park for those mobile homed , that will be moved. Therefore the MND description of the Project is inadequate and incomplete. It appears that the City is deliberately trying to avoid preparing an EIR by segmenting the Project so that it does not include relocation of Park residents. Under CEQA, there is a mandatory finding of significance if the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15065) A road widening project that will displace several families and result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. (See Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003) Therefore, by improperly segmenting or piece-mealing the Project, the City violates CEQA. An EIR rather than the MND should have been prepared. THERE IS FAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate only if project revisions avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects that are identified or that should have been identified in the initial study to the point where no significant effect on the environmental would occur. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21064) Under CEQA a significant effect on the environment means a substantial or potentially ��1� substantial adverse change in the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21068) Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of significant environmental impacts that an agency should evaluate for a project in its initial study. The initial study checklist is included in the MND. The MND initial study checklist contains several erroneous and/or factually unsupported findings regarding significant environmental impacts and/or mitigation thereof- 1. Land Use and Planning. a. Conflict with Existing Land Use Regulation. The MND incorrectly finds that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agency over the Park. Vr The MND expressly states that the City will need to issue a new conditional use permit for the large (possibly as high as 15 feet) block wail that will be part of the Project. Such a wall is not currently permitted under the Park conditional use permit and would impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park Owner. However, the MND fails to discuss what conditions HB -627- Item 12. - 131 C HART; KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 5 might be involuntarily imposed on the Park Owner and the impacts of those conditions on theVC_ d existing conditional use permit. The MND also fails to address any impacts of a 15 foot wall ore hh 0 removal of existing mature trees on the scenic coastal views of nearby residents. C11 The MND also reveals that it will need an additional coastal development permit but fails to discuss whether the Project complies under the requirements for such a permit and fails to address the potential impact of Project's displacement of housing under the Ellis Act. Thus, an EIR is needed to analyze the scope of the new conditional use permit and coastal development permit required for the Project, including the impact of any conditions that would be associated with such permits. C. Divide an Established Community. The MND also wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community. The MND clearly will remove 8 mobile homes from the Park and thus divide them from the Park community, reconfigure an access road within the Park, and impose a block wall that will result in grade separation and impede open access to the street. These are definite physical changes to the environment that will divide and segment the established Park community. Therefore, an EIR is needed to analyze the Project impacts to the Park community. 2. Population and Housing. a. Induce Substantial Population Growth. The MND erroneously claims that the City need not study the growth inducing impact of the street widening because it is within growth projected by the City's General Plan. The growth inducing impacts of a street widening project must be studied and discussed in an EIR regardless of whether they are anticipated by �C the City's General Plan. (See City of Antioch v. City Council(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332 ("conformity with the general plan for the area ... does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects"]) Therefore, an EIR is required to evaluate the Project's growth inducing impacts. b/c. Need for Replacement Housing. The MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan. There is nothing in � the lack of present funding that prevents the City from determining the potential place and type of relocation housing at the current time. The use of a future study or plan cannot substitute as mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND. (See Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307) Thus, an EIR is required that includes a relocation plan. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality. C. Alter Drainage Pattern. The MND erroneously claims that the Project will ��� not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area despite its admission in section Item 12. - 132 w -628- HK C HART, KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 6 4.a.that the existing storm drain at the south side of Atlanta Avenue will be relocated and that there will need to be reconstruction of the Park on-site drive aisle and a grade change. Grade Wc- (3 and location changes can substantially alter the ability of the existing on-site drainage system toL J adequately contain drainage flows. Those impacts to the Park drainage system should be Cc�,�i t►�W�I studied in an EIR. 5. Air Quality. The MND makes unsupported assumptions about mitigation of short term air quality impacts and erroneously fails to consider long term air quality impacts of the Project. a/b. Violate Air Standards/Sensitive Receptors. With respect to the short term kC� impacts, the MND acknowledges that construction of the Project will cause significant air quality impacts. The MND admits that the mitigation measures, if completely successful "can" at the maximum, only result in a 50 percent reduction in particulates matter. The MND then leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50 percent reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter, not just 50%thereof. An EIR is required to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulates matter to a less than significant level. e. Cumulative Increase in Emissions. The MND erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting KC from the Project. An EIR is required to study the impact of increased future emissions from additional traffic enabled by the Project. 7. Biological Resources. The MND improperly fails to contain a tree replacement 1 I,KC_ plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will be eliminated. t'1 10. Noise. The MND wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will increase the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feet more that 25 dBA up to 98 dBA, an Vr (� intolerable amount despite what the City ordinance allows during daytime. The mitigation measures suggested thus are not evaluated as to whether they bring the noise levels to a less than significant level. An EIR is required to determine mitigation measures that will reduce Project noise for Park residents to a less than significant level. 18, Mandatory Findings of Significance. While the MND admits to all three mandatory findings of significance, the MND insists,without any substantive discussion, that the minor mitigation measures proposed will suffice. The MND also fails to admit to all of the significant effects, including land use, housing, population, traffic, drainage and noise impacts. In essence, the Project is similar in many respects to the project in the Friends of`B"Street case where an EIR was required: In the present case the adoption of a negative declaration was an abuse of discretion. The city's initial study revealed that the short HB -629- Item 12. - 133 HK C HART, KING & CDLDREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 7 term effects of the"B" Street Project include increased dust and auto exhaust, disruption of business during the construction of the project, and increased bank erosion and possible loss of wildlife habitat along San Lorenzo Creek during construction of a bridge. Among the long term effects of the project are increased traffic, increased noise, paving and removal of grass and garden areas, the removal of vegetation, landscaping, shrubs and hedgerows, the removal of 153 mature trees(some more than 80 years old) which presently line the street, and the elimination of on-street �C parking on"B"Street and Center Street, aggravating present parking problems that already exist in the area.Two neighborhood C stores would be removed, and 12 families would be displaced due to the removal of residential structures. The project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area, and a decrease in residential property values. The residential desirability of adjacent properties would be adversely affected by the increased noise and exposure to traffic, reduced setbacks of the structures from the street, and the loss of on-street parking. The conversion of single-family dwellings to commercial or multi- family use would be accelerated. The project would also result in a decreased visual or aesthetic quality of the area due to the removal of the trees, grass and garden areas, and the decrease in the setback of the structures from the street. This evidence indicated that a finding of significant environmental effect was mandatory. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 15082.)The trial court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence that the "B"Street Project might have a significant environmental effect. (Friends of"B"Street v. City of Hayward, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1003) [continued on next page] Item 12. - 134 HB -630- 0 HKEKC HART, KING & COLOREN City of Huntington Beach Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project August 31, 2010 Page 8 In conclusion,the failure of the MND to recognize the numerous significant environmental impacts resulting from relocation of residents, road widening, alteration of drainage and noise and the failure of the MND to sufficiently mitigate impacts resulting from the Project require the preparation of an EIR. The MND fails to analyze the whole of the Project and demonstrates that the Project is not necessary or viable at this time. An EIR should be prepared to appropriately analyze the Project. Sincerely, HART, KING & COLD N Robert S. Co r BLH/dr cc: Mark Hodgson HB -631- Item 12. - 135 ATTACHMENT #5 FM�� Item , 2. . 136 uBFn Huntington Beach Planning Commission ® 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 NOTICE OF ACTION October 27, 2010 City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APPELLANT: Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, CA 92707 PROPERTY OWNER: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way: City of Huntington Beach; Pacific Mobile Home Park: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 9264 REQUEST: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed street improvements will provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the project includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height(7 ft. max.) retaining wall, landscaping (including the removal or relocation of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park), reconstruction of a 26 ft. wide drive aisle (circulation road) and emergency access gates within the mobile home park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. The project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit(CDP)for development within the Coastal Zone and a Conditional Use Permit(CUP) for the construction of the retaining wall. A separate public hearing will be scheduled for the associated CDP and CUP. Construction of the proposed street improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue. The additional 25 feet of right-of-way will come from a 25 feet wide by 630 feet long (approx.) strip of land from the Pacific Mobile Home Park located immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. The acquisition of the 25 feet would impact eight manufactured/mobile homes (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501, and 502)within the park. The impacted residents would need to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("The Uniform Act"). At this Phone 714-536-5271 Fax 714-374-1540 WWW.51irfrriiv-hh nrn HB -633- Item 12. - 137 Notice of Action MND 09-001 October 26,2010 Page 2 time it cannot be determined where the impacted residents would be relocated and, therefore, relocation of the residents will be analyzed as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. LOCATION: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way (between Huntington Street and Delaware Street); 80 Huntington Street, 92648 (south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street—Pacific Mobile Home Park) DATE OF ACTION: October 26, 2010 On Tuesday, October 26, 2010, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission took action on your application, and approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001. Attached to this letter are the findings and mitigation measures. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Planning Commission becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the City Clerk within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Planning Commission's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of One Thousand, Five Hundred Eighty-Seven Dollars ($1,587.00) if the appeal is filed by a single family dwelling property owner appealing the decision on his own property and Three Thousand, Forty Five Dollars ($3,045.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is November 5. 2010 at 5:00 PM. "Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020." If you have any questions, please contact Jennifer Villasenor, the project planner, at jvillasenor@surfcity-hb.org or (714) 374-1661 or the Planning Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Scott Hess, Secretary Planning Commission 11 Herb Fauland, Planning Manager SH:HF:JV:kdc Item 12. - 138 NIA - 34- Notice of Action MND 09-001 October 26, 2010 Page 2 Attachments: 1. Findings and Mitigation Measures—MND No. 09-001 c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Bill Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Mike Vigliotta, Deputy City Attorney III Steve Bogart, Senior Civil Engineer Bill Grove, Inspection Manager Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner Appellant Property Owner Project File HB -635- Item 12. - 139 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of 30 days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address construction noise and pollutant emissions and potential impacts to biological resources, cultural resources and population and housing. Mitigation measures were generally designed to minimize construction related impacts within and surrounding the project area as well as ensure that relocation of the impacted residents complies with the provisions of existing federal laws enacted to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project will widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. Additional beneficial impacts include construction of a new ADA accessible sidewalk and Class 11 bike lane along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue does not currently have a sidewalk or designated bike lane. Because the current roadway narrows at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue, traffic flow is often impeded when the bus makes stops at this location. In addition, bicyclists are currently forced into travel lanes due to the roadway narrowing and the existing transit stop configuration. The project would improve the current conditions with the installation of the proposed improvements and would improve traffic safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users traveling within the project area. Finally, all potential adverse impacts resulting from construction of the project can be adequately mitigated to a less than significant level. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. As soon as feasibly possible, the City shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Uniform Act and other applicable laws. Notification to and discussions with the impacted property owner and residents shall occur as soon as feasibly possible pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act. The City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and relocation is implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. G:PCWOA110WtND 09-W1 Attachment 1.1 Item 12. - 140 1•-113 -636- 2. The City shall require, by contract specifications, implementation of the following measures: a. All work shall be done in accordance with the"GREENBOOW Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2009 Edition, as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. b. The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke, dust, equipment exhaust, or any other air contaminants into the atmosphere in such quantity as will violate any federal, State or local regulations. (Greenbook Section 7-8.2) c. The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standard Specification Section 7-1.01 F and Section 10 of Caltrans' Standard Specifications (1999). d. The contractor shall apply water or dust palliative to the site and equipment as frequently as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. e. The contractor shall spread soil binder on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and all project construction parking areas. f. The contractor shall wash trucks as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust. g. The contractor shall properly tune and maintain construction equipment and vehicles and use low-sulfur fuel in all construction equipment as provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. h. The contractor shall develop a dust control plan documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and expedited re-vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to adjacent uses and residents. L The contractor shall locate equipment and materials storage as far away from residential as practical. j. The contractor shall establish environmentally sensitive areas for receptors within which construction activities involving extended Idling of diesel equipment would be prohibited to the extent feasible. k. The contractor shall use track out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. I. The contractor shall require that all transported loads of soil and wet materials shall be covered prior to transport, or provide adequate freeboard to reduce PNl1a and deposition of particulate matter during transportation. m. The contractor shall route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling along local roads. n. The contractor shall install landscaping as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown particulate in the area. G:PCWOA11OWND 09-001 Attachment 1.2 Ng -637- Item 12. - 141 o. The contractor shall implement a street sweeping program with Rule 1186-compliant PM,a- efficient vacuum units on at least a 14-day frequency. p. The contractor shall abate dust nuisance by cleaning, sweeping and spraying with water, or other means as necessary. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) q. The contractor shall provide a self-loading motorized street sweeper equipped with a functional water spray system. The sweeper shall clean all paved areas within the work site and all pave haul routes at least once a day. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) 3. Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency consultation: a. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September 1 and January 31 whenever feasible. - b. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 and August 31, a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite (per established thresholds), a 250- foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. 4. The City shall require by contract specifications the following measures: a. Ensure that all construction equipment has sound-control devices. b. Prohibit equipment with un-muffled exhaust. c. Site staging of equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. d. Limit idling of equipment whenever possible. e. Notify adjacent residents in advance of construction work. f. Educate contractors and employees to be sensitive to noise impact issues and noise control methods. g. Install temporary acoustic barriers between the mobile home removal and construction activities and the row of mobile homes to remain closest to Atlanta Avenue. Acoustical barriers should provide a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 25 and should be situated in a manner to provide an uninterrupted continuous barrier between all mobile home removal and road construction activities. During the mobile home removal activities, the barriers should stretch from the east edge of the property to the west and zig-zag between homes where necessary. After removal G:PCWOA\101MND 09-001 Attachment 1.3 Item 12. - 142 HB -638- of the mobile homes and prior to construction of the drive aisle within the mobile home property, the barrier can be straightened to stretch more directly from the east property line to the west property line. 5. If cultural resources are encountered during construction-related ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in the event of a potential find, until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources. 6. If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MILD). The designated MLD may make recommendations to the City for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G:PCWOA1101MND 09-001 AttachmeM 1.4 H -63 - Item 12. - 143 i ATTACHMENT #6 Item 12. _ 144 uBo,0 s 3+ .V < ---- i..��$ fi3S, a,�kyv z,� 3 " &'hiiv 4 g f ' HUM1NGiON BEICN >��`^- a 'Xx� 'z• � - '�' � '��'" �:. 'l s .w 2 r re` 4 F -- fi TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP,Director of Planning and Building BY: Jennifer Villasenor,Associate Planner DATE: October 26,2010 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.09-001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 APPELLANT: Hart, King and Coldren,200 Sandpointe,Fourth Floor, Santa Ana,CA 92707 PROPERTY OWNER: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way: City of Huntington Beach; Pacific Mobile Home Park: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC,80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 LOCATION: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way (between Huntington Street and Delaware Street); 80 Huntington Street, 92648 (south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street—Pacific Mobile Home Park) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Mitigated Negative Declaration No.09-001 request: - To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project, a City proposed project to widen Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and associated improvements to comply with the primary arterial street classification of the City's General Plan Circulation Element and County Master Plan of Arterial Highways(MPAH). o Staff s Recommendation: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 based upon the following: - Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and concludes that the proposed project, in light of the whole record, would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts with incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures. - All known potential environmental impacts are considered to be less than significant or less than significant with incorporation of mitigation based on established thresholds of significance. - None of the issues raised by the appellant in the appeal would constitute substantial evidence that the project would cause significant adverse environmental impacts such that a fair argument can be made to require preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) for the project. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 09-001 with suggested findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. I)." pp i #D-1 HB -641- Item 12. - 145 g a , ( , i zi 1 a vzi s g 'f�.Jxf H�j:,✓' ,,'�, 4..�„ °x j �i t ti i ul �''�' 4�r �� 9r'�`d.+s .�" 5 t t},?�� f t f✓ � 'y a '!1� a � -,� � 1 a f �: M f i T i 1 } t l F 1 Y Y �i�k.N4p 4'A•�' ark t�1 `It{ I rt���(i�� . Ij %vr. i� I r Ad, d, ,j7 t s °`[.nJ t7" '�'3. xar �>• - 1� �y, t q .� .la"^ � t } r " i µ moos 1 / GNOME MENNEN �� ■-■■■■■� •�' is moms 501a MEN ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 09-001 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: The proposed project would widen Atlanta Avenue from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with its General Plan classification as well as the Orange County Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH). As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. Acquisition of Ri t-of-Way The existing public street right-of-way along the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue varies from 60 feet wide (approximately 30 feet north and 30 feet south of street centerline) at Huntington Street to 85 feet wide (55 feet north and 30 feet south of street centerline) at Delaware Street. Consequently, construction of the proposed street improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue (i.e., the public street right-of-way is proposed at 55 feet south of street centerline). The additional 25 feet of right-of-way would come from an approximately 25 feet wide by 630 feet long strip of land from the Pacific Mobile Home Park located immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. The acquisition of the 25 feet would impact eight dwelling units (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501, and 502) within the park. The impacted residents would need to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. Proposed Street Improvements The proposed street improvements will provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the project's scope of work includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7 feet max.) retaining wall, landscaping (including the removal or relocation of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park), reconstruction of a 26-foot wide drive aisle (circulation road) and two emergency access gates within the mobile home park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. The project also requires approval of a coastal development permit for development in the coastal zone and a conditional use permit for the proposed height of the retaining wall. Background: The Atlanta Avenue Widening Project was initially identified in the 2006 Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program(FSTIP) and 2008 Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). The project has been authorized by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to receive funding through the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA). The California Department of Transportation(Caltrans) is the administering agency for FHWA and the lead agency for environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA). PC Staff Report— 10/26/10 3 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal €--1 -64 3- Item 12. - 147 Funding for the project is awarded in three phases: preliminary engineering, right-of-way and construction. Each phase cannot begin until the City receives Federal authorization to proceed. The City is currently working with Caltrans to obtain Federal authorization for the right-of-way phase in accordance with the timelines established by OCTA for the obligation of funds. The Federal authorization to proceed cannot be granted until environmental review for the project is completed pursuant to NEPA. Caltrans, as the lead agency for NEPA, will issue NEPA compliance pending completion of the City's CEQA process. In addition,the City cannot begin any work on the acquisition of right-of-way, including negotiations with the mobile home park property owners and impacted residents, prior to receiving Federal authorization to proceed. Therefore,the City is moving forward with the CEQA process in order to maintain funding for the project as well as begin discussions with the owners and residents of the mobile home park. The coastal development and conditional use permits require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and would be scheduled for a future meeting. Zoning Administrator Action: On September 15, 2010 the Zoning Administrator (ZA) considered MND No. 09-001, which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the Atlanta Avenue Widening Project. Staff presented an overview of the project, the potential environmental impacts and discussed the CEQA process. Staff disclosed that five comment letters were received during the 30-day public review and comment period for the MND. The comment letters were forwarded to the ZA, along with responses to each of the comments raised in the letters, prior to the meeting. It was stated that a change in the number of displaced residents (from 14 to 16) was made to the MND based on one of the public comment letters. Staff noted that the change did not affect the conclusions of the MND. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, four members of the public, including three residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, asked questions related to project timing, potential relocation sites, site access during construction and relocation compensation requirements. The speakers did not voice support of or opposition to the project nor did they raise any issues regarding the environmental analysis in the MND. The appellant did not attend the meeting. The ZA approved the MND with findings and the recommended mitigation measures (Attachment No. 5). Appeal: On September 27, 2010 an appeal of the ZA's decision to the Planning Commission was filed by Hart, King and Coldren, a law firm representing the Pacific Mobile Home Park property owners. The appeal letter is provided as Attachment No. 2 and cites the following reasons as the basis for appeal: 1. "There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered,would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, particularly regarding land use, housing, growth,air quality, drainage,noise and biological resource impacts." Study Session: The item was presented at the October 12, 2010 Planning Commission study session meeting. Staff gave a brief overview of the project including recent approval by the ZA and primary issues to consider for review. The appellant addressed the Planning Commission during public comments and reiterated several PC Staff Report—10/26/10 4 10sr63 NIND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 148 H -644- of the appeal issues raised in the appeal letter. The Planning Commission asked questions related to the amount of grading required for the project, height of the proposed wall, timing of the City process with other agencies and what the next steps in the process would be after the Planning Commission takes action on the MND. In addition, the Planning Commission requested follow-up on several issues/questions, which are identified and addressed below: 1. What is the timing for construction of the project? Should the City receive federal authorization to proceed with the right-of-way phase, acquisition and preparation of a relocation plan would take one and a half to two years. The relocation of the residents would likely take another year to complete. Construction of the widening project would last about six months. It is anticipated that the earliest the project would begin construction would be mid-year 2013. 2. Is the project identified as a mitigation measure of the Pacific City project or Downtown Specific Plan update? The project is not identified in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR and, as such, is not identified as a mitigation measure for implementation of the update to the Downtown Specific Plan. The intersections of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street and Atlantga Avenue and Delaware Street are included in the Pacific City traffic study. However, no impacts were identified at these intersections and no mitigation measures affecting these intersections were adopted. 3. How long has Atlanta Avenue been designated as a primary arterial street? Atlanta Avenue was initially designated as a primary arterial highway. In 1970, a portion cf Atlanta Avenue, including the subject segment, was upgraded to a major arterial designation in order to accommodate traffic from street improvements and a new development plan in the downtown area. As the street improvements and development plan were not implemented, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue was re-designated as a primary arterial in 1978 and has retained this designation to date. 4. Would the project result in changes to the existing drainage system within the mobile home park? Drainage in the mobile home park is conveyed via a network of concrete v-gutters and flows southerly to an existing sump system within the park and then ultimately discharged to the Huntington Beach Channel. The street widening will require grading that may result in minor changes to the existing site elevation due to the relocation of the curb and gutter. Likewise, the reconstruction of the on-site drive aisle within the existing mobile home park will require grading work to transition from the "nevi' grades of the street widening to the existing elevations of the park. Ultimately, however, the storm water will continue to drain as it does today. Existing site conditions, including the amount of impervious area, site elevations, and drainage patterns would generally be the same upon completion of the project. S. Are the cases cited by Appellant applicable to the CEQA review conducted by the Planning Commission? At the study session, Appellant specifically referenced two CEQA cases,Friends of"B" Street vs. City of Hayward and City of Antioch vs. City Council of the City of Pittsburg in his assertion that an EIR should be prepared instead of a MND. The Planning Commission requested further information on these cases as they may relate to the proposed project. After further review of both PC Staff Report—10/26/10 5 1 Osr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal H - 45- Item 12. - 149 cases cited by Appellant, Staff, including the City Attorney's Office, does not believe that either case applies to the current set of facts. The discussion below is intended to provide the instant case in relation to the projects described in the cases cited by Appellant. In the Friends of"B"Street vs. City of Hayward case, (a case that is cited for the courts discussion of attorney fees vs. CEQA) the City approved a negative declaration for the project. The court found that there was substantial evidence that the project would have significant environmental effects and therefore, an EIR was required. Among the effects the court found needing further analysis were the short-term effects during construction from increased dust, disruption of business, increased bank erosion and possible loss of wildlife habitat (during construction of a bridge). The court determined long-term effects of the project existed, which included increased traffic, noise, paving, removal of 153 mature trees, elimination of on-street parking, and displacement of two businesses and twelve families. The court determined that because of the scope of development (discussed above) the project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area and decrease residential property values. The residential desirability of adjacent residential properties would be adversely affected by increased noise and exposure to traffic, reduced setbacks of structures from the street, the loss of on-street parking, and a decreased visual or aesthetic quality of the area. The conversion of single-family to commercial or multi-family uses would be accelerated. The court determined that an EIR was necessary to address the unmitigated environmental issues. The "Friends of B Street" case is very different from the proposed project. As described in MND No. 09-001, the proposed does not result in significant increases in traffic or noise, does not remove on-street parking, does not decrease the setback of structures from the street, and does not propose new uses or the conversion of existing uses to another use nor does it propose a change in the zoning or land use designation of the area. Further, as a condition of the proposed project,the removal of 25 existing trees must be replaced at a two to one ratio resulting in a general aesthetic improvement in the area with the addition of new and upgraded landscaping. Once the project is complete, the use of the existing road and mobile home park will be the same, albeit configured in a slightly different manner. In addition, in this case, the short-term impacts of the project during construction are considered less than significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level as set forth in MND No. 09-001. The project includes the removal of eight dwelling units from the mobile home park necessitated by the acquisition of 25 feet of additional right-of-way. However, the draft HIND identifies the displacement of people/housing as a potentially significant impact. The impact (i.e. — displacement of people/housing) will be mitigated by requiring relocation of those displaced in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act_ Finally, unlike the "Friends of B Street" case, there is no evidence that the project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic; in fact,the community character will be enhanced with the improved road and landscaping. The City of Antioch vs. City Council of the City of Pittsburg case is likewise distinguishable from the current project. In the Antioch case,the City approved a negative declaration for a project that involved construction of a new road, widening of an existing road and installation of sewer, storm drain and domestic water utilities in an undeveloped area. The argument for a MND was that because the road construction project and utilities would not connect to an existing street and utility lines, the project would therefore, not contribute to existing traffic and circulation impacts PC Staff Report— 10/26/10 6 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 150 H -646- or growth. The project proponent also stated that the improvements were consistent with the Circulation Element of the General Plan and the City's Master Plans. The court determined that the purpose of the project was to provide a catalyst for development in the area and that the extent of future development may have significant environmental impacts, which must be analyzed in an EIR. The project cited in the City of Antioch vs. City Council of the City of Pittsburg case is not similar to the proposed project. The most critical distinction is that the proposed project is not located in an undeveloped area and is not proposed for the purpose of instigating development of the area surrounding the project area. There are no growth inducement elements to this project such that any comparison to the City of Antioch case can be made. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning'And General Plan Designations. pall Subject Property: Atlanta Avenue:Right-of-Way Atlanta Avenue:Right-of-Way Right-of-Way;Pacific Pacific Mobile Home Park: Pacific Mobile Home Park: Mobile Home Park RM-15(Residential Medium RMP-CZ(Residential Density— 15 units/acre) Manufactured Home Park— Coastal Zone overla North of Subject RM-15 RM-CZ(Residential Medium Residential Apartments Property: Density—Coastal Zone overlay) (across Atlanta) East of Subject Property: RM-15 RM-CZ Residential Condominiums across Delaware South of Subject RH-30-sp(Residential High SP5(Downtown Specific Plan)— Remaining portion of Property: Density—30 units/acre— CZ Pacific Mobile Home Park; specific plan overla ) Waterfront Hilton West of Subject Property: CV-F7-sp(Commercial SP5-CZ Pacific City project site (across Huntington) Visitor—3.0 Floor Area Ratio —specific lan overlay) The project site consists of the existing Atlanta Avenue right-of-way from Huntington Street to Delaware Street and the northern portion of the Pacific Mobile Home Park, a 256-space mobile home park developed in the late 1950s. The project site is approximately 2.6 acres in area. The existing Atlanta Avenue right-of-way consists of approximately 1.57 acres of the project area and approximately 1.03 acres of the existing 18.24-acre mobile home park property makes up the remainder of the project area. General Plan Conformance: The Atlanta Avenue Widening Project is proposed to bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the Primary Arterial street classification of the General Plan Circulation Element as well as the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways. The following goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan apply to the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project: PC Staff Report—10/26/I0 7 1Osr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal HB -647- Item 12. - 151 Air Quality Element Policy Q 1.8.1: Continue to enforce construction site guidelines that require truck operators to minimize particulate emission. Policy AO 1.8.2: Require installation of temporary construction facilities(such as wheel washers)and implementation of construction practices that minimize dirt and soil transfer onto public roadways. Policy AQ 1.9: Minimize sensitive uses (residential, hospitals, schools, etc) exposure to toxic emissions. MND No. 09-001 includes a technical analysis of the proposed project's impacts on air quality and greenhouse gas emissions. The analysis concluded that the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts and recommends a mitigation measure to ensure that emissions during project construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. The mitigation measure would ensure that sensitive receptors surrounding the project site would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Circulation Element Policy CE 1.1.1: Encourage the completion of missing roadway links and other related facilities by adopting the Circulation Plan of Arterial Highways and critical intersection improvements as sho,,Nn in...this element. Objective CE 1.2: Ensure adequate capacity for the City's circulation needs while minimizing significant negative environmental impacts. Objective CE 6.1: Promote the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians by adhering to Caltrans and City- wide standards. As stated, the project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the City's circulation plan. MND No. 09-001 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the project and concludes that, with mitigation, the project would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. In addition, as analyzed in the MND, the proposed project improvements would reduce potential safety issues for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue by minimizing existing roadway conflicts and installing a dedicated bicycle lane and pedestrian sidewalks. Environmental Resources/Conservation Element Policy ERC 2.1.10: Conduct construction activities to minimize adverse impacts on existing wildlife resources. MND No. 09-001 recommends a mitigation measure that would ensure that potential impacts to migratory bird species would be minimized by avoiding vegetation removal and construction activities during the breeding season when feasible, and requiring nesting surveys (if construction occurs during the breeding season)to ensure that active nests are not impacted. PC Staff Report—10/26/10 8 10sr63 NIND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 152 HB -648- Historic and Cultural Resources Element Objective HCR 1.1: Ensure that all of the City's historically and archaeologically significant resources are identified and protected. MND No. 09-001 recommends a mitigation measure that would ensure that impacts to archeological resources would be less than significant in the event resources are discovered during project construction activities. Because archeological resources have been discovered in the vicinity of the project area, a cultural resources survey was conducted for the project. Although it is not anticipated that archeological resources extend onto the project site, the proposed mitigation measure would ensure that resources, including human remains, discovered during construction would be properly assessed and recovered or protected in accordance with established protocols. Noise Element Objective N 1.6: Minimize the impacts of construction noise on adjacent uses. Policy N 1.6.1: Ensure that construction activities be regulated to establish hours of operation, to prevent and/or mitigate the generation of excessive or adverse noise impacts through the implementation of the existing Noise Ordinance and/or any future revisions to the Noise Ordinance. MND No. 09-001 analyzes potential noise impacts from the proposed project based on a technical study prepared by a qualified professional consultant. The MND concludes that construction noise impacts would be less than significant due to the temporary and intermittent nature of the noise and because the proposed construction hours would fall within the hours of construction that are exempt under the City's Municipal Code. However, recognizing that construction noise can be an annoyance to surrounding residents, a mitigation measure is recommended to reduce noise associated with construction of the project. Zoning Compliance: The project's compliance with applicable provisions of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance will be discussed during consideration of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit for the project. It should be noted that MND No. 09-001 analyzes the project's potential to conflict with applicable codes and plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects. In this regard,the MND concluded that the project would not conflict with applicable codes and plans such that significant environmental impacts would occur. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: The project's compliance with applicable provisions of the City's adopted Urban Design Guidelines will be discussed during consideration of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit for the project. It should be noted that MND No. 09-001 analyzes the project's potential to conflict with applicable codes and plans adopted for the purpose of avoiding environmental effects. In this regard,the MND concluded that the project would not conflict with applicable codes and plans such that significant environmental impacts would occur. PC Staff Report— 10/26/10 9 1 Osr63 HIND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal HB -64 - Item 12. - 153 Environmental Status: Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND)No. 09-001 was prepared by staff and relies, in part,on consultant prepared technical studies in the areas of air quality, traffic, cultural resources, hazards and noise. On July, 29, 2010, the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) approved the processing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The draft MND concluded that the project, as proposed, would not result in significant adverse environmental impacts with the incorporation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures were identified to reduce potentially significant impacts in the areas of air quality, cultural resources,biological resources,population and housing,and noise to a less than significant level. A 30-day public review and comment period for draft MND No. 09-001 commenced on August 5, 2010 and concluded on September 3, 2010. During the comment period, the City received five comment letters, including a comment letter from the appellant. Prior to the Zoning Administrator public hearing on the draft MND, staff responded to each of the comments raised in the comment letters. A copy of the Response to Comments and all comment letters is provided as Attachment No. 4. The "Zoning Administrator's approval of MND No. 09-001 was appealed on September 27,2010. Coastal Status: The proposed project is located in the Coastal Zone. As such, a coastal development permit is required for project approval. Coastal Development Permit No. 09-001 was submitted for the project by the Works Department and will be scheduled for public hearing at a future Planning Commission meeting. All property owners and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the project site as well as interested pa ties will receive notice prior to action on the coastal development permit. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Department of Public Works is the project applicant and has designed the project to meet City standards. The Fire and Police Departments and the Building Division have reviewed the project plans for compliance with applicable codes. The Department of Economic Development has provided comments on the relocation process and, with assistance from the City's real estate/relocation consultant, would ensure that the required relocation plan meets all applicable local, state and federal laws. The City anticipates receiving funds for the project from FHWA and has been working with OCTA and Caltrans to obtain the necessary approvals in order to receive the funds. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington BeachlFountain Valley Independent on October 14, 2010, and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning and Building Department's Notification Matrix), appellant, and interested parties. As of October 19, 2010, staff has not received any written comments/letters in response to the public notice for the Planning Commission hearing. PC Staff Report—10/26/10 10 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 154 HB -650- Application Processinz Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): July 29,2010 MND: January 27, 2011 (within 180 days of accepting application as complete) CUP/CDP: March 28, 2011 or within 60 days of adoption of MND An application for EA No. 09-001, Coastal Development Permit (CDP)No. 09-001 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 09-019 was filed on February 4, 2009 and deemed complete on July 29, 2010. The MND was adopted by the Zoning Administrator on September 15, 2010 and subsequently appealed on September 27, 2010. The appeal is scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 26, 2010. The public hearing is for action on MND No. 09-001, which analyzes the potential environmental impacts from the project and would not include action on the project itself. As noted earlier, a public hearing on the CDP and CUP for the project will be scheduled for a future Planning Commission meeting. ANALYSIS• The primary issue to consider when analyzing this request is whether the issues raised in the appeal letter render the analysis of the environmental impacts in the MND inadequate with respect to compliance with CEQA. The appellant cited three reasons for appeal,which are discussed below. 1. There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. The appellant states that the MND does not provide a public necessity for the project and purports that this is required for projects involving the taking of a private property. The draft MND discloses environmental impacts of the project to the public and decision-makers. The draft MND, in accordance with CEQA, is not required to provide substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. To support this issue, further in the appeal letter the appellant cites the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1240.030 providing that public necessity be established for a project in order to exercise eminent domain to acquire property, which is not an aspect of the project, as proposed. The letter states that the MND"admits that there is no current funding source that would allow the Project to be built within the near future." However, the MND states that the City anticipates receiving federal funds to construct the project, but cannot receive the funding until federal authorization to proceed is granted after environmental review is completed. The letter states that the"MND alleges that the Project is made necessary by the previous approval of the mixed use Pacific City development...." The MND states that the project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the primary arterial designation specified in the General Plan. Atlanta Avenue has been designated as a primary arterial since 1978, long before consideration of the Pacific City project. The Pacific City project has already widened Atlanta Avenue from First Street to Huntington Street to its ultimate configuration, which leaves a "chokepoint" on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue. While the project would alleviate the PC Staff Report—10/26/10 11 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Ng -651- Item 12. - 155 "chokepoint" and improve traffic safety in the project area, this is not the primary purpose of the project. The letter states that the traffic study fails to assess whether a signal light at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street without the project would relieve any existing traffic obstruction and states that it is clear that the project, without a traffic signal light, will not relieve traffic congestion. As stated in the MND, the above-mentioned intersection is currently being signalized as part of the Pacific City project. The traffic study for the project compares existing and future traffic conditions with and without the project. Since the traffic signal is not part of the project and would be operating prior to implementation of the project, there is no requirement for the project traffic study to evaluate the project's traffic conditions without the signalization of the Atlanta Avenue/Huntington Street intersection. Additionally, as the traffic signal is not part of the proposed project, there is no requirement to analyze the installation of the traffic signal with or without the project. The letter further summarizes the traffic discussion in the MND and cites excerpts from the traffic analysis that states that there is a greater potential for accidents due to the "chokepoint" that occurs within the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue as well as the existing transit stop and lack of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The letter states that the MND does not provide evidence of a greater number of accidents at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street and therefore, the conclusions in the draft MND are not supported. The letter also states that some of the "most heavily traveled roads, highways and Interstates in Southern California have well marked lane reductions without any significant reductions in safety." Finally, the letter states that the traffic study "provides substantial evidence to the contrary of the MND justification for the project." The issues related to the traffic study and proposed improvements to traffic circulation and safety are, in the context of the appeal letter, made to point out that the MND does not provide a justification of public necessity for the project. As mentioned previously in this analysis,the role of the CEQA document is to assess and disclose the project's potential impacts, including beneficial impacts, on the environment and not to provide a justification for the project. However, it should be noted that the MND states that the project would help to minimize accident potential and vehicular conflicts and provide for improved traffic safety and does not assert that the project will result in a decrease of accidents in the project area, although that could be the case. The information in the analysis comes from a Traffic Study prepared for the project by a qualified professional as well as from the City's Transportation Division. In addition, the letter provides information regarding roads and highways in Southern California without any evidence to support the claim. Furthermore,although the letter does not state that the traffic analysis is inadequate in assessing the project's impacts on traffic and transportation, the analysis and conclusions in the MND are supported by substantial evidence that the project will not result in significant traffic impacts. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') should have been prepared because the AND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, f considered, would require preparation of an EIR. The appeal letter asserts that the project involves the relocation of mobile home park residents and that an EIR is required to analyze the relocation. The MND identifies the displacement of people/housing as a potentially significant impact. The impact (i.e. — displacement of people/housing) can be mitigated by requiring relocation of those displaced in accordance with the PC Staff Report—10/26/10 12 10sr63 MNL 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 156 HB -652- Federal Uniform Act. The proposed mitigation measure would ensure that all displaced people would be relocated pursuant to applicable laws, which would be defined and implemented through the required relocation plan. Additionally, the MND identifies several potential relocation alternatives, but since the City cannot negotiate with the mobile home park property owner and affected residents prior to receiving authorization for funding, the actual relocation site, if there is one, is purely speculative at this point. Consequently, the relocation site(s) is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. To support the issue stated in the appeal letter, the appellant states that the lack of funding"does not prevent the City from performing an analysis of whether there is sufficient room for relocation within the Park for those mobile homes" and that the project description is inadequate. It should be noted that the project description of the MND identifies potential alternatives for relocation of the residents, including on-site relocation, off-site relocation, monetary compensation for those displaced residents that no longer choose to reside in a manufactured home or within the City,and reconfiguration of the existing mobile home park. Because the nature of the relocation is speculative at this point, the actual relocation is not further described in the project description. The letter states that the City is "deliberately trying to avoid preparing an EIR by segmenting the Project so that it does not include relocation of Park residents." CEQA requires environm,, :;L'A review of all direct impacts and reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts of a project. The draft iOND indicates that relocation of residents is necessary for the acquisition of right-of-way requi-.1 to construct the project. As such, the draft MND identifies the displacement of the residents as sat of the right-of-way acquisition as a potentially significant impact and provides mitigation to ensure that the impact(displacement of the residents)would be reduced to a less than significant level. The nature of the relocation is speculative and therefore,not reasonably foreseeable. Thus, the impacts of a physical relocation would be analyzed as a separate project in accordance with CEQA. The letter further states that the project will "displace several families and result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings." The letter cites the Friends of"B" Street vs. City of Hayward case law to illustrate the point. The MND acknowledges that the displacement of people/housing is a potentially significant impact and proposes mitigation to ensure that impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. The residential community characteristic of the area will not be lost. Unlike the "B" Street Project cited in the CEQA case, no new uses are proposed and the project does not propose to convert any existing uses to another use nor does it propose a change in the zoning or land use designation of the area. Once the project is complete, the existing uses of the project area as a road and mobile home park would be the same. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, particularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resource impacts. Land Use The appeal letter states that the MND incorrectly finds that the project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agency over the mobile home park. The letter states that the project requires a conditional use permit for the block wall, which is not currently permitted, and would "impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park owner." This is incorrect. The PC Staff Report—10/26/10 13 1Osr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal HB -653- Item 12. - 157 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) permits the proposed block wall subject to a conditional use permit. Any conditions of approval adopted for the conditional use permit would be the responsibility of the City as the project applicant. The proposed block wall would not impact any scenic coastal views since it would be replacing an existing wood fence, and more importantly, there are no scenic coastal views in the project area. The letter states that the MND fails to discuss whether the project complies with the requirements for a coastal development permit. The project's potential impacts on coastal resources and access are analyzed in the Land Use and Planning section of the MND. The MND concludes that the project will not have adverse impacts on coastal resources and does not conflict with the California Coastal Act. The letter also states that the MND fails to analyze potential impacts of the project's displacement under the Ellis Act. However, the City Attorney's office has reviewed the Ellis Act and indicated that it would not apply to the project as proposed. If there are aspects of the project that are determined to be subject to the provisions of the Ellis Act as the project progresses, the project would be required to comply with any applicable requirements of the statute. The letter states that an EIR is required to analyze the scope of the conditional use permit and coastal development permit and impacts from any conditions associated with the permits. A conditional use permit and coastal development permit are required based on aspects of the proposed project (the proposed block wall and development in the coastal zone, respectively), the scope of which has been adequately described in the project description and analyzed, in whole, throughout the draft MND. Project approval .:>_;,d. be subject to standard conditions and code requirements. No conditions with the potential to cause significant environmental impacts are recommended or foreseeable at this time. Any conditic• :,f approval with the potential to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are recomrns:l - - or adopted during consideration of the project's discretionary permits, would need to be analyzed in accordance with CEQA. The letter states that the MND "wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community" and states that an EIR is required to analyze the impacts to the mobile home park. As stated in the letter, the project would remove eight mobile homes, reconstruct an existing access road/Fire lane and construct a block retaining wall along the project's property line. However, in relation to the existing configuration of the mobile home park, the access road/Fire lane will be reconstructed so that the park configuration will be the same as it currently exists. The block wall will result in a grade separation similar to the grade separation that currently exists. In addition,the letter states that the proposed block wall will impede open access to the street. However, no access points to the mobile home park property will be permanently removed and the block wall will replace an existing wood fence. The project does not propose to physically divide the mobile home park from any current access,infrastructure or services that are currently provided. Housing The letter states that the "MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan." The letter also asserts that the use of a future study cannot substitute as mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND and concludes that an EIR is required. The MND identifies the displacement of people/housing as a potentially significant impact. The impact(i.e. —displacement of people/housing) can be mitigated by requiring relocation of those displaced in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. The proposed mitigation measure would ensure that all displaced people would be relocated pursuant to applicable laws, which would be PC Staff Report—10/26110 14 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 158 H -654- defined and implemented through the required relocation plan. The relocation plan would not defer mitigation rather it would ensure that mitigation of the potentially significant impacts is implemented, thus reducing the impact to a less than significant level. The MND provides several relocation alternatives, but since the City cannot negotiate with the mobile home park property owner and affected residents prior to receiving authorization for funding, the actual nature of the relocation is purely speculative at this point. Consequently, a relocation site(s) is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. Growth The letter states that the project would result in significant growth inducing impacts and that preparation of an EIR is required. The letter also states,and cites CEQA case law(City ofAntioch vs. City Council of the City of Pittsburg), that a project's conformity with the General Plan "does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project wilt generate significant environmental effects." The MND analyzes the project's potential impacts regarding population growth both directly and indirectly. The project does not propose new uses or development (i.e. — a new residential subdivision or a new commercial shopping center) that would result in direct growth-inducing impacts nor does it result in significant indirect growth-inducing impacts (i.e. --a new road, improvements to or installation of new utilities). Although the project provides for increased capacity on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue, it would not induce substantial population growth in the area; particularly since the area surrounding the project site is largely built out or entitled for development. In addition,the project would bring the subject segment into compliance with its General Plan classification, which would accommodate population growth already assumed by the General Plan and improve the level of service on Atlanta Avenue compared to existing conditions. The applicability of the cited case law to the proposed project is inconsequential. The project cited involved construction of sewer lines and a new road in an undeveloped area, which would be a catalyst for development in the area. The court determined that the impacts of development that would likely occur as a result of the project were potentially significant and needed to be evaluated in an EIR. The proposed widening of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street would not spur development in the area that would result in substantial population growth. In addition, the case law is cited to point out that a project's conformity with the General Plan does not exempt it from having to prepare an EIR when there is a fair argument that the project would result in significant impacts. In the context of impacts on population growth, for which the case is cited,evidence has not been presented that the project would result in significant growth-inducing impacts such that a fair argument exists to require an EIR. Air Quality The letter states that an EIR is required "to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulate matter to a less than significant level." The letter misinterprets the MIND in the percent reduction attainable for PMto emissions from construction mitigation. The comment states that the "MND leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50% reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter, not just 50% thereof." The MND concludes that the localized significance threshold (LST)will be exceeded for PM1O. The LST for PMIo in Huntington Beach is 14 pounds per day. The project, without mitigation, would result in emissions of 21.8 pounds per day. Although the model cannot quantify the amount of PMto emissions with mitigation, it is reasonable to assume that a reduction of 50 percent of the total emissions can be achieved with PC Staff Report—10/26/10 15 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Ng - 5 - Item 12. - 159 mitigation. The conclusions regarding air quality impacts in the MND are based on an air quality report prepared for the project by a qualified professional. A 50 percent reduction is documented in air quality data for other projects in the City and in some instances, reductions of greater than 50 percent have been achieved with similar mitigation and compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403. A 50 percent reduction in emissions from implementation of mitigation measure AQ-1 would result in 10.9 pounds per day. This would result in emissions below the established threshold and therefore, the impact would be mitigated to a less than significant level. The appeal letter states that the MND "erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting from the project." The letter also asserts that an EIR is required to study the project's impacts of increased emissions from "additional traffic enabled by the Project" While the project would provide for additional capacity on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue, it would not generate additional traffic volumes such that "long term emissions" would be cumulatively significant. Compared to existing conditions, the project may reduce vehicle emissions that would result from traffic congestion and vehicle idling. This reduction may be even greater in the long-term since congestion in the project area would likely worsen as the City approaches buildout. The letter asserts that widening the road will lead to increased traffic on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue and that the increase in traffic will result in a cumulatively significant impact on air quality. However,no data are provided to support this claim. It is important to clarify that the proposed road widening project would not result in direct increases in traffic that are typically associated with new uses or development that would generate vehicle trips. In addition, the project does not indirectly result in significant traffic impacts since it would not induce grcavilb.. After project completion, there may be more vehicles utilizing the subject segment of A-lary . Avenue; however, this would represent a shift in vehicles that are likely already driving in the area and not an increase in new vehicle trips. Therefore, an increase in cumulatively considerable vehicle emissions is not anticipated and impacts,as concluded in the MND, would be less than significant. Drainage As discussed in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of the MND,the project would not alter the existing drainage pattern such that significant impacts would result from an increased rate or volume of runoff causing erosion and/or flooding. Although the project does include grading and relocation of an existing fire access lane and drainage catch basin,the mobile home park site would maintain the same drainage pattern that presently exists. In addition, the project will require an erosion control plan and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to ensure that the project will not cause significant impacts to water quality from runoff during construction. Since the project is not proposing new uses or development that would increase impervious area within the project area or result in additional runoff volumes, post construction drainage would not impair the capability of the existing drainage system of the mobile home park to "adequately contain drainage flows." Noise The appeal letter states that the MND"wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will increase the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feet more than 25 dBA up to 98 dBA...." The letter states that since the impact is concluded to be less than significant, the proposed mitigation measure is not evaluated as to whether it will reduce noise levels to a less than significant level and asserts that an EIR is required to make the determination. Although the project will result in construction noise levels exceeding daytime noise levels established in the City's Noise Ordinance, PC Staff Report—10/26/10 16 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 160 H - 6- the Noise Ordinance exempts construction noise and therefore, the impact as to whether the project will result in noise levels exceeding established standards is correctly identified as less than significant. In addition, due to the short duration of project construction, the proposed daily construction hours (limited to 7:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday through Friday) and the intermittent nature of construction noise during various stages of project construction, the project's temporary increase in noise beyond existing levels would be considered less than significant. It should be noted that the conclusions in the draft MND are based on a technical study, prepared by a qualified professional, of the project's noise impacts. Therefore, the MND sufficiently and accurately assesses the project's potential noise impacts pursuant to CEQA. Even though no mitigation is required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level, a mitigation measure is proposed to reduce the annoyance of construction noise on residents within the project area. Biological Resources The letter states that the MND "fails to contain a tree replacement plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will-be eliminated." The MND discloses that the project includes the removal of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park property and identifies the City's standard policy to replace the trees at a two to one ratio. The NM also includes a mitigation measure that would protect nesting bird species and ensure compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) during project construction. A plan for replacement of the trees would be included as part of the project's landscaping plan that would be required for the project s- <c= to review and approval by the City. The MND correctly identifies the removal of trees as a potential impact and includes the City's standard condition for tree replacement, which would c;, tl , mitigate the impact. Because the replacement of trees is a standard City policy,it does no ;,rW; identified as a mitigation measure. Additionally, specific details of the replacement trees in the draft MND are not necessary to provide an adequate analysis of the project's impacts. Summary The letter states that the MND "insists, without any substantive discussion, that the minor mitigation measures proposed will suffice." The analysis in the MND is substantially supported by factual evidence and expert opinion documented in technical reports, existing regulations and applicable codes and weighed against established thresholds of significance. Mitigation measures are recommended for those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant based on the substantive analysis. The recommended mitigation measures are both feasible and adequate to reduce potential impacts tc, a_ less than significant level. The letter states that the MND also fails to "admit" significant effects in the areas of land use, housing, population, traffic, drainage and noise impacts. Each of the areas cited have been adequately analyzed and determined to be less than significant or less than significant with mitigation. The comment then cites CEQA case law (Friends of "B" Street vs. City of Hayward) to provide an example of a project that adopted a negative declaration wherein the court found that there was substantial evidence that the project would result in significant environmental effects. However, there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record (including the comment letter) that the project would result in significant environmental impacts. In addition, the draft NM includes analysis that provides substantial evidence that the project, with mitigation, would result in less than significant environmental impacts. None of the comments in the letter presents substantial evidence such that a fair argument can be made to require an EIR for the project. PC Staff Report—10126/10 17 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue widening Appeal HB -657- Item 12. - 161 ATTACHMENTS: 2. v�+e✓ {d c�twt �a 3. - ff �v 4. wsponses And 5. , SH:HF:MBB:JV:kd PC Staff Report—10/26/10 18 10sr63 MND 09-001 Atlanta Avenue Widening Appeal Item 12. - 162 H - - ATTACHMENT #7 0 rvn -659- Item 12. - 163 HK& C HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkciaw.com September 27, 2010 Our File Number:36608.005/4840-1342-0039v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY R�--Cw i�LD S'-P 2 7 , City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ` ` 2000 Main Street Dept Huntington Beach, CA 92648 < c/o Scott Hess, Director of Planning Planning and Building Department Re: Atlanta Avenue IA/jdening Project("Proiectl Appeal of Zoning Administrator Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration("MND'I No. 2009-001 Dear Commissioners: We represent the owner of the Pack Mobilehome Park, whose property would need to be taken for the proposed Project. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the City's MND for the Project. The appeal fee in the amount of $2,002 is enclosed herewith. The grounds for appeal are as follows: 1. There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered,would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, particularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resources impacts. THE MND CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PROJECT PUBLIC NECESSITY In order for the Project which encompasses the taking of private Park property to be lawful, the City must establish the public necessity for the Project. (See Code Civ. Proc., 1240.030) The MND does not point to any anticipated Park change in use that will justify building out the adjacent street to the maximum general plan width. In addition, the MND candidly admits that there is no current funding source that would allow the Project to be built within the near future. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor,Santa Ana,Callfornla 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 I www.hkclaw.com I Fx;i14.5484�5� CHMENT _ Item 12. - 164 N -660- "111;�I&c HART, KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 2 The MND alleges that the Project is made necessary by the previous approval of the mixed use Pacific City Development just west of the Project, which Development widened Atlanta Avenue to its ultimate location, leaving an alleged "choke point" along Atlanta Avenue where the Park is located. According to the MND, the existing 26 foot offset in the south curb alignment at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street"requires additional motorist decisions" and creates"a greater potential for merging accidents and motorists inadvertently driving vehicles off of the street." Neither the MND nor the traffic study attached thereto provide evidence to support this conclusion regarding the alleged safety issues pertaining to the existing south curb offset. The MND provides no evidence of a greater number of accidents at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, no evidence of a greater number of vehicles running off the street, and no evidence of traffic backups resulting from the south curb offset. Indeed, some of the most heavily traveled roads, highways and interstates in Southern California have well marked lane reductions without any significant reductions in safety. The traffic study attached to the MND provides substantial evidence to the contrary of the MND justification for the Project. The traffic study demonstrates that regardless of the Project there will be significant traffic obstruction at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street unless there is a traffic signal light placed at that intersection. With a traffic signal light, traffic obstruction at the intersection is avoided. The traffic study glaringly fails to study whether a signal light without the Project would relieve any existing traffic obstruction, although it is clear from the traffic study that the Project without a traffic signal light will not. Therefore, the MND does not provide evidence of the public necessity for the proposed Project and its relocation of Park resident mobile homes. Instead it provides evidence that the Project is both not needed and not presently viable. THE IVIND CONTAINS AN INADEQUATE PIECEMEAL PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq.) is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. CEQA is to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 112) An EiR is the heart of CEQA. Its purpose it to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EiR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. (See Laurel Heights Improvement Assn, v. Regents of University of California(1988)47 Cal.3d 376, 391,fn 2) A negative declaration is proper only if the public agency determines based on an initial study ATTACHMENT NO.. H13 - 61- Item 12. - 165 HART, KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 3 that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080 (c) (1) & (d); 14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15063 (b) (2), 15070 (a)) An EIR must be prepared whenever there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental impact. (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75) A proper initial study requires that "all phases of project planning, implementation and operation ... be considered." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15063(a)(1)). Indeed, an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of informative and legally adequate environmental review. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Hensler(1991)233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592) An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors(1988)202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143) For these reasons, CEQA mandates that environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have a significant impact. (See City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452) CEQA defines the term "project" broadly to include the whole of an action, direct and indirect impacts on the environmental, and any subsequent discretionary actions of the government agencies. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 1143) The MND describes the Project as the widening of the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the City's General Plan Element. Currently there is one lane of traffic on the south side. The Project will add an additional lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The MND lists the scope of the Project to encompass condemnation of Park land, removal and relocation of eight mobile homes, clearing and grubbing of the land, construction of an asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-feet tall concrete block wall atop a retaining wall possibly 7-feet in height, landscaping that includes the removal of 25 mature trees, reconstruction of a circulation road within the Park, construction of two emergency access gates within the Park, utility and fire hydrant relocation, relocation of a drainage catch basin, relocation of utility poles and overhead lines. The MND states that the Project will require approval of a conditional use permit for the block wall and a coastal development permit. However, the MND makes no attempt to describe any potential conditions for approval of a conditional use permit or coastal development permit. Despite its acknowledgement that the Project will require relocation of eight mobile homes, the MND inappropriately claims that the City cannot conduct environmental review for the relocation AT T T v , Item 12. - 166 HB -662- HART, ICING & COLOREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 4 impacts because the City cannot yet determine whether relocation from the Park will be required because the City has not yet obtained funding for the Project. The City's reasoning here is faulty. The lack of current funding for the Project,while relevant to whether there is public necessity for the Project, does not prevent the City from performing an analysis of whether there is sufficient room for relocation within the Park for those mobile homes that will be moved. Therefore the MND description of the Project is inadequate and incomplete. It appears that the City is deliberately trying to avoid preparing an EIR by segmenting the Project so that it does not include relocation of Park residents. Under CEQA, there is a mandatory finding of significance if the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15065) A road widening project that will displace several families and result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. (See Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003) Therefore, by improperly segmenting or piece-mealing the Project, the City violates CEQA. An EIR rather than the MND should have been prepared. THERE IS PAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate only if project revisions avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects that are identified or that should have been identified in the initial study to the point where no,significant effect on the environmental would occur. (See Pub. Res. Code § 21064) Under CEQA a significant effect on the environment means a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21068) Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of significant environmental impacts that an agency should evaluate for a project in its initial study. The initial study checklist is included in the MND. The MND initial study checklist contains several erroneous and/or factually unsupported findings regarding significant environmental impacts and/or mitigation thereof: 1. Land Use and Planning. a. Conflict with Existing Land Use Regulation. The MND incorrectly finds that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agency over the Park. The MND expressly states that the City will need to issue a new conditional use permit for the large (possibly as high as 15 feet)block wall that will be part of the Project. Such a wall is not currently permitted under the Park conditional use permit and would impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park Owner. However, the MND fails to discuss what conditions ATTAC M NT N . N -663- Item 12. - 167 mK&C HART, KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 5 might be involuntarily imposed on the Park Owner and the impacts of those conditions on the existing conditional use permit. The MND also fails to address any impacts of a 15 foot wail ore removal of existing mature trees on the scenic coastal views of nearby residents. The MND also reveals that it will need an additional coastal development permit but fails to discuss whether the Project complies under the requirements for such a permit and fails to address the potential impact of Project's displacement of housing under the Ellis Act. Thus, an EIR is needed to analyze the scope of the new conditional use permit and coastal development permit required for the Project, including the impact of any conditions that would be associated with such permits. C. Divide an Established Community. The MND also wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community. The MND clearly will remove 8 mobile homes from the Park and thus divide them from the Park community, reconfigure an access road within the Park, and impose a block wall that will result in grade separation and impede open access to the street. These are definite physical changes to the environment that will divide and segment the established Park community. Therefore, an EIR is needed to analyze the Project impacts to the Park community. 2. Population and Housing. a. Induce Substantial Population Growth. The MND erroneously claims that the City need not study the growth inducing impact of the street widening because it is within growth projected by the City's General Plan. The growth inducing impacts of a street widening project must be studied and discussed in an EIR regardless of whether they are anticipated by the City's General Plan. (See City of Antioch v. City Council(1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332 ["conformity with the general plan for the area ... does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects"]) Therefore, an EIR is required to evaluate the Project's growth inducing impacts. bic. Need for Replacement Housing. The MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan. There is nothing in the lack of present funding that prevents the City from determining the potential place and type of relocation housing at the current time. The use of a future study or plan cannot substitute as mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND. (See Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino(1988)202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307) Thus, an EIR is required that includes a relocation plan. 4. Hydrology and Water Quality. C. Alter Drainaqe Pattern. The MND erroneously claims that the Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area despite its admission in section ATTACHMENT NO. Item 12. - 168 HB - 64- HK&C HART, KING & CDLDREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 6 4.a. that the existing storm drain at the south side of Atlanta Avenue will be relocated and that there will need to be reconstruction of the Park on-site drive aisle and a grade change. Grade and location changes can substantially alter the ability of the existing on-site drainage system to adequately contain drainage flows. Those impacts to the Park drainage system should be studied in an EIR. 5. Air Quality. The MND makes unsupported assumptions about mitigation of short term air quality impacts and erroneously fails to consider long term air quality impacts of the Project. alb. Violate Air Standards/Sensitive Receptors. With respect to the short term impacts, the MND acknowledges that construction of the Project will cause significant air quality impacts. The MND admits that the mitigation measures, if completely successful "can" at the maximum, only result in a 50 percent reduction in particulates matter. The MND then leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50 percent reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter, not just 50% thereof. An EIR is required to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulates matter to a less than significant level. e. Cumulative Increase in Emissions. The MND erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting from the Project. An EIR is required to study the impact of increased future emissions from additional traffic enabled by the Project. 7. Biological Resources. The MND improperly fails to contain a tree replacement plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will be eliminated. 10. Noise. The MND wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will increase the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feet more that 25 dBA up to 98 dBA, an intolerable amount despite what the City ordinance allows during daytime. The mitigation measures suggested thus are not evaluated as to whether they bring the noise levels to a less than significant level. An EIR is required to determine mitigation measures that will reduce Project noise for Park residents to a less than significant level. 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. While the MND admits to all three mandatory findings of significance, the MND insists,without any substantive discussion, that the minor mitigation measures proposed will suffice. The MND also fails to admit to all of the significant effects, including land use, housing, population, traffic, drainage and noise impacts. In essence, the Project is similar in many respects to the project in the Friends of "B" Street case where an EIR was required: In the present case the adoption of a negative declaration was an abuse of discretion. The city's initial study revealed that the short ATTACHMENT NO. � fO HB -665- Item 12. - 169 HK C HART; KING & COLDREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 7 term effects of the "B" Street Project include increased dust and auto exhaust, disruption of business during the construction of the project, and increased bank erosion and possible loss of wildlife habitat along San Lorenzo Creek during construction of a bridge. Among the long term effects of the project are increased traffic, increased noise, paving and removal of grass and garden areas, the removal of vegetation, landscaping, shrubs and hedgerows, the removal of 153 mature trees (some more than 80 years old) which presently line the street, and the elimination of on-street parking on "B" Street and Center Street, aggravating present parking problems that already exist in the area. Two neighborhood stores would be removed, and 12 families would be displaced due to the removal of residential structures. The project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area, and a decrease in residential property values. The residential desirability of adjacent properties would be adversely affected by the increased noise and exposure to traffic, reduced setbacks of the structures from the street, and the loss of on-street parking. The conversion of single-family dwellings to commercial or multi- family use would be accelerated. The project would also result in a decreased visual or aesthetic quality of the area due to the removal of the trees, grass and garden areas, and the decrease in the setback of the structures from the street. This evidence indicated that a finding of significant environmental effect was mandatory. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 15082.) The trial court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence that the "B" Street Project might have a significant environmental effect. (Friends of"B"Street v. City of Hayward, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1003) [continued on next page] ATTACHMENT NO. Item 12. - 170 H -666- K HART, KING & CDLDREN City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 8 In conclusion, the failure of the MND to recognize the numerous significant environmental impacts resulting from relocation of residents, road widening, alteration of drainage and noise and the failure of the MND to sufficiently mitigate impacts resulting from the Project require the preparation of an E1R. The MND fails to analyze the whole of the Project and demonstrates that the Project is not necessary or viable at this time. An EIR should be prepared to appropriately analyze the Project. Sincerely, HART, KING&COLDREN c G Boyd L ill BLH/dr Enclosure: $2,002 appeal fee cc: Mark Hodgson Robert S. Coldren Fred Wilson, City Administrator ATTACHMENT NO. �• � H -667- Item 12. - 171 ATTACHMENT #8 I,em ,z 172 HB -668- FO OFFICE ®f the ZOi G ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ® CALIFORNIA /V/NININi/NI/NIINIAIIN/NAIIVIN/N/h/NNNNNNNNNNNNN N/MINI----NNN P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92648 (714) 536-5271 NOTICE OF ACTION September 16, 2010 Jonathan Claudio City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2009-001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING) APPLICANT: Jonathan Claudio, City of Huntington Beach — Public Works Department REQUEST: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element_ PROPERTY OWNER: Atlanta Avenue ROW: City of Huntington Beach; Pacific Mobile Home Park: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Atlanta Avenue right-of- way: Between Huntington Street and Delaware Street; Pacific Mobile Home Park: 80 Huntington Street (south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street) PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Villasenor DATE OF ACTION: September 15, 2010 On Wednesday, September 15, 2010, the Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator took action on your application, and your application was approved_ Attached to this letter are the findings and mitigation measures. Please be advised that the Zoning Administrator reviews the conceptual plan as a basic request for entitlement of the use applied for and there may be additional requirements prior to commencement of the project. It is recommended that you immediately pursue completion of the mitigation measures and address all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance in order to expedite the processing/completion HB -6 - Item 12. - 173 Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 Page 2 of 3 of your total application. The conceptual plan should not be construed as a precise plan, reflecting conformance to all Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance requirements. Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the action taken by the Zoning Administrator becomes final at the expiration of the appeal period. A person desiring to appeal the decision shall file a written notice of appeal to the Secretary of the Planning Commission within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Zoning Administrator's action. The notice of appeal shall include the name and address of the appellant, the decision being appealed, and the grounds for the appeal. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of Two Thousand Two Dollars ($2,002.00) if the appeal is filed by any other party. In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is September 27, 2010 at 5:00 PM. Provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has begun. Excepting those actions commenced pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act, you are hereby notified that you have 90 days to protest the imposition of the fees described in this Notice of Action. If you fail to file a written protest regarding any of the fees contained in this Notice, you will be legally barred from later challenging such action pursuant to Government Code §66020. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Action letter or the processing of your application, please contact Jennifer Viilasenor, the project planner, at (714) 374-1661 or via email at JVillasenor(a)_Surfcity-hb.org or the Planning and Building Department Zoning Counter at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Ricky Ramos Zoning Administrator RR:JV:jd Attachment c: Honorable Mayor and City Council Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Herb Fauland, Planning Manager William H. Reardon, Division Chief/Fire Marshal Debbie DeBow, Acting Principal Engineer Gerald Caraig, Permit-Plan Check Manager Judy Demers City of Huntington Beach Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC Project File G:\ZA\ZALTRS\2009\MND 2009-001 (ATLANTA AVE.WIDENING) Item 12. - 174 H -670- ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2009-001 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—MITIGATED NEGATIVE 2009-001: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2009-001 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of 30 days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Zoning Administrator prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address construction noise and pollutant emissions and potential impacts to biological resources, cultural resources and population and housing. Mitigation measures were generally designed to minimize construction related impacts within and surrounding the project area as well as ensure that relocation of the impacted residents complies with the provisions of existing federal laws enacted to ensure that people whose real property is acquired, or who move as a result of projects receiving federal funds, will be treated fairly and equitably. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Zoning Administrator that the project, as mitigated through the attached mitigation measures, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed project will widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. As defined in the General Plan, the primary arterial street classification provides sidewalk, curb, gutter, a bike lane, and two through lanes in each direction of travel, separated by a striped median. Currently, the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue provides one lane in each direction, a striped median, and on-street parking along a portion of the north side of the street. Additional project benefits include construction of a new ADA accessible sidewalk and Class II bike lane and improvements to an existing Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) bus stop along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The subject segment of Atlanta Avenue does not currently have a sidewalk or designated bike lane. Because the current roadway narrows at the intersection of Huntington Street and Atlanta Avenue, traffic flow is often impeded when the bus makes stops at this location. In addition, bicyclists are currently forced into travel lanes due to the roadway narrowing and the existing transit stop configuration. The project would improve the current conditions with the installation of the proposed improvements and would improve traffic safety for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users traveling within the project area. Finally, all potential impacts resulting from construction of the project can be adequately mitigated. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. Upon Federal authorization to proceed with right-of-way acquisition, the City shall commence with acquisition and relocation in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Uniform Act. Notification to and discussions with the impacted residents shall occur as soon G:\ZA\ZALTRS\2009\MND 2009-001 (ATLANTA AVE.WIDENING) Attachment 1.1 HB -671- Item 12. - 175 as feasibly possible pursuant to the Federal Uniform Act. The City shall ensure that a relocation plan is prepared prior to final project plans and relocation is implemented in accordance with the Federal Uniform Act. 2. The City shall require, by contract specifications, implementation of the following measures: a. All work shall be done in accordance with the "GREENBOOK" Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, 2009 Edition, as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. b. The construction contractor shall not discharge smoke, dust, equipment exhaust, or any other air contaminants into the atmosphere in such quantity as will violate any federal, State or local regulations. (Greenbook Section 7-8.2) c. The contractor shall comply with Caltrans' Standard Specification Section 7-1.01 F and Section 10 of Caltrans' Standard Specifications (1999). d. The contractor shall apply water or dust palliative to the site and equipment as frequently as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. e. The contractor shall spread soil binder on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and all project construction parking areas. f. The contractor shall wash trucks as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust. g. The contractor shall properly tune and maintain construction equipment and vehicles and use low-sulfur fuel in all construction equipment as provided in the California Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. h. The contractor shall develop a dust control plan documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and expedited re-vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to adjacent uses and residents. i. The contractor shall locate equipment and materials storage as far away from residential as practical. j. The contractor shall establish environmentally sensitive areas for receptors within which construction activities involving extended idling of diesel equipment would be prohibited to the extent feasible. k. The contractor shall use track out reduction measures such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic. 1. The contractor shall require that all transported loads of soil and wet materials shall be covered prior to transport, or provide adequate freeboard to reduce PM10 and deposition of particulate matter during transportation. m. The contractor shall route and schedule construction traffic to avoid peak travel times as much as possible to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling along local roads. n. The contractor shall install landscaping as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown particulate in the area. o. The contractor shall implement a street sweeping program with Rule 1186-compliant PM10-efficient vacuum units on at least a 14-day frequency. G:\ZA\ZALTRS\2009\MND 2009-001 (ATLANTA AVE.WIDENING) Attachment 1.2 Item 12. - 176 H - 72- P. The contractor shall abate dust nuisance by cleaning, sweeping and spraying with water, or other means as necessary. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) q. The contractor shall provide a self-loading motorized street sweeper equipped with a functional water spray system. The sweeper shall clean all paved areas within the work site and all pave haul routes at least once a day. (Greenbook Section 7-8.1) 3. Prior to the onset of ground disturbance activities, the project developer shall implement the following mitigation measure which entails nesting surveys and avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency consultation: a. Vegetation removal and construction shall occur between September 1 and January 31 whenever feasible. b. Prior to any construction or vegetation removal between February 15 and August 31, a nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist of all habitats within 500 feet of the construction area. Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys will be conducted in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) protocol as applicable. If no active nests are identified on or within 500 feet of the construction site, no further mitigation is necessary. A copy of the pre-construction survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach. If an active nest of a MBTA protected species is identified onsite (per established thresholds), a 250-foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the nest and construction activity. This buffer can be reduced in consultation with CDFG and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by a qualified ornithologist or biologist. 4. The City shall require by contract specifications the following measures: a. Ensure that all construction equipment has sound-control devices. b. Prohibit equipment with un-muffled exhaust. c. Site staging of equipment as far away from sensitive receptors as possible. d. Limit idling of equipment whenever possible. e. Notify adjacent residents in advance of construction work. f. Educate contractors and employees to be sensitive to noise impact issues and noise control methods. g. Install temporary acoustic barriers between the mobile home removal and construction activities and the row of mobile homes to remain closest to Atlanta Avenue. Acoustical barriers should provide a Sound Transmission Class Rating of 25 and should be situated in a manner to provide an uninterrupted continuous barrier between all mobile home removal and road construction activities. During the mobile home removal activities, the barriers should stretch from the east edge of the property to the west and zig-zag between homes where necessary. After removal of the mobile homes and prior to construction of the drive aisle within the mobile home property, the barrier can be straightened to stretch more directly from the east property line to the west property line. 5. If cultural resources are encountered during construction-related ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel shall be informed of the need to stop work on the project site in G:\ZA\ZALTRS\2009\MND 2009-001 (ATLANTA AVE.WIDENING) Attachment 1.3 H - 73- Item 12. - 177 the event of a potential find, until a qualified archaeologist has been provided the opportunity to assess the significance of the find and implement appropriate measures to protect or scientifically remove the find. Construction personnel shall also be informed that unauthorized collection of cultural resources is prohibited. If archaeological resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all construction activities within 50 feet of the find shall cease until the archaeologist evaluates the significance of the resource. In the absence of a determination, all archaeological resources shall be considered significant. If the resource is determined to be significant, the archaeologist shall prepare a research design and recovery plan for the resources. 6. If human remains are discovered during construction or any earth-moving activities, the County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. No further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The designated MLD may make recommendations to the City for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. G:\ZA\ZALTRS\2009\MND 2009-001 (ATLANTA AVE.WIDENING) Attachment 1.4 Item 12. - 178 HB - 74-. HB -675- Item 12. - 179 a t. � m at i t anta ,I. ve n u e i s n � nh� �� _ �. „w 2", T a 2� 1-4-o V, i� 4 A 1�1 x 9 ofw. 2 t� Mit atevd Ne aI i�40`�`f #eclai t ior� y _ -- t a 4 W �!t q- Y? , 4�� Zp .0 9�- `O I 44 i All, m � ' Arc .r . C ity C o u n c it M' --e et n January 18 112 p ., p , ."�'• �y - ''- p�' ,i .u' .5 4w' - - ar : y - - y.,:j NNI ®min 4j • s � ro , is M - #�� { � p -s �` ��° i � 1 ,� "p ° r s 4a .•,i a`1 -'i ? ... � i ..l % � d - zs Vey n„ k � ■ 1 .r.� , `v�aS�L�°�:'>�L`k`?;tud7,ew R�sa. ,tF&sw..t +±�u�'�Y�1.'dF�'.�-s.�s!,3rRu'�v'�.Grst2'.s•"��a.c`"aia'�,f�':"�.:£rstt:�$�^as"`�i:'�,>3 d@o;�"'•i �:? ? :'�'�^�•'£�f,.".�s,'`c",: ..:�"=�,' •,'a���.�,.� '` u� '.�'1�. h"' `s?s ����ii."�7���'z �i.��'�''���s':._',� t..f���.ei�°a�''g'•"1. C,° �..t� t�kit:�s�.,a�'°,r'• -E - ..,���,�wP�✓-r�..+4`C.,�.,�+E'��.k:...��`�,�,st;6'�,!,���'�n�.�!.��„����%ra F-.i�. _.:+�., � �,.xt�e��' s}:�: Yt:n- f - _ .� _ ,1; �� -, :'� .. �. V �_ • � :w 1� "" „mow. __ �. .vn, r,v� Ll _ �.�wawa C � ___ ,. �� .t t. - _ �. •.n. +r.+sc✓. [�. �j �. .,,_ �?a --.- — .., ,�4� ��. � �� _ .._u. � - � ---- ,,,-... 1 -- � _..-r ate- r� - - _f _-` - � � ' _ � � _ � a....• !i>� - �. .,.:..F„ .�,:... k _, . -- _. �.W , , � _ �� .� _ ,,.,...f . �� �Fa �fi R#j "` - _. ,_ __ � � - �_ ��. ",tea �,,, ° �.:.,�.� ,�� � ', - _ .,. '� �. , �., .....» �x,.. _ - .,, . ., . � �# ___.. � - ___.� _ _. f %:y,' � f � �at..�. � „�� _.. . - a.: �. ,.. yam, F # � ��,'" �` "�' - - �` ��,,. _,._.. , >"� 1 � ��� - _ �- - - �_ N ax .. s, sr`. � aa_„ ._� -.�� x,ra i �� — �� s ,.._� _ v , ,��.� a -- -- t� �� ,� ,: y -- ;�.. .� - _ --- �.,< ..,. � . _. �, _ ,�_ �.LL ._ �,�. D � � t �s �R F i ,o; , �._ a - ,�.. �.. - :� _ __ . ; �'� �� � _._. .. �: _ �. ��� ,, _ ,� _ . -- -� -- -- ,� _ ��� .� _ _.. -.. mg ..,m; _- � � � - s�= - �„ • � >� _ � ..., ff�,� - r �" ,K , � r.�., .J.',:, .���� _ : �, � � ..-k�� _' -- .,... _.,..., �x...... .,c... ._ -ha��,a t�. .- .�W.,i � � � � � � R a�s -_ -�:' �..;,„ e _ - W 7" _ � _ ., !' � __ � � . __ � ;�� � �i � M:i� ads �„.a K�. � �. -- � - !' � ,� .. �,� - ����; .,.,F�, b . u.. - ....� .,;,-. _: , ..,. - � .�.- ..�. �.. . . _ - , .. ..,..--,u ,._.... .M. .. ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING -- - - - CURB FACE -GRATED TREE WELL (HUNTINGTON ST. - DELAWARE ST.) 1 6' 0 T /� DESIGN a� 1TRowaLL Face)4 5' S'SIDEWALK ; PLAN SCALE — — PROPOSED RNV AS PLANTER unth lgtf ' �. A• c c �� A ► Q A r 6 "";_ � -��r �•e �,'"'4 �'Sbs,W'Y'h .. �q�, '"�.' .r. 447 50 202402 ;�� �� �;r /• J/�i. ,:;,.��(•!I A .-� - •. -!,�, -- � �'� Q -.� -!vYr-r' �� f!!t-:� _ �� I„�r�' !•,ll,^ r�YUll�/ !.! r �I, ,W :S` ' 463 �, #.ct�rS�: � � �' •�;\ �' \ 1 1.:' � � <i; � � '' a �" _^ a ,4 0 {j,. DPrApom fr rx r AIIAMAAVE. o A —.. 4r i _ ( PROPOSED PROPOSED W LANDSCAPE y 29 CIRCTAATION ROAD SCREENWALL -: I I_ �- PROPOSED PAVEMENT SECTION--, LEGEND p PROPOSED / ON-SITE CIRCULATION ROAD/ 1 j PLANTER AREA m TRASH BIN ENCLOSURE PROPOSED SECTION A-A -_- -_----NOT TO SCALE t� -v�. +��as+,c..< :aaa...�2�.,.✓,,L,.'��.�.,£s�War�,cAm+.a.�.ta.`r_,..,Fr n�use�z-: a:a&ana: emu. ��f,�z.an.�,-. a ,_n,.v.,�e.M4.i. .,r.-a.trae._�..:a,rl -n P.:;. ;�4.., f.»^1 Lam:.- v.,„, _ '_ _ •�,`,_* `vA•, - - �..T^"�y� p�. ,t r. X� ti -r �s''d" � m�i€G�" �'Y.�'. _;(�T•: `,�g�-y?�.:<th erp :� "'v ..�' "��"�.cF •cn: •�,"�_�" �_e��st��a,3�.�J.`�.4s•�,�P "L v.av+ � x:'q"�''�.5 E - v,i - "3T'�'`�C'�� ��7•� 3�gy -b.- +�? {� ^•p'T t�x'�+ ..�,.•..Kr. ry��tr.�.'f-��.i'�.'cai.`a'+�t9;.. ,. ate._$3+;'ur�.: .�c ��� ••t •.�ukt+'h���td•�,�'i�.tK`3.�aT���r`,���x5�:�;d'E'.iC"S._.a✓W'&ts :.s. w�'k :c � .- -���-��_ .-�'h,:�r�e._�. n�.x�:=a:�3° .u.�`:N&a...edr�: t" '�.•��36u.,t.,z .s��r�.t. a rh � F.�•� ��s.,,. ��; �,"'� ���a, � x:;� �,..,� ,�. '� ,� ��F; a � ' -� �', ����' ��yy� � �µlfj� ',a fir,`.,;:; YY''h �x�' �'i:. �- t�= ,,.yF�,. �� i� -°} tad ii M {���_., 3�E' -=� _, N .,� y,u' � � � s .a e�-r -� r' .:� ,�¢ � ..� �r �:� '�.' y ��'� w� =:br::`f .3.� �„' �� �e 's 'r � �"� � ` 'ten � ?' �, � M �� f� 2 �a ��� �;,� fit �•x $ w E� .�.t � 9f. � t:, w _.� � xf,' is 5 `�,. �.m- ��7 �.,` .7 ,'!I �.. �.:t '^e,. y/i ;. ,�s. r� £ �' ; �-- 9 a t!� � j,� '°* ;��; i a�a�- �f 1 � �� � tom.., �i. [�� S ��" � � � �` 7 �¢ #.., g� _.��'S �' � r-, ° �:�. �f �" ;""v sT Ali, „"` 4£r� �" r g-"� � - � "� 'w. �� ��!" y y.:�� .,� �. va--� �. 3 s ;�"" �Si� ra �' > 't ,-' N t r�>. �yy� '� ��� 3c� � t � �� � t S � u�*' �..+ 5 � §j ��N .1 4 i d� :'#. �.�,f P 3' $,%t '�f Is�� �~ r! G�� i ;." ,t" �5 ^�'�n.. `��., �� ; :,�. ��: . ar. �j' �� � f a 3.�` � �w � .�, C. -x e � a. '� -+ s�4 4ii3 '€ n� �:., � + ��" � i �� � a" �s` = �� a t;I+ �:�:�` g_ � ���. � 1i s' w e�` d �� � � 24 +? .ff - ? �-.et' ��� � �`� '4..,. LL�r y� d - fi � 5"fir > fi r �� �.'f £ ..{, _ ��;� 3 ��-::' — b ., ", z sir ';�,, G., ;�.�, k' a�'2 y�`S r°' SR`. r..-�f 3'•� �y ,�; s,._ a�?t% �;. �,`� � �"3' �? t �,� Q� � � e'�.✓"�x � �i ��� � � s ,� ��" J r :, ': y",i � - t ��� y �r ��t 9 s !� '��� �` � ��; y ,� ( �- $ � �`t '�t' '" k �e' y 3 �� ' � yys � :,�� � �5 d. €�,r . .� - ` m �- � t �, a t4" g, e F .,� i.:�`� • �.: s'"� -. �I A'�-�"'� P` '�F � .e f...�. j" f. ��f^ R�j 9 y'�" 4 r`"' '"� A'� � d� � �9 �' > f... r� �� -r �. Y �' i.- � k' p ff G, S y� �• t s, t� 'S.s� t 2. i i' 4 j'. �' ��� ��. ��6� sir .`^-.�`f �s" v-� �!✓% �� i 1*'� � z�„ �ky � ��� � '!$ "� y P a t �:...rt �'�`- ' y � fl °�c,,'e: +�' �yS m �— y ,��' g '�. �..: > � � �;` �"A �i �'` ��5 •ii? a` �� �• gja; s�' ,-'a �„ .r� "� i�� f ..�� �; �.. �^ �� yy-,� k. ''.�'a *`s"'�,i �. �.; ..� � � .� � ,� �._. � �� �.t �.. �_- �.. ,.-� �. � � .� �, �'� •`, a � t.`�'- ;�, �-� �,• -n , � t s ,ir, J r' r i; � a " ;"'. F �, .' � � <"� i � i .`� � � •pia -,-� �.f _ � 7 0� �'',.. s Y i� k E i �.- Y '��' � 1. �.. .�� e 9 � .e e„- .. ° ff _ ... .._ v �t � � �. '� 4 ��� ��, � ( � ,_ ,�; �,.y ,�. �' N�. ���,� a��i� F� � �w ;��' 'B�� �P r ��' n'�'' �." f j ��.�� #.-� j ,� 4`��;� � .�y � ��' �� � � !s,. � �' �1 � ;a'�; � _r" i• t.��" ; �� � a" � � s_> $ � � :ii, s �'4 � '� t� P g y s � ,� :"` �,"r �-r'rs � i�� S r a t�> g �,. E � a �'� `;�.` ;�:�", i,; $ >�i � p� �� '- 3 a S b� ��.J' ° �,`� a x�� `��� g ��t . ��a`' �' � . $�' e u y a :, F 1 � ? ^�� ��3 � � `. 6 ' `'. �^,+�, +++���...... s���&��d' cgs .L�.^2 t',`P- '3 - kb' g� }y���w. yey�,5�,y+��t�' +�3��{(�- �a�Q�ti"}� -kat;:x:A.'�`� '� `9£�'Yk'9idS.�'��`s^.�i-� ;'.f.��n 'Y�"'�a�'C.. �" Sd"C±�iLY.1'.�`tfl^S`. ..F+� ��atrAle-HSt3e�'`.=�.��-Yv�i�,S.k':"� 1'� �iul +A�ad:'wrr�'. .' ieL4�x.2'16:. ��'FY,'�'�.�.�..�_������..,'`��3':��flMG R�7��,.5Efi ;Al:" '<�.,•�:sSG�1,n3A'S�aara+ :r'x73a.�?4S7dd?'G'.�'�:4�c6!�Os'"�.��!£i?:t?�.�s.�!�L�,��#'T'i�a,r'1"�.E�a',.�?'�'. �`§u S'i9'*S�.t'4i�+fiS�aL?' #! t32'i�SeS �`'e+��'?�tr�x:'�wd!"�,".-f;�`�#f`$�v�'�Y�"'nr.S�.`.1�4?n3ti,�?'sSAi�,.' �:'��i�Yi?�#€6F';c3?�i.�:'�m"b� d�x�.'s�+w�3 �r:'�'ea.W�u�' ..�e7'.�£�Sd•�"�'-:.:�sx3�:-_ rt<�-.+�F.;u^�•�, �'.$+ ! � 1 ,�', �d. -! �, € # { �: � �, � •7 ''. ice, t �, 5 i- �' y I ',i r 2 "i 4lS-'F3�::u•.w -ti Rt� ',yFYb '•:(:L✓lEr� .91:e-•„"��':F i .'}�i.. —K'?':� ••i"c_ A �{* !E:i.' t � - �+ ^'J .: .;�:__ r .,. ij^e, � :_ ."': .. v .,.:. _.rG S., ash •Iro,;:�: 'k`•=v`x'_ T{'Fo." �t' ii�Jt �i'�nY:f.�iy��:.j���- ..�•.. _'�.�+Y'„_..^4''��:..»'��i.' nn .,I �-.r ..-,_.....,r_ Y i „; 1w ., n ..f.,E. .... � S � .,a. -. _. �,�... •.e.�' �'w• b Y `t,� _�� , - � rn s ::,.'.,.:{4"'. _.v�),s:�..#�.,2..-.rs'2. ..v.i.�.��.{�.'.°.._ �....:at e�,a.(:G�k..fr�x_.,.v kk.lAhr.�_h`C+r� �"'S'S §3-_.iiLRJ,s�x�_Y..ICJ`G...�J,`:t '�5��'�'+�.� �' �tx"L'e ~F5�'r_r k.:i�.,s..e k�`-.���. �iw�,.34.2cnu�'tr. '.?€�##�. TE��a� ��f.•�.. aP{.e�PiC'�,�� ir.,... ..._mom.._ ,.._. r.;�xc, ,.. .. _ �,� .,��.,....�,..,�..-^ ;,.•-.a,--. .:,. t'r'� x�'"fak'� - - '�. +�" ��� �:rA;e<''� `#, -,'+n,�:fi' a:, q" :ti`� .'tw�.'�•., y�,.,�.'�rhe��` X� ., .�~ -,��.�h�.-,�•:.,'�. ?�'�aY�� �.�-,&39 `��'c •s, k s5c�•.arsu. ,��°' aka,.ec.;�.R. '" ¢ _ '"� .1+.;�. ,.. �x.s Jr d,��� �'PZ i� 5�.• �Y LOS y� ty.:F.+t:.,Y tO tr 's }e-,,!M1:,_^ '3tx �cn,:�.v,�•,ww •,aasu�- - .�„�n 3.u't:.n ��rcv, a. �:'d+ - - .:ta'.6Rsnl' �' - g.,,.Gr:'t ..,,,.'itte�t £� ': yes v}; �,k,.. ..,� -yS ,a•Fp: �,.€S..s,� :: .v.. ,-•ia:.,. ._ - „'3.:'. `:::bRSCt•,4.5�,4. aHv..W..^P`C5 .PiF 42i'^3E6s4 rma13�ELL;j�¢iY� r1d�4_.<i:.'.%9+.6':dku.-.1. ,2.31�v .-. .d��.�9-4''�'�+'i�i� � H.a.hY .��.1..:A�k:. �.uw•'k ',�k.F= _.Ya�',-"~- Ys� �Sie�:,:Y�..�4,�/+k. ��s'%��.`.��,,. :a+ �wS a�I.i', ��'�•Ym"�i�.�t�,Mk����i2.�..:n 9�1 �y irx �yj�A dlh 3' Sv •h- !� - .� .� .:t riF �ru;r3n. �$7 �,�i�1k'# , • m .M r .K i 0 u-• _ r -- p•4 r a 1, I NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: 01. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department Appellant: Hart, King and Coldren Property Owner: Atlanta Avenue ROW: City of Huntington Beach; Pacific Mobile Home Park: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed street improvements will provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the project includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7 ft. max.) retaining wall, landscaping (including the removal or relocation of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park), reconstruction of a 26 ft. wide drive aisle (circulation road) and emergency access gates within the mobile home park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. The project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for development within the Coastal Zone and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction of the retaining wall. A separate public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled for the associated CDP and CUP. Construction of the proposed street improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue. The additional 25 feet of right-of-way will come from a 25 feet wide by 630 feet long (approx.) strip of land from the Pacific Mobile Home Park located immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. The acquisition of the 25 feet would impact eight manufactured/mobile homes (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501, and 502) within the park. The impacted residents would need to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("The Uniform Act"). At this time the nature of a relocation project cannot be determined and, therefore, a relocation project would be analyzed as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. Location: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way: between Huntington Street and Delaware Street; Pacific Mobile Home Park:. 80 Huntington Street (south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street) Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item # 1, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. The mitigated negative declaration (No. 09-001) is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0ut1ook\EVZI IETS\011811 (Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening MND) (2).docx ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Wednesday, January 12, 2011. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at 536- 5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CityClerkAgendaCa�-surfcity-hb.org http:Hwww.huntinzonbeachca.gov/ C:ADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0ut1ook\EVZI IETS\011811 (Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening MND) (2).docx �b��@l�l�4�1�11�t1�A�aIQN�dwoa ww Lox ww 9Z lowiol op ap®nblq o1g1111dwoo.lg a x,t6 ezjs 1®Qvl «................. .�. ..._.�,.........�-.._...,...........a..�..nub 1...._.�r....,�-.-� ... .... ...,.� ., ..� _ .. President Huntington Harbor POA i0 Sue John 1 16 H.B. Chamber of Commerce �' P_O_ Box 791 19671 Quiet Lane 19891 Beach Blvd-,Ste. 140 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dave Stefanides Kirsten Berg {� Orange County Assoc.of Realtors 18870 Kithira Circle �J 25552 La Paz Road Huntnnton Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 President Jeffre Odennan 12 Pacific Coast Archaeological ) Amigos De Botsa Chica RUT) & an LLP Society, Inc- �J P.O. Box 1563 611 Anton Blvd., ah Floor P.O. Box 10926 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 9262 - 50 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold Sunset Bea mmunity Assoc. 4 Pres_,H_B, Hist_Society (l3 Director 19 Pat Thies,Presiders C/O Newland House Museum �� O_C- P Dev_Services Dept PO Box 215 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O_ Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742-0 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702- 48 President B Haynes 1� Bryan Sp e 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Historic Re ces Board Chair O. G Resourc &Develop. Mgt Dept.. PO Box 865 19341 Worcheste e P_O- Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA Santa Ana,CA 92702- 48 Julie Vandemiost Counc on Aging 15 Planninr<trector 20 BLA-OC 1706 Oran e_ City of Costa esa 17744 Sky Park Circle, #170 Huntington Beach, 2648 P_O. Box i200 Irvine CA 92614 4441 Costa Mesa,CA 926 ?AO Richard Spicer Jeff 1 16 P hector 21 SLAG Seacliff HO City of Fours galley 818 West 7ttt, 12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbo ircle 10200 Slater Ave. Los Angeles,CA 90017 Hun6ngtoa Beach,CA 9 8 Fountain Valley,CA 708 Jean 'WU brell 8 John Roe 16 Pl Director 22 c/o E.T.L at 100 Seadi OA city of e ct Beach 20292 Eastw r. 19382 Sur ane P.O. Box 1768 Huntington Beach, 92646 Huntington Beach, 48 Newport Beach,C 2663-8915 Robert Smith L40 one 16 Planning ctor 23 Environmental Board Chair Seacliff H City of Wes - ter 21352 Yarmouth Lane 19821 Ocean Btu le 8200 Westminst Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 9 Westminster,CA 9 83 P ctor 24 Ocean View�k 1 District 38 HB Hampton. HOA 38 City of Seal Bea Attn_Cindy Puffer, Services Progressive Co Axrnity Mgmt 211 Eighth St 17200 Pinehurst Lane 27405 Puerta Ile #300 Seat Beach,CA 90740 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Mission Viejo,CA 2691 am Ia / E��Mf 09 t8MLS8 AQW=mqW&m anu L9 x mat 5Z mol ap aWnbg3 cow niatttNU IAuttJ t, t.at�eas�taneu�rvbtic neartngJan .� v - - �'X*� � -, - California Coastal Conurussion 25 Clark Hampton 32 C;raharn 39 Theresa Henry kk"cs cater School District IV ea o rk Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Ce a od Avenue 5161 Geldin -,,I,200 Oceangate, 10th Floor Testrrunster CA 83 Huntington Beac A 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Calif, a Coastal Coaunisston 25' Ste n Ritter 33 e Browning 39 South Coas Office HB Unio School Disrict Meadow Area 200 Oceangate,i Floor 5832 Bolsa Ave e 16771 Roosev Lane Long Beach,CA 928 4302 Huntington Beach, 92649 Huntington Beach, 92649 Chris Herre f26 1[ea ide Homes 40 Caltrans District 12 L J G Executi irde,Suite 250 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 [wine,CA 92 Irvine,CA 92612-1699 Director 27 G Idenwest College 35 Bolsa C Land Trust 41 Local -d Waste Eaf Agy- Arm= Owens 5200 Warner nue,Ste- 108 O-C- Health e Agency 15744 Golden st St Huntington Beach, A 92649 P.O_ Box 355 Huntington Beach 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702 Ne rowth Coordinator 28 OC County Harbors,Beach 36 a Chica Land Trust 41 Huntingto ach Post Office and s Dept. Evan President 6771 Warner R O- Box 4 1812 Port Ti Place Huntington Beach, 92647 Santa Ana CA 927 48 Newport Beach, 2660 Mar Ecker 29 Terra all 37 Fountain ey Elem-School Dist Attu ogers-Laude 10055 Stater ue 7777 Edinge e. #300 Fountain Valley C 92708 Huntington Beach 92647 Dr. ary Rutherford,Super. 30 entry View Estates HOA 38 OC lion District 42 HB City eatary School Dist Cam omas 10844 Ellis enue 2A451 Craimer e 6642 Trotte rive Fountain Valley 92708 Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington Beac 92648 David Perry 30 Co View Estates HOA 38 Eri Peadegraft,Plaat Manager 42 HB C< entary School Dist Gerald an AES oa Beady,LLC 20451 Ctaime e 6742 Shire Circ 2t730 Newlan txeet Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington B�C6448 Huntington Beach 92646 Loy 42 Hun '7En-ck n Beads Gids Softball* 47 A gion 56 47 9062 ui Drive Mikeso Couuni sro ohn Gray Huntington ch CA 92646 P.O. 3943 9522 Smokey e Huntn Beads,CA 9 5-3943 Huntington Beach, 92646 John 42 YSO Region 117 47 —NY e -on 55 47 22102 rt Lane John a t:omrnissio uss Madow Huntington ach CA 92646 19961 Bus St. 18111 Brentwell e Fountain Valley, A 92708 Huntington Beach, 92647 MMUNG t-ABELS G:tabrxs\taods\Public H8 Cori aununidesAssoc_ 43` Huntington L'alle Little League 47 reld Hockey' 47 David Guido Joel Groth t\landl uar 143 E. Meats Avenue P.O Box 51 t l 17782 MetzlBeach, Orange,CA 92865 Huntington Bear i,CA 92615 Huntington 92647 Dow wn Business Association 44 AYSO Region 14 47 Pop Warner Football** 47 Mr.Steve eIs Commissioner P p "cc Paul 200 Main Street OG 5552 Harold Place P.O. Box 50 Huntington Beach,C 2648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beac , A 9261 5 Downto sidents Association 45, Fountain Valley Po Baseball* 47 - North occer Club 47 Ms. Marie St ain Chris Mahoney President Geo Mitton 505 Alabama 21212 Shaw Lane 18601 Newland Stre #94 Huntington Beach,CA 48 Huntington Beach, 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 9 G Chairperson 4G H.B.Jr. All-Americ Football** 47 Inwood Litde League 47 Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council Randy Wooten Dona ona PO Box 693 P.O. Box 2245 RO Box 13 San Gabriel,CA 91778 Huntington Beach,C 92647 Huntington Beach, 92647 Juaneno Band of Mission Indians 46' Huntington Beach Soc er League* 47 Seaview Little League 47 Aciachemen Nation Felipe Zapata Semmelroth 31411 La Matanza Street 18442 Steep Lane, #3 RO Box 5 San Juan Capistrano,CA 92675-2625 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Be. A 92615 South Soccer Club** 47 Ocean View Little Lea e 47 Wes - ter Village HOA 48 President MEacZh, annon Phil Shearer,President 5200 Blackp�ad 8921 Crescee 18141 Brentwell Circle Westminste Huntington CA 9 4b Huntington Beach,C 92G47 West am$y YMCA*- 47 South HB Girls Fast Pit Softball** 47 Gary Brown 49 Michael Tum Frank L,oGrasso Coastkeepers 2100 Main Street 9432 Abi Circle 3151 Airway Ave_Suite F-i110 ILuat V<—m Beach,C 2646 Huntington Beach CA 2646 Costa Mesa,CA 92663 Regi Environmental Officer for Calif SO Fort Irwin SO enter-Iaggctt 50 Westem R F.aviron Office U COL Paul D.C r Mr.Pet ubin US Air Force Director of Public W rks Nat'l Training Catr Director of P c Work 333 Mmket Street Sut 625 P O Box 105097 Combat Support Center San Francisco CA 94105- 96 Fort Irwin CA 9231 B790 5*h St Parks Rf:FA Dublin CA 9456 50 Patrick Christman, hector 50 old Coast Extreme 47 713onovan Plans&Iraison Coordinator WesternOffice Ri er-Presidentvy US Maine Corps wildig 1164 20501 Sutfi a Laneacific ayBox SSS246 Huntington Bea A 92646 iego CA 9213 190 Camp Pendleton 92055-5246 South Coas a m Futbol Club 47 California Futbo Club 47 t 62 Challenger Division 47 Marissa Pena Hector Aguilar Gail Har 22222 Eucalyptus e 10571 Davitaur 179G1 Scotia to Lake Forest,CA 926 Garden Grove,CA 92843 Huntington Beach, 92647 jjjmr�Nb / — � E6 9tl dom"t„ 8 , fi� l //,f IA(:)/) 0918109n 4�eg/{ti�Qe'AV aerie e141tedwoo ww Lg x ww 93 jewaoj Op QUeAq MAILING LABUS G:Labels\Labels\Public Hearing iandl 9"GgiU BAd L1�1Q�1-e1l1l3�dwo.� �i a���1 Canarrojzy Hamilton Pcoperhes,LLC Christopher Recce,Branch Chief Site c/o Tamara Zeiec Ascon Lan DeparnnentofTcansportion, District 12 One Pointe Drive, ite 320 3337 Michelson Drive,Suite 380 Brea,CA 92821 Irvine,CA 92612 Building Industry Assoc_of South Calif. Mamie vieo— ntal 17744 Sky Park Circle,Suite 170 6701 Cente rive West #900 Irvine,CA 92614 '�` Los Angeles,C 045 Attn: Elyse Sminada,Gout Affairs Asst. Attn_Shawn Gauec, nior Planner i i f�'Q�D Use Averya Template 51600 J 1WLVjWdT@#ppi ly!sist vse Paip< '�v`1 �� 024-261-09 024-261-09 024-261-09 Resident Resident Resident 208 Huntington St Unit 6 208 Huntington St Unit 7 208 Huntington St Unit 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5244 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5244 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5244 024-261-09 024-261-10 024-261-10 Huntington Street L(c Resident Resident 262 Brentwood St ! 301 Baltimore Ave Unit A 301 Baltimore Ave Unit B Costa Mesa, CA 92627-1306 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5274 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5274 024-261-10 024-261-10 024-261-10 Resident Resident Josenhans Robert J Jr 301 Baltimore Ave Unit C 301 Baltimore Ave Unit D Po Box 80582 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5274 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5274 ! San Marino, CA 91118-8582 024-261-11 024-261-12 024-261-12 Barrick Frankie Hankins Resident Resident 120 Huntington St 114 Huntington St 116 Huntington St Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 024-261-12 024-261-13 024-261-14 Simon Gary Wayne Lewis Forrest D Altman David &Sunny 331 N Colorado P1 k1 112 Huntington St 110 Huntington St Long Beach, CA 90814-0759 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5225 024-261-15 024-261-16 024-261-16 ingenthron Matthew W Resident Wood Craig L 106 Huntington St 104 Huntington St 616 20th St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-3832 024-261-17 024-261-17 024-261-18 Resident Marion Steven Emil Brown James R 102 Huntington St 105 Alabama St 311 Atlanta Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5203 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5304 3 024-261-19 024-261-20 024-261-21 Brown James R Brown James R Bodine Bernadette C 311 Atlanta Ave 311 Atlanta Ave 116 1/2 Huntington St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5304 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5304 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 024-261-21 024-261-21 024-261-22 Resident Resident Schulz S en P 116 Huntington St Unit A 116 Huntington St Unit B 313 B timoIU Av Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5225 H ngt B h, CA 92648-5211 024-261-23 024-261-24 024-261-24 Schulz S hen P Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 1 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 10 H ngto eac A Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5319 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5369 a' /v l P —//1� 9—� � �� � c®olaiat� rae����Ols Leo 1 - ISPIPr 1600 www.avery.com Q� 9lu�il9k�fi)t99 � > t6���S1� ��Ck�3 NEU Use Avery" Template Sibu� 9a���iy?F� 9�j J (MRL_- 024-261-24 ! 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 39 i 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 4 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 40 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5371 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5319 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5371 024-261--24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 41 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 42 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 43 :' Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5371 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5371 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5372 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 44 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 45 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 46 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5372 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5372 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5372 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident ; Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 47 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 48 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 49 'Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5372 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5372 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5372 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 'Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 5 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 50 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 51 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5319 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5316 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5316 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 52 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 53 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 54 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5316 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5316 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5316 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 ,.Resident Resident Resident =401 Atlanta Ave Unit 55 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 6 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 7 -Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5316 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5319 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5319 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 :Resident Resident Casa Playa 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 8 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 9 Po Box 19528 !Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5369 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5369 Irvine, CA 92623-9528 024-261-28 024-272-02 024-291-12 jLas Brisas At Huntington Atlanta.Huntington Beach "' Resident "29 B Technology Dr A100 4100 Macarthur Blvd 9200 21021 Sundown Ln Bldg 4 E itvine,CA 92618 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2064 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 ;i 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 ;:Resident Resident Resident 21025 Sundown Ln Bldg 4 21027 Sundown Ln Bldg 4 21031 Sundown Ln Bldg 4 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 l� a 4Y) 9_CO la l w n v ave�r_COM Use Avery®Template 5160 024-291-12 024-29 14 2 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 21035 Sundown Ln Bldg 4 21045 Sundown Ln Bldg 3 21051 Sundwmi Ln Bldg 3 ;Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident .21055 Sundown Ln Bldg 3 21061 Sundown Ln Bldg 3 21065 Sundown Ln Bldg 3 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 21071 Sundown Ln Bldg 3 21085 Sundown Ln Bldg 2 21091 Sundown Ln Bldg 2 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 21095 Sundown Ln Bldg 2 21101 Sundown Ln Bldg 2 21105 Sundown Ln Bldg 2 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-2914 2 Resident Resident Resident 21117 Sundown Ln Bldg 1 21121 Sundown Ln Bldg 1 21125 Sundown Ln Bldg 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-542.5 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Surfside Villas 21131 Sundown Ln Bldg 1 21135 Sundown Ln Bldg 1 5150 Overland Ave Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Culver City, CA 90230-4914 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 1 Resident Resident Resident 7771 Bayport Dr Bldg 12 7771 Seaglen Dr Bldg 14 7771 Starshelt Dr Bldg 5 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7772 Bayport Dr Bldg 13 7772 Starshell Dr Bldg 8 7775 Bayport Dr Bldg 12 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7775 Seagten Dr Bldg 14 ` 7775 Starshelt Dr Bldg 5 7776 Bayport Dr Bldg 13 !'Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 i. 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 :Resident Resident Resident .7776 Starshell Dr Bldg 8 7781 Bayport Dr Bldg 12 7781 Seaglen Dr Bldg 14 ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 �� 9 -oo 1 � Z�°°via �� �►t E a er Eta M0 vmq a r_ om 939-500-40 939-500-41 939-500-41 Resident Las Brisplf4b Ll Resident i 7623 Bay Dr Unit 102 j 2286 ke res r#1 1 7623 Bay Dr Unit 202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5861 L e Fo st, 92630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5861 939-500-42 939-500-42 939-50043 Las Brisas Llc Resident Las Bri Hb 22865 e F st #11 7623 Bay Dr Unit 301 228 L or r#1 1 Lak or A 630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5861 ke F est, 92630-1605 939-50043 939.500-44 -939-500-44 Resident Las Bris Hb c Resident 7623 Bay Dr Unit 103 2286 ores r#11 7623 Bay Dr Unit 203 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5861 L e Fo st, C 2630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5861 939-500-45 '939-500-45 939-500-46 Las Bri Hb Resident Las Bris L1c 228 Lak oe92630-1605 r#11 7623 Bay Dr Unit 302 22865 ake F st 11 e Fo st, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5861 For , C 630-1605 939-500-46 939-500-4 939-50047 Resident Las Bri Hb L Resident 7623 Bay Dr Unit 104 228 Lake orest r #11 7623 Bay Dr Unit 204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5862 e F st, C 2630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5862 939-500-48 939=50048 988-250-75 Las BrisICI 'Resident Commercial 22865 ar#i l '7623 Bay Dr Unit 303 21100 Pacific Coast Hwy For630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5862 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5307 988-250-75 024-204-12 024-261-23 Waterfront Construction Janine Walkup Stephen P Schulz .650 Dresher Rd 209 Atlanta Avenue 313 Baltimore Avenue Horsham, PA 19044-2204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937-150-24 937-150-42 937-150-53 Carlos Recharte Alan Bearden Karen Franz 7835 Seabreeze Drive 7746 Seabreeze Drive 7816 Seabreeze Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937-193-71 024-204-01 Roger Smith Jaimes N Santos 21246 Baeza Circle 119 Huntington Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 to pder - 4m A VERY®--we o VERY ._- 939-500-24 939-500-24 939-500-25 Resident Las Brisa b LI Resident 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 204 22865 ke res r#11 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 301 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5857 : La For t, C 92630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5887 939-500-25 939-500-26 939-500-26 Las Buis b Li Resident Las Bris ;Ll 2286 ake F est ll 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 302 228 ket r#1 i e For , CA 630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5882 e Fo st, 263fl-1605 939-500-27 939-500-2 939-500-28 Resident Las Bri Hb Okamoto Tamaki&Takako 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 303 228 La ore r#11 20936 Sandbar#l O l Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5857 Lke F est, 92630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5852 939-500-28 939-500-29 939-500-29 Resident Marroquin Elmer Jr Resident 20936 Sandbar Ln Unit 102 20936 Sandbar#102 20936 Sandbar Ln Unit 201 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5852 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5852 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5852 939-500-30 939-500-30 939-500-31 Collier Alan A Resident Resident 20936 Sandbar#103 20936 Sandbar Ln Unit 101 20936 Sandbar Ln Unit 202 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5852 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5852 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5852 939-500-3 -939-500-32 939-500-32 Las Bri Hb c Fameron Maria Theresa G Resident 228 Lak ores r#1 l 20936 Sandbar#202 20936 Sandbar Ln Unit 103 e Forest, C 92630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5852 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5852 939-500-33 '-939=500-34 939-500-35 'Lafrades Uta Ranada Clements Robert R Belitz Sarah -'20936 Sandbar#203 7648 Bay Dr#102 7648 Bay Dr#101 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5854 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5876 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5875 939-500-35 939-500-36 939-500-36 Resident Whiteman Jeffrey R Resident 7648 Bay Dr Unit 202 7648 Bay Dr 9202 7648 Bay Dr Unit 101 ;:Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5888 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5888 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5875 ;. 939-500-37 939-500-38 939-500-38 `�Ejercito Jonathan& Richard Las Bris b Ll Resident I7648 Bay Dr#201 22865 e F es r#11 7623 Bay Dr Unit 101 t0untington Beach,CA 92648-5877 For 2630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5859 4 %939-500-39 939-500-39 939-500-40 !Las Bris Hb- Resident Las Bris Llc �2286 e rest r 911 7623 Bay Dr Unit 201 22865 e For r#1 Fore CA 630-16fl5 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5860 Forest 92 -1605 tEti a iP N1 9-cols Utii AV 16o® , s-�a rO-r�vEaY 939-500-07 939-500-08 939-500-08 Resident Las But Elb Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 203 228 L ore r #I 1 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 302 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5285 e F est 92630=1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5285 939-500-09 939-500-09 939-500-10 Las Brisas �Fest Resident Las Bris b 22865 e It 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 104 228 La ores r#1 l Lake or , CA 630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5280 ke est 92630-1605 939,500-10 939-50 939-500-11 Resident Las isas lc Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 204 65 e Fore r fil l 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 303 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5280 ake orest, 92630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5280 939-500-12 939-500-12 939-500-13 Las Bris b LI Resident Las Brisas Llc 22865 ke F est Dr 1 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 105 22865 ake For r#1 Lak orest A 9 30-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5834 L Forest A 9 -1605 939-500-13 939-500-14 939-500-14 Resident Las Bris b Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 205 228 ake o es r#1 I 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 304 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5834 e Fo st, 92630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5$34 939-500-15 939-500-15 939-500-16 Las Bris b Resident Tsakoumakis Jennifer E 22865 ake r s r#11 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 106 7668 Baypoint Dr#301 Lak or , C 92630-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5831 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939-500-16 939-500-17 939-500-18 ;Resident Dunn Ian Marc&Aspen Jenkins Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 206 20962 Sandbar#101 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 102 'Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5831 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5854 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5880 939-500-18 939-500-19 939-500-20 has Bris L Levin Jon J Gagnon Donald P 22865 e rest r#11 20962 Sandbar 9103 20962 Sandb4r#104 iLak ore C 2630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5856 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5856 .939-500-21 939-500-21 939-500-22 Resident Las Brisas Lte Resident 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 201 22865 e F st Dr 1 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 202 (Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5856 Lak or " CA 9 30-1605 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5856 939-500-22 939-500-23 939-500-23 f,as Brisas Lt Resident Las Bri Llc �2865 e F est fill 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 203 2286 e est -11 Lake ore ,CA 630-1605 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5883 L e Fo C 630-1605 SIM #Sti ®iIFIRV®<IC'no 4 nn � aaicov t�191 �s�eea�gl��citoo�uuuY�gcwwuu�g�� ttAs�p� �9$�9e�lut��1!#��dwo�88��11a��9��e1 - 93 7-193-78 937-193-78 937-193-79 Resident Juma [nvestments Inc Patel Marini M 21271 Ronda Cir Po Box 408 2 i 246 Ronda Or Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5346 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-0408 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5345 937-193-80 937-193-81 937-193-82 Audenis Patrick& Alena Nguyen Paul Hoa Resident 21254 Ronda Cir 21262 Ronda Cir 21270 Ronda Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5345 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5345 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5345 937-193-82 937-193-83 9374 93-83 Reiger Pius Resident Bank Lasalle N A 6085 Tarrant Ranch Rd 21247 Elda Cir 7255 Baymeadows Way Las Vegas,NV 89131-3129 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5381 Jacksonville, FL 32256-6851 937-193-84 937-193-85 937-193-86 Kutinsky Laurence A Bosari Alan Levin Jon J 21255 Elda Cir 21263 Elda Cir 21271 Elda Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5381 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5381 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5381 937-19445 937-194-46 937-194-47 Hasan Seeme Tran Dal Quang Pender Teresa 7780 Lorenzo Dr 7786 Lorenzo Dr 7792 Lorenzo Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5330 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5330 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5330 937-194-48 937-194-48 939-500-01 :,Bank Lasalle N A Resident Las Brisas Hb Llc 7255 Baymeadows Way 7798 Lorenzo Dr 22865 Lake Forest Dr#11 .Jacksonville, FL 32256-6851 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5330 Lake Forest, CA 92630-1605 939-500-01 939-500-02 939-500-02 Resident Locke Rosanna Resident '7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 101 7668 Baypoint Dr#105 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 201 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5264 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5264 939-500-03 939-500-03 939-500-04 Haritatos Jonathan S Resident Khreich Gilbert N 17668 Baypoint Dr 93 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 102 '7668 Baypoint Dr#103 {'Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5279 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 939-500-04 939-500-05 939-500-05 Resident Boyle Carol Ann Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 202 7668 Baypoint Dr#102 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 301 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5279 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5279 939-500-06 939-500-06 939-500-07 Harris Leslie A Resident Las Bris L 7668 Baypoint Dr 9101 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 103 22865 e orest D 11 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5285 F t,C 630-1605 o G 'lit /O h — its www.aveeycom 08�8f�A9i ���q!1�dtAo�awut99�xuttu���ea� ebp� . . MI 937-193-56 937-193-57 937-193-57 Resident Resident Sean Grange &Corie 21253 Alanis Cir 21261 Alanis Cir 225 20th St Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5324 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5324 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-3913 937-193-58 937-193-58 937-193-59 Brasher Travis Resident Dingwall Matthew S & Jennifer J 21247 Ronda Cir 21265 Alanis Cir 21246 Alanis Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5346 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5324 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5323 { 937-193-60 937-193-60 937-t93-61 Resident Braithwaite Robin J Radetich Curt B & Kelly S 21250 Alanis Cir 73042 Bel Air Rd 21254 Alanis Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5323 Palm Desert, CA 92260-6060 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5323 937-193-62 937-193-63 937-193-64 Wyche Edward William& Carol Childs Roger J&Jonette L Mc Cultey William R& Paulette C 'Chritine 21266 Alanis Cir 21270 Alanis Cir !21262 Alanis Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5323 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5323 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5323 937-193-65 937-193-65 937-193-66 Resident Huntington Beach House Llc Resident 21245 Baeza Cir 7500 Greer Ln 21249 Baeza Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5327 Sandy, UT 84093-6120 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5327 937-193-66 937-193-67 937-193-68 Nguyen Paul H Jenson Taylor R Baughman Kevin Lee 21262 Ronda Cir 21253 Baeza Cir 21261 Baeza Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5345 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5327 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5327 "937-193-69 937-193-69 937-193-70 :"Prang Tony Resident Kohi Philip J Il6787 Beach Blvd#770 21265 Baeza Cir 21269 Baeza Cir -Huntington Beach,CA 92647-4848 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5327 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5327 93 7-193-71 937-193-71 937-193-72 ,Smith Ro r Resident Resident 2124 aeza ' 21254 Baeza Cir H in B7ch, A H tingto each, 92648-5328 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5328 937-193-72 937-193-73 937-193-74 'hede Paul Kim Hong Cheol Nguyen Kevin Minh :32 Twilight BY 21262 Baeza Cir 21270 Baeza Cir :Newport Beach,CA 92657-2126 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5328 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5328 93 7-193-75 93 7-193-76 937-193-77 ;Brasher Travis Nashed Mark& Lisa Kim Kyu Sook 21247 Ronda Cir 21255 Ronda Cir 21263 Ronda Cir iHuntington Beach,CA 92648-5346 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5346 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5346 CIA Pder gQa. waizav®race® v�c.-. car ......*....a.. �..... �/:ftVtVJt]U..-....Y YY.•....,`i:+•....,.r..v<tVt�•lt"`<F-®' ..Yy L-�� 937-152-74 937452-74 937-152-75 Residen White Jeri Lynn Resident 7825 eagl Dr 7825 Seaglen Dr #34 7832 eag r H tin n Be ch,CA 92648-5705 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5705 H ntin on ch, CA 92648-5703 937-152-75 937452-76 937-t 52-76 Hyatt Gary Resident Gerondate Janis D '7832 Seaglen Dr#35 7826 eagten 7826 Seaglen Dr#36 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5703 H tingto eac-111 A 92648-5703 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5703 937-152-77 937-152-77 937-152-78 Resident Lasky David J& Vicki J Reside 17822 Se en D 7822 Seaglen Dr#37 781 eagle r 'Hunti on ach A 92648-5703 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5703 nti n ch,CA 92648-5703 937-152-78 1 937-152-79 937-152-79 .Bergelt Edward C Jr Resident Seade Betty Living Trust 7816 Seaglen Dr#3 8 . 17812 ten 7812 Seaglen Dr#39 ,Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5703 H in each A 92648-5702 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5702 937-152-80 937-152-80 937-152-81 , Resident Bevers Cassandra Resident 7806 glen D 7806 Seaglen Dr 940 7796 agle r Hu ington ach, 92648-5702 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5702 H tin B CA 92648-5702 937-152-81 937-152-82 937-152-82 Russell Vincent M Resident Matillo Edward&Lisa K 7796 Seaglen Dr #41 7792 S ten D 7792 Seaglen Dr 942 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5702 H ngtoa each, A,92648-5702 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5702 937-152-83 937-152-83 937-152-84 :Resident Wood William R Dey Donald W&Jacqueline T '7786 len r 7786 Seaglen Dr 943 203 La Via Azut Ct L1 ingto each A 92648-5426 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5426 Morgan Hill,CA 95037-5677 937-152-84 937-152-85 937-152-85 iResident Resident Leuenberger Mark A 17782 Seaglen Dr 7776 aglen 7776 Seaglen Dr#45 i !Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5426 H ingto eac , CA 92648-5426 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5426 4t( 937-152-86 937-193-54 �R Lindquist Thomas C Zarp Janie 7r 7772 Seaglen Dr 946 21245 Alanis Cir �Hach, A 92648-5426 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5426 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5324 93 7-193-55 937-193-55 937-193-56 ;;Resident Mitre David B Patel Vijay K B&Mina.xi 21249 Alanis Cir 29152 Sandlewood Pl 11521 Covent gardens Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5324 Highland, CA 92346-5405 Bakersfield,CA 93311-9240 ate a pet '1 )h 9—004 1 d i,� A'1, o e g e S& wwv aveW�em 937-150-55 f 937-150-55 937-150-56 Ray Robert V Resident Resident 7208 W Oceanfront 7826 Seabreeze Dr 7832 a reez r Newport Beach, CA 92663-1759 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5447 I tingto ea, A 92648--5 937-150-56 937A 50-57 937450-57 Fjastad Roy Charles & Lisa Lee Smith Charles J Resident 7832 Seabreeze Dr 1156 1900 Shore Dr 7836 Seabreeze Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5447 Anchorage, AK 99515-3136 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-545,' 937-150-58 937-150-58 937-152-63 Resident Sid K Resident 7842 S ree r 7842 Seabreeze Dr#58 7826 y r Hu �ngto ea , CA 92648-5452 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5452 H tin Be CA 92648-5701 937-152-63 937-152-64 937-152-64 Michels John �i ! Resident Dages Vicky L 7826 Bayport Dr #23 ! 7822 yport D 7822 Bayport Dr#24 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5 70 1 H tington ch, 92648-5701 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5701 937-152-65 937-152-65 937-152-66 Resident Cunanan Helaine C Reside 7816 yport D 7816 Bayport Dr#25 781 ayport H in each, A 92648-570 i Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5701 tin CA 92648-5701 937-152-66 937-152-67 937-152-67 Dean Kevin Pup Pup Dahman Trust Resident 7812 Bayport Dr #26 201 Lincoln Ave 7806 Bayport Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5701 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-3505 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5400 937-152-68 937-152-68 937-152-69 Resident Fortman Brian M Hata Dale �7802 yport r 7802 Bayport Dr#28 1404 Todd PI ;;H ngto each A 92648-5400 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5400 Montebello, CA 90640-2431 -937-152-69 937-152-70 937-152-70 I Resident Resident Eck Shannon Rene 7801 Seaglen Dr 7805 le r 7805 Seaglen Dr 930 ;Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5704 HU n Bea CA 92648-5704 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5704 937-152-71 937-152-71 937-152-72 Carter Allen Ray Resident Residen 1240 W Tee Loop 7811 Seaglen Dr 781 eaglen I Washington, UT 84780-8407 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5705 ntingt CA 92648-5705 j ' 937-152-72 937-152-73 937-152-73 Dome Martin B ' Resident Christy Diane E 7815 Seaglen Dr 932 7821 S en Dr ' 7821 Seaglen Dr 033 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5705 H gtoa B C 9 8-5705 ; Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5705 i ®VCSiV®C9�� vywmavefy4m 099Wk qg ksAV ow®1g118dwoo ww LOX ww 93 t IP b11•3 A - 937-150-40 937-150-40 937-150-41 Resident �_-- Cohee Nancy Resident 7741 bree r 7741 Seabreeze Dr #40 7742 bree r H tingt ea clf CA 92648-5448 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5448 ! itin B CA 92648-5441 937-150 41 937-150- 937-150-42 Klietn Richard T& Arai F Bear Aia Lit Reside 7742 Seabreeze Dr#41 774 eabr r Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5448 unt gto each, CA ntin B ,CA 92648-544F 937-150-43 937-150-43 937-150-44 Reside Conklin Barbara Vaughan Resident 77S eabre e D 7752 Seabreeze Dr#43 7756 eabree r H tingt Be h, CA 92648-5448 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5448 tingt , CA 92648-5448 937-150-44 937-150-4S 937-150-45 Ray Michael L Resident Berdelis Jamie Dirnitra 7756 Seabreeze Dr#44 7762 S ree r 7762 Seabreeze Dr#45 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5448 Hu ngto eac A 92648-5444 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5444 93 7-150-46 937-150-46 937-150-47 Resident Valcarcel Carol Y Nash Leatrice 7766 S bre e Dr 7766 Seabreeze Dr#46 16202 Culpepper Cir H ngt eac , CA 92648-5444 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5444 Huntington Beach,CA 92647-3349 937-150-47 937-150-48 937-15048 Resident Residen Paul Laura 7776 Seabreeze Dr 778 eabre Dr 7782 Seabreeze Dr 448 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5444 tingt Bea ,CA 92648-5444 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5444 937-150-49 937-150-49 937-150-50 Resident Wexler Martin&Patricia. Resident }7786 bree D ; 7786 Seabreeze Dr#49 7792 reeze r F H/ ingto ea ,CA 92648-5444 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5444 tingt�t eac A 92648-5444 937-150-50 937-150-51 937-150-51 Sears Ryan M ;78�O eside%�bree Schafer Paul 7792 Seabreeze Dr#50 r 7802 Seabreeze Dr#51 tington Beach,CA 92648-5444 tin I CA 92648-5447 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5447 t f 937-150-52 937-150-52 937-150-53 ;Resident Christensen Clark F&Jennifer C Franz n 7806 eabr D 7806 Seabreeze Dr#52 H tingt ch,CA 92648-5447 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5447 ti on B h,CA 937-150-53 937-150-54 937-150-54 Resident ` Resident Amr Omar M 7816 bree j 7822 ree r 7822 Seabreeze Dr#54 Hu tngto ,CA 92648-5447 j H ngt e ,CA 92648-5447 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5447 0s11GM949®AAAVa M @jgpdwoa ww Lg x ww 9Z jew1ol ep euenblq use Avery" 1empjaze 5iau— - 9137-i 50-25 937-150-25 937-150-26 Resident Mastroly Frank R Jr Franco Timothy 7831 abre /CA 7831 Seabreeze Dr#25 65 Arcata Hu ingt B8-5449 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5449 Irvine, CA 92602-0955 937-150-26 937-150-27 937-150-27 Resident Matillo Ralph E Resident ' 7825 Seabreeze Dr 24726 Meridian Dr 7821 Seabreeze Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5449 Dana Point, CA 92629-1819 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-544� 937-150-28 937-150-28 937-i 50-29 Resident Pickett Frank A& Relda M Residen 7815 �bj /ch, 7815 Seabreeze Dr 928 780 eabr Dr H tin B 92648-5449 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5449 tin n Be , CA 92648-544E 937-150-29 937-150-30 937-1 50-30 'Schimmel Andy Resident Dalke Edward E 7805 Seabreeze Dr#29 7801 S reeze r 7801 Seabreeze Dr 930 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5446 Hun ' gton each, A 92648-5446 . Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5446 937-150-31 937-150-31 937-150-32 Resident Bauer Martin Resident 7795 Seabreeze Dr 8811 Cliffside Dr 7791 bre e Dr .Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5446 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-2619 H tin B , CA 92648-5446 937-150-32 937-150-33 937-150-33 Kuniyuki Ted T Resident Smith Family Trust A& B 7791 Seabreeze Dr 432 7785 abr e D 7785 Seabreeze Dr#33 . .'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5446 H in Be , CA 92648-5446 . Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5446 937-150-34 937-150-34 937-150-35 ;Resident Kindel Santa Marion Reside 17781 ree r 7781 Seabreeze Dr#34 777 eabree r H ngto eac A 92648-5446 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5446 tin ,CA 92648-5445 ,j 937-150-35 937-150-36 937-150-36 �Siart Jack Baxter Resident Newton Helen L Trust 117771 Seabreeze Dr#35 .7765 abree r 7765 Seabreeze Dr#36 JjHuntington Beach,CA 92648-5445 tingto CA 92648-5445 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5445 jl 937-jO-37 937-150-37 937-150-38 Resid ; _;Morris Herbert T > Reside 7761bree 7761 Seabreeze Dr#37 775 eabrH ti CA 92648-5445 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5445 untie B ch,CA 92648-5445 Ij 937-150-38 937-150-39 937-150-39 Kennedy Kevin J& Patty Faitlowic a Re ina Resident 7751 Seabreeze Dr 438 :7745 Seabreeze Dr 'Puntington Beach,CA 92648-5445 ;:H tingt CA Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5445 �19/09 tau L9 x tutu 9Z j ute®1 Op egenbq 69 „8/s z X. qq lnBi 8907126-15 890-126-15 890-126-18 Erlich Philip Resident j Laurienzo Maria A 16550 Spruce St 80 Huntington St Unit 615 80 Huntington St 9618 Fountain Valley, CA 92708-2350 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5357 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-535( 890-126-19 890-126-20 890-126-22 Vaughan Kathleen S Resident Brandt 2007 Family 80 Huntington St#619 80 Huntington St Unit 620 80 Huntington St#622 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5355 890-126-23 890-126-25 890-126-26 Lewis Rolla B Stowell Family Steigner Cynthia Jo 80 Huntington St 9623 80 Huntington St#625 80 Huntington St#626 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5359 890-126-29 890-126-29 890-126-30 Knudsen Marilyn Lieberg Resident Heninger Louise 125 Sunridge Way 80 Huntington St Unit 629 80 Huntington St#630 Redlands, CA 92373-7155 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5360 890-126-32 890-126-32 890-126-34 Hawkins Wendy A Resident Zeimantz Thomas L 80 Huntington St #sp632 80 Huntington St Unit 632 80 Huntington St 9634 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5334 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5360 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5360 890-126-37 890-126-38 890-126-40 Loflin Debra Resident Dobay Lorraine M 80 Huntington St#637 80 Huntington St Unit 638 80 Huntington St#640 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 890-126-43 890-126-46 890-126-48 Mich Blue Hohrine Max E Longbrake Carolyn -80 Huntington St#643 80 Huntington St#646 80 Huntington St#648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 890-126-50 890-127-00 890-127-01 Skattum Ijersti A Moskewich David Jeffrey Rhoades illi 80 Huntington St#650 80 Huntington St#700 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5364 H ti n B CA 890-127-01 890-127-03 890-127-03 Resident j Cooper Steven D Resident {80,Huntington St Unit 701 16478 Beach Blvd#271 80 Huntington St Unit 703 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5364 ' Westminster,CA 92683-7860 ; Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5363 890-127-06 890-127-10 890-127-10 Camacho Raymund Bentz Christine M : Resident 80 Huntington St#706 5420 Mount Helena Ave 80 Huntington St Unit 710 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5363 Los Angeles, CA 90041-1528 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5365 .m� /Oh 9 -GO/ pp.11 @ @ ail ' a peter hsHttMuA ; WWnN 7vnry rim 09 ;ss kaq ow olglduw ww L9 am sz alp ®91�/09 L5®tianil q>��iq �u� t�,�R' Ili g._._r--'-_'-_ eva.vrva r�U�.-....y-yr:....,Ya.w.e.---uorr'o`r..'F'^rsw l"YJ �J ■ 890-127-16 890-127-18 890-129-0 i Mains David Blonk-lee Manderson Catheryn C 80 Huntington St 4716 80 Huntington St 9718 80 Huntington St 9102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5365 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5365 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533 890-129-02 890-129-03 890-l 29-04 Vohs Jackie Fox Steve Robert Foster David B 80 Huntington St#218 80 Huntington St 9372 80 Huntington St#704 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5363 890429-05 890-129-06 890-129-06 Calvert Robert E Pacific Mobile Home Park Resident 80 Huntington St #169 80 Huntington St 80 Huntington St Unit 422 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5339 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5334 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5350 890-129-07 890-129-08 890-129-09 Helmick Thomas Charles Wheatley Angela Kay Nielsen Mary 80 Huntington St #631 80 Huntington St M42 80 Huntington St#260 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5360 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5342 937-150-01 937-150-01 937-150-02 Beaumont Scott Alan Resident Trebelcock Bryan 4480 Park Bristol PI 7825 Sailboat Cir 5492 Maryport Dr San Jose, CA 95 1 36-25 10 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5440 Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4820 937-150-02 93 7-150-03 937-150-03 Resident Cross R&Z Resident 7821 Sailboat Cir 517 N Taormina Dr 7815 Sailboat Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5440 Anaheim,CA 92806-2329 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5440 937-150-04 - 937-150-04 937-150-0 Resident . Mc Kusker Cindy Reside a 7811 lbo Cir 7811 Sailboat Cir#4 780 a' oat H ingto B CA 92648-5440 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5440 ti gton 5each, CA 92648-5440 937-150-05 937-150-06 937-150-06 'Abbondante Louis T Resident Suarez Jose 7805 Sailboat Cir#5 7801 Sailboat Or 857 W Palm Ter Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5440 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5440 Homestead, EL 33034-3137 93 7-150-07 937-150-07 937-150-0 Resident Rodi Sopp Elaine P F Resid 7752 S ' at C' 7752 Sailboat Cir#7 77 Sa it (Hun ' on c ,CA 92648-5437 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5437 ua on Beach, CA 92648-5437 E 937-150-08 937-150-09 937-150-09 .Aish Abdallah&Ekhlas A ; Resident Gartland Gerard W 7756 Sailboat Cir 48 7762 ail Cir 7762 Sailboat Cir#9 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5437 H tin a CA 92648-5437 ; Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5437 I a peter mtso Use Avery Template 5160 �4nuxen�apcw �c'tycds�sgo¢EIP� #tj� w��j , i 937-150- 937-15040 937-150-t 1 i Reside Nasser Thomas J&Joelyan F Resident 776 Sail at r 7766 Sailboat Cir#t 0 777 ail at r nti on each,CA 92648-5437 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5437 nti to each, CA 9��:� 937-150-11 937-150-12 937-150-12 Hehir Barbara G ; Resident Bradbury Mary D '7772 Sailboat Cir 411 7776 S lbo it 7776 Sailboat Cir #12 ,Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5437 Hu ngt Beac CA 92648-5437 Huntington Beach, CA 92 6=1f,-- 937-150-13 937450-13 937-150-14 :Roberts John C Resident Residen =29 Augusta 7786 Sailboat Cir 779 ail t C Coto De Caza, CA 92679-4829 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5438 nti o each, CA`?-f 93 7-150-14 937-150-15 93 7-150-15 Samaha Darren Resident Kelly Michael M 7792 Sailboat Cir#14 7796 ;ittbo Cir 7796 Sailboat Cir #3. Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5438 H tin Be , CA 92648-5438 Huntington Beach, C' ` 937-150-16 937-150-16 937-150-17 Resident Znider Janet L Trust Koenigshofer Dav44 7802 rlb t Cir 7802 Sailboat Cir#16 19341 Manor Point H n n Be CA 92648-5438 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5438 Huntington Beach, tA 937-150-17 937-150-18 937-150-18 Resident Namoury Ahmed M Resident 7812 Sailboat Cir 19 Greenbrier Rd 7816 Sailboat Cir 'Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5438 Westport,CT 06880-1614 Huntington Beach., CA "" :' :-54 937-150-19 937-150-19 937-150-20 I'lesident Oconnor Sharon Ann Panebianco Joseph S 4? -N _ _.� ; 17822 S ' o it 7822 Sailboat Cir#19 1515 State Route 3 i z ngto ea ,CA 92648-5439 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5439 Bridgeport,NY 131t3:t-9:= +.937-150-20 937-150-21 937-150-21 RResident Residen Delatore Family Living 7 ." 7826 Sailboat Cir 783 ail Cir 7832 Sailboat Cir-Az' '.Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5439 nti n B h,CA 92648-5439 Huntington Beach, 937Zat 937-150-22 937-;150-2 IiRes ?Lund Kelly H Ryan Resid r'783 it '7836 Sailboat Cir 922 78 X59r c CA 92648-5439 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5439 unt , ,r ?6 °-S Y=j 6 ,937450-23 _ ; 937-150-24 937-150-24 .Smith Larry W Recharte os E Resident 17841 Seabreeze Dr 423 7835 eabree r i{Hundrlgton.�eaeh,CA 92648-5449 Haunw on BQ� c Ah � y a i H tin CA 92648-544. c l J�0h 1liFG�Cy w+uu 800-126-21 ! 800-126-24 800-126-27 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 621 80 Huntington St Unit 624 80 Huntington St Unit 627 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5359 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-535' 800-126-28 800-126-33 800-126-35 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 628 80 Huntington St Unit 633 80 Huntington St Unit 635 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5359 , Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5360 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-536( 800-126-36 800-126-39 800-126-41 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 636 80 Huntington St Unit 639 80 Huntington St Unit 641 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 800-126-44 800-12645 800-126-47 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 644 80 Huntington St Unit 645 80 Huntington St Unit 647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 800-126-49 800-127-02 800-127-05 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 649 80 Huntington St Unit 702 80 Huntington St Unit 705 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5364 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5363 800-127-07 800-127-08 800-127-09 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 707 80 Huntington St Unit 708 80 Huntington St Unit 709 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5365 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5365 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5365 800-127-11 800-127-12 800-127-14 Resident Resident . Resident !:80 Huntington St Unit 711 80 Huntington St Unit 712 80 Huntington St Unit 714 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5365 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5365 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5365 1 890-121-01 890-121-05 890-121-06 ?:Martin Rosemary Mannheimer Jody Lynn Haley Samuel ;180 Huntington St#101 80 Huntington St#105 80 Huntington St#106 =Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5337 890-121-07 890-121-07 890-121-08 ;!-Anderson Dale E Resident Resident 12853 Winthrop Ave 80 Huntington St Unit 107 80 Huntington St Unit 108 Granada Hills,CA 91344-1222 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5337 890-121-08 890-121-13 890-121-14 :Nickell Alexine L Durrie Jack Paingenti Salvatore R Po Box 7774 80 Huntington St#113 80 Huntington St#114 Huntington Beach,CA 92615-7774 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5337 M109 _00/ -le A metes 1u ......... ... ....a.... --- -- , - - r s- ,A tl 890-121-15 890-121-17 89042148 Neal John M Escobedo Albert Russell Dennis 80 Huntington St#115 1 80 Huntington St#117 4 t985 Hemingway Ct Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Palm Desert,CA 9221 1-3217 890-121-18 890-121-20 8904 21-22 4 Resident Cochran James F Gustaferro David 80 Huntington St Unit 118 80 Huntington St#120 80 Huntington St#122 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5337 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5337 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533 890-121-23 890-121-51 890-121-52 Pares Lydia Rodriguez Lawrence & Rod Kress Loretta W 140 80 Huntington St#123 80 Huntington St#151 80 Huntington St#152 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5338 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533F 890-121-53 890-121-54 890-121-55 ,'.Beebe Randall Meeks Charles O Loccisano Corrina 80 Huntington St#153 80 Huntington St#154 2434 Burnett St Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5338 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5338 Brooklyn, NY It 229-5 8 10 890-121-55 890-121-56 890-121-61 Resident Romley Michael J Kishiyama Sumiko 80 Huntington St Unit 155 80 Huntington St#156 80 Huntington St#161 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5338 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5338 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5339 890-121-62 890-121-62 890-121-63 Resident Rebman Darcy M Musselman Bill 80 Huntington St Unit 162 Po Box 310 80 Huntington St#163 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5339 San Jacinto, CA 92581-0310 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5339 890-121-66 890-121-67 890-121-67 1 Harris Valerie Resident Bagstad Erik 80 Huntington St 9166 80 Huntington St Unit 167 901 Catalina Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5339 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5339 Seat Beach, CA 90740-5 8 5 1 890-121-68 890-121-71 890-121-71 j Kling Pamela L Largent James L Resident 80 Huntington St#168 480 N Suanyslope Ave 80 Huntington St Unit 171 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5339 Pasadena, CA 91107-2841 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5339 890-122-01 890-122-02 890-122-04 Chaiilou Colette Marie Harrington John J Resident 180 Huntington St#201 80 Huntington St#202 80 Huntington St Unit 204 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5340 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 890-122-04 890-122-08 890-122-09 "Barrett Brad Vaccaro Anthony M Acklarn Sandra Po Box 670 ; 80 Huntington St 9208 80 Huntington St#209 Hereford, TX 79045-0670 � Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 L A I V / = ilk WtUMAV XW OW&M tutu LOX I9WOZMUNI6P !O Elm USe AVery/ eerr�prate �vv- ,t......,n...�tq,-.......v -,,:...-,.:.--r---�r�.-r-<.,--yv �-�a - - 890-122-12 890-122-13 890-122-14 Alvarez William Sliney Joseph Reger John 80 Huntington St #212 80 Huntington St#213 80 Huntington St #214 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 890-122-16 890-122-19 890-122-53 Gannon Timothy M Moore Deborah Elaine Vargas Rosalie Ann 80 Huntington St 9216 80 Huntington St#219 80 Huntington St #253 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92648-534� 890-122-56 890-122-57 8904 22-62 Wilson Marcia Cindy Macias Jennifer L Carlson Barbara A : .80 Huntington St #256 80 Huntington St#257 80 Huntington St#262 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5342 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5342 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5343 890-122-63 890-122-65 890-122-67 Hall Tarni H Tolzien Betty J Bailey Robert M 80 Huntington St 9263 80 Huntington St#265 45500 Club Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5343 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5343 Indian Wells,CA 92210-8866 890-122-67 890-122-68 890-122-68 Resident Slater Randal A& Lori D Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 267 18611 Ne 139th St 80 Huntington St Unit 268 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5343 Woodinville, WA 98072-6586 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5342 890-122-69 - 890-123-01 890-123-04 Kennedy Eric E Miller Alex Sandlin Grace .80 Huntington St#269 80 Huntington St#301 80 Huntington St 11304 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5343 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5344 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5344 890-123-05 890-123-05 890-123-06 Adams Kathleen Resident Athey Craig `634 Big Canyon Dr E 80 Huntington St Unit 305 80 Huntington St#306 !-Palm Springs,CA 92264-7400 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5344 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534,� 890-123-08 890-123-10 890-123-11 Sasser John Michael Bieschke Mary F Siems Jeffrey D 80 Huntington St#308 80 Huntington St#310 80 Huntington St#311 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5344 4 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5344 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5342 890-123-12 890-123-12 890-12343 Cestr Erika H ; Resident Gerrie Cynthia Ellen 18542 Vallarta Dr 80 Huntington St Unit 312 1088 E Vista Chino Huntington Beach,CA 92646-1852 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5344 Palm Springs,CA 92262-3202 890-123-13 890-123-15 890-123-17 Resident Patrykus Donna R Brockway Connie 1180 Huntington St Unit 313 80 Huntington St 9315 80 Huntington St#317 Huntington Beach,CA 92648=5344 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5344 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534 -- ►, � �lAmm�ttw��cwut��t�ti?l� V 1Q 1VCfy- ietN�IOae JIVV �v�tuLVOr�ujY'-••••V `1r•••••ttl:.-"^Y"�'iroe�jCwY.`wyE"1"v"1 � - 890-123-51 890-123-54 Y 890-123-55 Carroll-shannon Kathleen & A{ Brockway Chris Resident 80 Huntington St#351 80 Huntington St#354 80 Huntington St Unit 355 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-534" 890-123-55 890-123-56 890-123-56 Wright Louise Eileen j Boyd Robert A Resident 9852 Verde Mar Dr 9821 La Cresta 80 Huntington St Unit 356 Huntington Beach,CA 92646-7528 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-6042 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-534" 890-123-57 890-123-59 890-123-60 Castro Danny Polleiner Werner Borack Robert 80 Huntington St#357 80 Huntington St#359 80 Huntington St#360 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534 890423-61 890-123-63 890-123-65 Bowen James M Fasano Alfred Dosch Pamela Louise 80 Huntington St#361 80 Huntington St#363 80 Huntington St 9365 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-534; 890-123-66 890-123-66 890-123-68 Thorn Family Resident Matek-sadigh Mary Jane 17410 N Cottonwood Dr 80 Huntington St Unit 366 80 Huntington St 9368 :Sun City, AZ 85373-2126 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-534 1 - 890-124-01 890-124-06 890-124-07 :Rock James W Fischer Christina M Foster Family 80 Huntington St#401 80 Huntington St#406 80 Huntington St 9407 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5348 . Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-530 890-124-09 890-124-11 890-124-12 'Berger Steve Canadas Susan C Cupers Anna Marie �80 Huntington St#409 80 Huntington St 9411 15382 Cascade Ln lHuntington Beach,CA 92648-5348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5349 Huntington Beach, CA 92647-3012 890-124-12 890-124-15 890-124-15 Resident Resident Eck Eleanor K 180 Huntington St Unit 412 80 Huntington St Unit 415 9955 Brookshire Ave 1Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5349 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5349 Downey,CA 90240-4041 890-124-16 890-124-18 ; 890-124-19 Arriota Adrian Lewis ; Moore Carl Robinson Pamela 80 Huntington St#416 80 Huntington St 9418 180 Huntington St#419 )Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5349 ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5349 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534, 890-124-26 890-124-28 , 890-124-38 ;Gordon Bcuce K Santaniello Carmine ;Slear Irma B 80 Huntington St#426 80 Huntington St#428 :80 Huntington St#438 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5350 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5350 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5351 JY1!U9 _00l. , gat � ramp aftf tl� 60 a prier Ellt(pp = tql` �0 t avery.com 890-124-41 890424-51 890-124-53 Resident Houck Marlene Madero Manuel R 80 Huntington St Unit 441 80 Huntington St 9451 80 Huntington St 9453 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5351 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-535: 890-124-57 890-124-59 890-124-61 f' Hurley Robert S Harrington Richard Paul Davis Key 80 Huntington St 0457 80 Huntington St #459 80 Huntington St#461 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5352 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-535( 890-124-63 890-124-65 890-124-65 ;Rooney Julie Ann Thompson William G Resident 80 Huntington St#463 161 Lake Shore Dr 80 Huntington St Unit 465 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5356 Rancho Mirage,CA 92270-4055 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-535( f 890-124-67 890-124-67 8904 24-71 Manning Catheryne Resident Gambrel Steven Bert 80 Huntington St#467 80 Huntington St Unit 467 51380 Avenida Diaz ''Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5358 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5358 : La Quinta, CA 92253-3087 890-124-71 890-125-01 890-125-04 Resident Resident Krupp Jason M 80 Huntington St Unit 471 80 Huntington St Unit 501 80 Huntington St 9504 :Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5358 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5353 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5353 ' 890-125-08 890-125-12 890-125-13 Pittman Concepcion L Degas Olga Friedland Kenneth D 80 Huntington St #508 80 Huntington St#512 80 Huntington St#513 ,Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5354 890-125-14 890-125-16 890-125-18 3 Henry Thomas A Semonell Scot Wilcox Clifford F 80 Huntington St#514 80 Huntington St#516 80 Huntington St#518 (Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5354 890-125-20 890-125-21 890-126-00 Waring Mark A Aragon Manuel Garay Tidd James C j'80 Huntington St 9520 80 Huntington St#521 80 Huntington St 4600 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5355 ;l , ?(890-126-01 890-126-03 890-126-08 Shaw David G Eyraud Ronald C Paugh Edward Craig 80 Huntington St 9601 80 Huntington St 9603 ° 201 Calle Tinaja Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5355 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5355 San Clemente, CA 92672-3701 !i 890-126-08 890-126-10 890-i 26-14 Resident Mansour Ted M Hernandez Christina M 80 Huntington St Unit 608 80 Huntington St#610 80 Huntington St#614 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5357 i Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5357 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5357 -00 e 09 0@MAY§@A#mp#gw tyw LOB §gi ' #a pj domm 800-122-66 800-123-02 800-123-03 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 266 80 Huntington St Unit 302 80 Huntington St Unit 303 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5343 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5344 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5344 800-123-07 ! 800-123-09 800-123-14 Resident j Resident Resident . 80 Huntington St Unit 307 80 Huntington St Unit 309 + 80 Huntington St Unit 314 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5344 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5344 !, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5344 800-123-52 800-123-53 800423-58 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 352 80 Huntington St Unit 353 80 Huntington St Unit 358 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 800-123-62 800-123-64 800-123-67 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 362 80 Huntington St Unit 364 80 Huntington St Unit 367 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 800-123-70 800-124-02 800-124-03 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 370 80 Huntington St Unit 402 80 Huntington St Unit 403 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5347 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5348 800-124-04 800-124-05 800-124-08 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 404 80 Huntington St Unit 405 80 Huntington St Unit 408 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5348 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5348 800424-10 800-124-13 800-124-14 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 410 80 Huntington St Unit 413 80 Huntington St Unit 414 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5348 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5349 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5349 800-124-17 800-124-20 800-124-21 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 417 80 Huntington St Unit 420 80 Huntington St Unit 421 T Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5349 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5349 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5349 800-124-23 800-124-24 800-124-25 Resident Resident ;`_ Resident 'F 80 Huntington St Unit 423 80 Huntington St Unit 424 80 Huntington St Unit 425 j Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5350 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5362 800-124-27 800-124-29 800-124-30 Resident Resident Resident i 80 Huntington St Unit 427 80 Huntington ngton St Unit 429 80 Huntington St Unit 430 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5361 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-535t .. �... .r ......r..._.._.,,., �' .,..,.,���. - .... ..... .. ..........,. .ram r-• •� .� 800-124-31 800-t 24-) 800-124-34 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 431 80 Huntington St Unit 432 ; 80 Huntington St Unit 434 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5350 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648-535 l Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5351 800-124-36 800-124-40 800-124-55 ;Resident I Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 436 80 Huntington St Unit 440 i 80 Huntington St Unit 455 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92648-535 t Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5351 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-535,- 800-124-69 800-125-02 800-125-03 ;Resident Resident Resident 180 Huntington St Unit 469 i 80 Huntington St Unit 502 80 Huntington St Unit 503 .Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5358 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5351 800-125-05 800-125-06 800-125-07 'Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 545 80 Huntington St Unit 506 80 Huntington St Unit 507 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 800-125-09 800-125-10 800-125-t1 Resident Resident Resident , :80 Huntington St Unit 509 80 Huntington St Unit 510 80 Huntington St Unit 511 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 . Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5353 Huntington Beach, CA 92.648-5354 800-125-15 800-125-17 800-125-19 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Una 515 80 Huntington St Unit 517 80 Huntington St Unit 519 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5354 800-125-22 800-126-02 800-126-04 1 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 522 80 Huntington St Unit 602 80 Huntington St Unit 604 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5354 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5355 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5355 800-126-05 800-126-06 800-126-07 "I Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 605 80 Huntington St Unit 606 80 Huntington St.Unit 607 ''Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5355 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5357 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-535? 800-126-09 800-126-11 800-126-12 I Resident Resident Resident li 80 Huntington St Unit 609 80 Huntington St Unit 611 80 Huntington St Unit 612 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5357 ;! Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5357 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-535? A 800-126-13 800-126-16 800-126-17 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 613 �'. 80 Huntington St Unit 616 80 Huntington St Unit 617 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5357 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5357 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-535? $60 A Deter $���80 aveavm 0968/09&f4mv my WW(M 4!w It N 11311111?IPWAO#@P O O1J 800-121-10 800-121-11 800-t21-12 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 110 80 Huntington St Unit 1 11 80 Huntington St Unit It 2 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5337 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533 800-121-16 800-121-19 800-121-21 Resident Resident Resident 180 Huntington St Unit 116 80 Huntington St Unit 119 80 Huntington St Unit 121 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5337 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533 800-121-57 800-121-58 800421-59 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 157 80 Huntington St Unit 158 80 Huntington St Unit 15 9 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5338 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5338 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533: 800-121-60 800-121-64 800-121-65 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 160 80 Huntington St Unit 164 80 Huntington St Unit 165 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5339 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5339 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5334 800-121-70 800-122-03 800-122-05 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 170 80 Huntington St Unit 203 80 Huntington St Unit 205 : Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5339 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 800-122-06 800-122-07 800-122-10 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 206 80 Hunting-m St Unit 207 80 Huntington St Unit 210 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5340 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 800-122-11 800-122-15 800-122-17 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 211 80 Huntington St Unit 215 80 Huntington St Unit 217 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534 i 800-122-21 800-122-51 800-122-52 I-Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 221 80 Huntington St Unit 251 80 Huntington St Unit 252 'Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5341 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5342 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534: 800-122-54 800-122-55 800-122-58 ; 1 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 254 80 Huntington St Unit 255 80 Huntington St Unit 258 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5342 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5342 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534'. , i 1800-122-59 800-122-61 800-122-64 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 259 80 Huntington St Unit 261 80 Huntington St Unit 264 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5342 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5343 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-534 Apeter0,0+ n a ee.n rn mv�nv (mmou Aj1nV QOAV Olg111dwoo WW L9It WW 99101%@P MOONJ 024-301-22 024-30[-23 024-301-23 Spoolstra Dennis L& Maria Clara Resident Casale Andrew B 3615 Golden [-fill Rd 20952 Coastview Ln I 3339 Cold Plains Dr Paso Robles, CA 93446-6393 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5270 Hacienda [4cights, CA 91 745-63 1 024-301-24 024-301-25 024-301-45 Endo Linda Ramos Nancy Cox Ann 20951 Sailmaker Cir 20945 Sailmaker Cir 7832 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5272 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5272 Huntington Beach,-CA 92648-525 024-301-46 024-301-46 024-301-47 Resident Taza Properties ! Mueller Anne E 7826 Beachcomber Dr 7826 Beachcomber Dr 4825 E Moonlight Way '-Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5251 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5251 Paradise Valley, AZ 85253-2959 024-301 A7 024-30148 024-301-48 Resident Tortorice David A Resident 7816 Beachcomber Dr 15980 Grand Ave#m46 7806 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5251 Lake Elsinore, CA 92530-5604 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-525; 024-30149 024-3 01-49 024-301-50 Stein Gary A Resident Goodshaw Matthew C& Amy 21838 Castlewood Dr 7802 Beachcomber Dr 7796 Beachcomber Dr Malibu, CA 90265-3407 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5251 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-524( 024-301-51 024-301-51 024-301-52 Resident Yamazaki John G Kito Living Trust 7792 Beachcomber Dr 930 Crest Ave 7786 Beachcomber Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5249 Pacific Grove, CA 93950-2211 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-524� 024-301-53 024-312-27 024-312-28 „La Cuesta Community Assn Waterfront Community Association Waterfront mi nu nity As ciatioi Po Box A 26 Corporate Plaza Dr#100 26 Co rate 100 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92660-7958 Ne ort c 92660-7958 024-312-29 024-312-30 024-312-31 Waterfront Community Association William Lyon Homes Inc Waterfront 5pqlglunity Ass o ioi 16845 Von Karman Ave #200 4490 Von Karman Ave The lIrvine, CA 92606-4960 Newport Beach CA 92660-2008 26 rpo�r ewport Beach,CA 92660-7957 024-312-3 024-31243 024-312-44 '.Water& t Comm ' Associ Waterfront mm Assoc' on Waterfro ty Ass he 26 Co orate Dr 91 26 C rate r 0 Corpo 1 r rt ch,C 660-7958 Newpo each, 92660-7958 `Nevuport Beach, 92660-7957 800-121-03 800-121-04 800-121-09 Resident Resident Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 103 80 Huntington St Unit 104 80 Huntington St Unit 109 .Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5336 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5337 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-533t lk pelerovmmavevy-com lllllll3l �� �lAl�>�l>� l��ttt���� MAN! 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7821 Bayport Dr Bldg ( 1 7821 Neptune Dr Bldg 9 7821 Starshell Dr Bldg 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92648-542 I 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 ?Resident Resident Resident 7822 Neptune Dr Bldg 10 7822 Starshell Dr Bldg 7 7825 Bayport Dr Bldg t t 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92648-542, 024-2914 2 024-291-12 024-291-12 j Resident Resident Resident 7825 Neptune Dr Bldg 9 7825 Starshell Dr Bldg 6 7826 Neptune Dr Bldg 10 ;Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 { Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-542- 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 'Resident Resident Resident 7826 Starshell Dr Bldg 7 7831 Starshell Dr Bldg 6 7832 Starshell Dr Bldg 7 :Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-542-" 024-291-16 024-291-19 024-291-20 Pacific Mobile Horne Park Llc City Of H to B City Of H e 80 Huntington St Po Bo 90 Po Bo 0 :Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5334 Hu in n Be , CA 92648-0190 H to n Be ,CA 92648-019C 024-301-01 024-301-02 024-301-02 Marcin David T &Christine L Resident Alpert Mark D 20981 Coastview Ln 20975 Coastview Ln 9681 Melinda Cir Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5271 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Beach, CA 92646-8427 024301-03 024-301-04 024-301-05 Stefanucci Ann Obrien John N Iii Resident 3 20971 Coastview Ln 20965 Coastview Ln 20961 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5271 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5271 024-301-05 024-301-06 024-301-07 Bruno Marcia M Butler David A ' Relato Lots N i.21362 Andalucia Ln 20945 Coastview Ln 20941 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5744 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5271 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5271 ,l �f 024-301-08 024-301-08 024-301-09 Smith Sung Suk Resident Kiyan Hiro 16331 Rhone Ln 20935 Coastview Ln 20931 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach,CA 926474126 . ';j Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5271 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5271 f 024-301-20 024-301-21 024-301-22 ''.Oktavec Donna J Dansereau Michel & Mary Resident 1.20932 Coastview Ln 20942 Coastview Ln 20946 Coastview Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5270 .{ Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5270 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5270 co'' rl www_wecy,wm 80 --- - -- OY g@ kp1,Av RR/48AR�i1�1R$@l use aver .Cu.N.aac vv tl`JFtl�tl`JF`J��� 9 9 ���R�ictl�®�ff�l J lf� �" 024-291-t2 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7781 Starshell Dr Bldg 5 7782 Bayport Dr Bldg 13 7782 Starshell Dr Bldg 8 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 024-29 t-12 024-291-12 ! 024-29 l-12 Resident Resident Resident 7785 Bayport Dr Bldg 12 7785 Seaglen Dr Bldg 14 7785 Starshell Dr Bldg 5 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7786 Bayport Dr Bldg 13 7786 Starshell Dr Bldg 8 7791 Bayport Dr Bldg 12 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 . Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-i2 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7791 Seaglen Dr Bldg 14 ! 779 t Starshell Dr Bldg 5 7792 Bayport Dr Bldg t 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7792 Starshell Dr Bldg 8 7795 Bayport Dr Bldg 12 7795 Starshell Dr Bldg 5 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-29 l-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident Resident 7796 Starshell Dr Bldg 8 7805 Neptune Dr Bldg 9 7805 Starshell Dr Bldg 6 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 Resident Resident . Resident 7806 Neptune Dr Bldg 10 7806 Starshell Dr Bldg 7 7811 Bayport Dr Bldg 11 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 ;Resident Resident Resident '7811 Neptune Dr Bldg 9 7811 Starshell Dr Bldg 6 7812 Neptune Dr Bldg 10 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 024-291-12 024-291-12 i; 024-291-12 -Resident Resident " Resident 7812 Starshell Dr Bldg 7 7815 Bayport Dr Bldg 11 7815 Neptune Dr Bldg 9 it-Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 'j 024-291-12 024-291-12 024-291-12 :Resident Resident Resident 7815 Starshell Dr Bldg 6 7816 Neptune Dr Bldg 10 7816 Starshell Dr Bldg 7 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5425 ., 024-261-24 j 024-261-24 j 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit t t 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 12 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 13 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5 3691 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5369 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-536t 024-261-24 ! 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 14 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 15 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 16 .Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5369 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5318 > ! 'Huntington Beach,CA 92648-531 f j 024-261-24 024-261-24 ! 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 17 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 18 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 19 `Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5318 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5318 . j Huntington Beach,CA 92648-531 E 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 2 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 20 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 21 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5319 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5318 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5318 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 22 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 23 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 24 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5370 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5370 ' Huntington Beach,CA 92648-537C 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 25 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 26 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 27 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5370 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5370 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5370 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Resident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 28 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 29 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 3 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5370 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5317 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5319 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 ';'Resident Resident Resident 1,4O1 Atlanta Ave Unit 30 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 31 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 32 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5317 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5317: Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5317 024-261-24 024-261-24 024-261-24 Mesident Resident Resident 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 33 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 34 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 35 { Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5317 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5317 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5317 024-261-24 024-261-24 1 024-261-24 i Resident Resident Resident 740 i Atlanta Ave Unit 36 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 37 401 Atlanta Ave Unit 38 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5371 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5371 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5371 wwwIMLY .avety.com NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ® 1. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 09-001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENING) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department Appellant: Hart, King and Coldren Property Owner: Atlanta Avenue ROW: City of Huntington Beach; Pacific Mobile Home Park: Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal to widen the south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street, to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the General Plan Circulation Element. The proposed street improvements will provide an additional through lane and bike lane in each direction of travel. In addition, the project includes clearing and grubbing, the construction of asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-foot tall concrete block wall atop a variable height (7 ft. max.) retaining wall, landscaping (including the removal or relocation of 25 trees within the existing mobile home park), reconstruction of a 26 ft. wide drive aisle (circulation road) and emergency access gates within the mobile home park, and utility and fire hydrant adjustment and relocation. The project requires approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for development within the Coastal Zone and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the construction of the retaining wall. A separate public hearing before the Planning Commission will be scheduled for the associated CDP and CUP. Construction of the proposed street improvements will require the acquisition of an additional 25 feet of public street right-of-way south of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue. The additional 25 feet of right-of-way will come from a 25 feet wide by 630 feet long (approx.) strip of land from the Pacific Mobile Home Park located immediately south of Atlanta Avenue. The acquisition of the 25 feet would impact eight manufactured/mobile homes (Unit Nos. 101, 102, 201, 301, 302, 401, 501, and 502) within the park. The impacted residents would need to be relocated pursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 ("The Uniform Act"). At this time the nature of a relocation project cannot be determined and, therefore, a relocation project would be analyzed as a separate project pursuant to CEQA. Location: Atlanta Avenue Right-of-Way: between Huntington Street and Delaware Street; Pacific Mobile Home Park: 80 Huntington Street (south side of Atlanta Avenue, between Huntington Street and Delaware Street) Project Planner: Jennifer Villasenor 1. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item # 1, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. The mitigated negative declaration (No. 09-001) is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning and Building Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. C:\Documents and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0ut1ook\EVZI IETS\011811 (Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening MND).docx ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Wednesday, January 12, 2011. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at 536- 5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CityClerkAgenda(aD-surfcity-hb.org http://www.huntingtonbeachca.p,ov/ C:ADocuments and Settings\esparzap\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\Content.0ut1ook\EVZ11 ETS\O11811 (Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening MND).docx i fill , NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OR POLICE ACTION Date: 11/512010 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 City Council Office(1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 Public Works(1 Copy) 11/5/2010 Filed By: Hart, King, Coldren - Pacific Mobile Home Park Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MND 2009-001 -Atlanta Avenue Widening Re: Project Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST-BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk (714).536-5227 Fee Collected: $3,045.00 Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Senior Deputy City Clerk lei NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION, PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION OR POLICE ACTION Date: 11/5/2010 To: Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 City Council Office (1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 Administration (1 Copy) Date Delivered 11/5/2010 Public Works (1 Copy) 11/5/2010 Filed By: Hart, King, Coldren - Pacific Mobile Home Park Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of MND 2009-001 -Atlanta Avenue Widening Re: Project Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached: Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC City Clerk (714) 536-5227 Fee Collected: $3,045.00 Form Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Senior Deputy City Clerk HART, KING & COLDREN " `rr _ 10 N! J `t Yd L.Hill bhiIr h cfaw.com November 5, 2010 Our File Nurriber,36608005/4840-1,-342-0039v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY Mayor and City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o City Clerk Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project(`Project") Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration("MIND") No. 2009-001 Dear Mayor and City Council: We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose property would need to be taken for the proposed Project. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's notice of appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the City's MND No. 2009-001 for the Project. The Park Owner's name and address are Pacific Mobile Home Park, LLC, 80 Huntington Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. The appeal fee in the amount of$3,045.00 is enclosed herewith. The grounds for appeal are set forth in great detail in the enclosed November 4, 2010 letter to CalTrans and in its attachments, which CalTrans letter is incorporated into this notice of appeal letter by this reference. The grounds for appeal include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the proposed Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the proposed Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered, would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, particularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resources impacts. 4. The City presents no evidence of current traffic of safety problems on Atlanta Avenue that support the MND finding that the proposed Project objective is to A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714.432.8700 1 www.hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546.7457 H Kk �_, City of Huntington Beach Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 November 5, 2010 Page 2 eliminate a traffic "choke point." In addition, there would still be one lane traffic on Atlanta Avenue to the west of the proposed Project. 5. The traffic study relied upon by the City does not demonstrate non-Project future traffic or safety problems because it fails to take into account the recently installed traffic light at Huntington Avenue as the appropriate pre-Project baseline. 6. The Park is a strong established community that will be divided by relocation of many of its residents resulting from the proposed Project. 7. The Park residents include many economically and socially disadvantaged persons, including seniors, disabled, families with young children, and pending retirees who will be disproportionately impacted by the proposed Project, but who were not notified of the proposed Project until just before the decision on the environmental review. 8. The Initial Study improperly fails to includ environmental review of the proposed Project's foreseeable relocation of Park residents, foreseeable relocation of the Park's drainage system, and foreseeable conditional use and coastal development permit conditions. 9. The purported mitigation measure for mobilehome relocation fails to take into account that mobilehomes cannot be relocated for various reasons, including their age, rules of other parks, and/or significant improvements attached to the land. 10. The Initial Study fails to take into account and study the proposed Project's growth inducing and noise impacts. Please advise of the time and date of the City Council hearing on this appeal. Sincerely, HARTJyH- KING & COLDREN ll BLH/dr Enclosures: $3,045 appeal fee November 4, 2010 CalTrans Letter and Attachments A RT, Y N v c. C LI f: City of Huntington Beach Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 November 5, 2010 Page 3 cc: Mark Hodgson Gary Hodgson Jim Hodgson Robert S. Coldren Travis Hopkins Mike Vigliotta Scott Hess Jennifer Villasenor LJ HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkclaw.com November 4, 2010 Our Pile Number:36608.005/4825-6509-5432v.1 VIA FACSIMILE AND E-MAIL Facsimile No. (949) 724-2267 Jm kaufman@dot.ca.gov charles baker(@-dot.ca.aov Jim Kaufman, Local Assistance Branch Chief Charles Baker, Senior Environmental Planner CalTrans District 12 3347 Michelson Drive, Suite 100 Irvine, CA 92612-8894 Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Proiect("Proiect") Pacific Mobilehome Park Appeal of MND Substantial Controversy on Environmental Grounds Dear Mssrs. Kaufman and Baker: This firm represents the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose property would be taken for the proposed Atlanta Avenue Widening Project in the City of Huntington Beach. We understand that you are the District 12 Branch Chief for Local Assistance and Senior Environmental Planner who will be making the decision for CalTrans regarding the level of NEPA review for federal highway funding for the proposed Project. The purpose of this letter is to present information why the proposed Project should not be reviewed by CalTrans under a Categorical Exclusion. Under Section 771.117 (b) (1) & (2) of the Code of Federal Regulations, a project cannot be categorically excluded if there is substantial controversy on environmental grounds or it there are significant environmental impacts. Because the proposed Project will cause relocation of a substantial number of mobilehome park residents and reconfiguration of park drainage, which actions are not studied as part of the proposed Project, the proposed Project will have significant unmitigated environmental impacts. In addition, an organized group of Park residents and the Park owner have raised substantial controversy on environmental grounds regarding the proposed Project. At the October 26, 2010 Planning Commission hearing on the mitigated negative declaration for the proposed Project, approximately 20 Park residents showed up in opposition to the proposed Project, and a designated resident representative read the enclosed October 26, 2010 letter to the City Council. The enclosed October 26, 2010 resident letter, the enclosed September 27, 2010 Park owner letter, and the enclosed October 26, 2010 Orange County Register Newspaper article provide evidence of substantial controversy regarding the following environmental grounds: A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California 92707 Ph 714,432.8700 1 www.hkciaw.com I Fx 714,546,7457 H K . ..'!' t,.,.D F-1AF;I-i. I<II ID r. CO LD P.EN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 2 1. There are no current traffic or safety problems on Atlanta Avenue that support the MND finding that the proposed Project is needed to eliminate a traffic "choke point." 2. The traffic study relied upon by the City does not demonstrate future traffic or safety problems because it fails to take into account the recently installed traffic light at Huntington Avenue as the appropriate pre-project baseline. 3. The Park is a strong established community that will be divided by relocation of many of its residents resulting from the Project. 4. The Park residents include many economically and socially disadvantaged persons, including seniors, disabled, families with young children, and pending retirees who will be disproportionately impacted by the proposed Project. 5. The Initial Study improperly fails to include environmental review of the Project's foreseeable relocation of Park residents and of relocation of the Park's drainage system. 6. The purported mitigation measure for mobilehome relocation fail to take into account that mobilehomes cannot be relocated for various reasons, including their age, rules of other parks, and/or significant improvements attached to the land. 7. The Initial Study failed to take into account and study the proposed Project's growth inducing and noise environmental impacts. 1. There is No Evidence in Support of the City's Proiect Objective Finding. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of informative and legally adequate environmental review. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Hensler (1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592) An adequate project description must state the objectives to be accomplished by the project, including "the underlying purpose of the project." (See 14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15124 (b)) A project without a clearly stated objective cannot be reviewed to determine whether there are other alternatives to the proposed project that will cause less significant environmental impacts. (See In Re Bay Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings(2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1163) The City finding regarding the Project objective must be supported by substantial evidence. (See Topanga Assn, for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514-515 ["Section 1094.5 clearly contemplates that at minimum, the reviewing court must determine both whether substantial evidence supports the administrative agency's findings and whether the findings support the agency's decision."]) Here, the City finds that the objective for the proposed Project is to "eliminate [an alleged] choke point." (See August 5, 2010 City Environmental Checklist Form, Page 2) However, the City presents no evidence that the current Atlanta Avenue lane configuration creates a "choke point" causing traffic congestion or traffic safety issues. In fact, as the attached aerial photo demonstrates, the City recently installed a concrete median to the east of the project area restricting traffic to one lane that will not be eliminated by the proposed Project. HK.." , FIART. KING 6, G01- )REN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 3 The resident letter presents substantial evidence that there are no current traffic or safety issues, contrary to the City's finding that the current lane configuration creates a "choke point." As anybody who lives in the area of the intersection of Atlanta Ave. and Huntington St. know ... there is absolutely NO traffic issue that warrants adding 740ft of one lane to Atlanta Ave. We all drive this section of Atlanta, and use this intersection daily ... many of us several times a day. I cannot stress enough--as any citizen who drives this intersection knows ... there is no backup, no traffic jams, no rush hour jams, no lengthy wait at the intersection, no traffic hazard, no safety hazard that exists at this section of street and intersection in its current configuration. Currently, pedestrians, bide riders and vehicles can easily commute and travel simultaneously ... with no extraordinary hazard or danger than is offered on any other street/sidewalk configuration in the city. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 2) Thus, the resident letter presents substantial evidence that there is no "choke point" caused by the current Atlanta Avenue lane configuration. The City's Planning Commission Staff Report for the Project candidly admits that there is no evidence that the proposed Project will result in less traffic congestion or safety: However, it should be noted that the MND states that the project would help to minimize accident potential and vehicular conflicts and provide for improved traffic safety and does not assert that the project will result in a decrease of accidents in the project area, although that could be the case. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 12 [underline added]) Thus, the City's finding regarding the proposed Project objective is unsupported by evidence, and the City is undertaking harm to the environment without justification. Therefore, the City's MND is invalid and an EIR must be prepared. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality Management Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 ["If no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR."]) HART. K*40 C COLORGN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 4 2. The City's Traffic Study Cannot Be Used as Evidence to Support the P_ro ect Objective Finding Because the Study Uses an Incorrect Baseline. Recognizing that there is no evidence of a current traffic congestion or safety problem with the current Atlanta lane configuration, the City attempts to manufacture evidence of a future problem by pointing to a traffic study that was previously used for the neighboring Pacific City project showing traffic congestion on the affected portion of Atlanta Avenue in the year 2030. According to that study, traffic circulation would not significantly improve as a result of Atlanta Avenue widening, but would significantly improve with the installation of a traffic signal at the intersection with Huntington Avenue. Based on that traffic study, the City required installation of a traffic light as mitigation for the Pacific City project but did not require the Pacific City project developer to widen Atlanta Avenue, thus evidencing that the City previously found that the current configuration of the affected section of Atlanta Avenue will not cause future traffic congestion. The City now attempts to use that same traffic study as justification for a Project that consists of the very mitigation measure that the City determined was not necessary to impose on the developer of the Pacific City project. That traffic study cannot be used as evidence of the objective for the proposed Project because it fails to account for the now-installed existing traffic signal as the appropriate baseline for environmental review of the proposed Project. (See Communities for a Better Environment v. South Coast Air Quality District, supra, 48 Cal.4th at 320-321 ("A long line of Court of Appeal decisions holds, in similar terms, that the impacts of a proposed project are ordinarily to be compared to the actual environmental conditions existing at the time of CEQA analysis ...."]) The City Staff Report candidly admits that the traffic signal is part of the pre-Project baseline, but incorrectly argues that the traffic study does not need to study the pre-Project baseline or the Project with a traffic signal included: Additionally, as the traffic signal is not part of the proposed project, there is no requirement to analyze the installation of the traffic signal with or without the project. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 12) Thus, the traffic study does not study the incremental impacts from the proposed Project with the existing traffic signal Huntington Ave. traffic signal to determine whether or not there is evidence in support of the Project objective. Therefore, the MND cannot be valid because the environmental review uses an incorrect baseline. HART, KtIdG CO1.aRI:.r•! Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 5 3. An EIR is Required Because the Project will Physically Divide an Established Community. An EIR is mandated when a proposed project will physically divide an established residential community causing significant social or economic impacts. (See Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003) In Friends of "B" Street, the removal of 12 residences was cited as substantial evidence for requiring an EIR because of the impact in dividing an established residential community. CEQA makes clear that significant social or economic effects of physically dividing an established community resulting from a road project constitute significant environment effects: Economic or social effects of a project may be used to determine the significance of physical changes caused by the project. For example, if the construction of a new freeway or rail line divides an existing community, the construction would be the physical change, but the social effect on the community would be the basis for determining that the effect would be significant. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15131 (b); see also 14 Cal. Code Regs., Appendix G, IX (a) ["Would the project physically divide an established community."]) Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook makes clear that mobilehome park communities are to be considered cohesive established communities that can be disrupted by transportation projects physically dividing the parks: Community cohesion is the degree to which residents have a "sense of belonging" to their neighborhood, a level of commitment of the residents to the community, or a strong attachment to neighbors, groups, and institutions, usually as a result of continued association over time. Cohesion refers to the degree of interaction among the individuals, groups and institutions that make up a community. Transportation projects impacts tend to be more disruptive to cohesive communities." (Section 4-6.1, Page 49) Displacement of mobile home,park resident may involve impacts not typically encountered by residents of more traditional houses or apartments." (Section 4-7.2, Page 55) Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 6 Residents in mobile home parks often live in a "community within a community." Many parks have organized community activities for seniors set up around a recreation center. Planners should contact the park manager to determine whether or not there are organized activities." (Section 4-7.2, Page 56) The resident letter presents substantial evidence that the Park consists of an established mobilehome community: Let me tell you council members ... just because we live in mobile homes, doesn't mean they are meant to be moved on the whim of an unnecessary civil project .... All of us live in our homes and our location because we CHOOSE to live there. We are a strong community—we are friends, and neighbors ... we help each other, and look out for each other. We have a secure, safe and enjoyable lifestyle. These are our HOMES ... we have worked, planned and made specific decision because of the incredible lifestyle offered us in this location in this community. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 2) The Park has many features of an established community, including a central clubhouse with a pool, jacuzzi, billiard table, library, exercise room and kitchen; and including centrally organized resident social activities and emergency planning. Meanwhile, the City fails to present evidence that the Park is not an established residential community. Instead, the City dismissively and incorrectly argues that because there will not be commercial encroachment, that the existing park residential community will be preserved: Finally, unlike the "Friends of B Street" case, there is no evidence that the project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic; in fact the community character will be enhanced with the improved road and landscaping. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Page 6) The City's argument incorrectly interprets the Friends of "B" Street holding pertaining to disruption of the residential character of the neighborhood: Contrary to the City's argument, Friends of"B"Street makes clear that it was the physical disruption of an established residential community by displacement of 12 families (including commercial stores) that was the basis for its decision, not commercial encroachment. H KI'*, , C HART. KMG r COLOPEN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 7 Here, the City intends to displace 8 families of an even more established residential community, a mobilehome park. Therefore, under Friends of "B" Street, an EIR is required to study the significant social effects of physically dividing the Park community as a result of the proposed Project. 4. The City Failed to Involve Disadvantaged Members of the Society From the Park in Early Discussions of the Project, Violating Principles of Environmental Justice. CalTrans is required to take into consideration environmental justice issues relating to a project. As Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook states, the disadvantaged people impacted by a project do matter: Do people count? Yes. It is important to determine if minority, low income, disadvantaged, and low mobility groups in the affected area would be disproportionately impacted by transportation decision and practices and to find ways to mitigate if such effects could not otherwise be avoided. In recent years the term "environmental justice" has risen to prominence, and this section briefly discusses it. Moreover, many of the aspects are aligned with the need for community participation in all phases of environmental planning; while this is not a new requirement, public agencies at all levels of government have not always actively sought out the opinions of all peoples affected by their plans and actions. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) Environmental justice refers to the fair treatment of peoples of all races, cultures, and income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) To ensure that environmental justice is promoted, and see that programs and projects are implemented in a socially equitable fashion, the planner analyzing socioeconomic issues should identify ethnic and racial minority and low-income population groups in the affected community and make contacts with the leadership in an informational outreach program. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) These various community groups must be involved early during the project development process, ideally when transportation plans are being developed at the regional level, well before the H:\RT. 1<I1-1G COLDREr,i Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 8 official public hearings are held for specific projects as required by environmental laws. (Section 2-7.2, Page 14) The resident letter written on the date of the official Planning Commission hearing under CEQA provides substantial evidence that the Park residents are economically disadvantaged and were left out of the environmental review process, contrary to established principles of environmental justice: I am writing this letter on behalf of the homeowners that are scheduled to have their homes demolished in Pacific Mobile Horne Park due to the widening of Atlanta Ave. We do not agree this widening is in the best interest of the public, it is an irresponsible use of scarce public funds, and is a serious and destructive intrusion into the lives of the homeowners that will be affected, as well as the owner of Pacific Mobile Home Park. In addition, this is a very irresponsible use of the ultimate power of Government over Citizens ... Eminent Domain. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 1) The City's justification for the displacement of the homeowners, and the disregard of the property owner are both unacceptable. The justification is presented as a very matter of fact, very simple, very easy process. Nothing could be further from the trust, and there are numerous issues that have not been presented to the funding sources and decision makers who approve the funding for this project. You are planning on destroying our HOMES. There are seniors, disabled, families with young children, as well as pending retirees that are affected. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 2) CalTrans and OCTA as the funding approval agencies only get one side of the story--naturally, the justification paints a perfect picture, that provides the impression this so called improvement has to be done, or there are severe public consequences. Nobody at CalTrans or the Federal Highway Administration has heard the other side ... the homeowners, or the property owners side of the facts relative to the project. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Page 3) The attached excerpts from the resident letter provide substantial evidence that there are disadvantaged members of society affected by the proposed Project that were not consulted in HK . C HART. is1ric r cOi_DPtr•i Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re. Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 9 advance whose opinions were not solicited, heard or noted until the official Planning Commission hearing on the proposed Project. Such evidence clearly demonstrates that the City has not even made token acknowledgement of the environmental justice concerns arising from the proposed Project, 5. The City Failed to Include the Entire Project in its Environmental Review, Failing to Include Environmental Review of Relocation, Drainage and Government Condition Impacts. CEQA defines the term "Project" broadly to include the whole of an action, direct and indirect impacts on the environment, and any subsequent discretionary actions of the government agencies. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143) An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential effects of a proposed activity. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated pars of the whole. (See Id.) The October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report expressly admits at page 4 thereof that the proposed Project will require future approval of a conditional use permit for the block wall and a coastal development permit. However, the Initial Study makes no attempt to describe any potential conditions for approval of a conditional use permit or coastal development permit as part of the proposed Project. The City Environmental Checklist Form at Page 3 also expressly admits that the Project environmental review does not include environmental review of any relocation alternatives, despite the listing of potential relocation alternatives: Potential relocation alternatives include on-site relocation, off-site relocation to another park or conventional dwelling unit, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufactured/mobile home. On-site relocation could occur by relocating the residents to an existing available space within the park or through reconfiguration of the park to include an adjacent undeveloped area along Delaware Street. Since the City cannot negotiate the relocation alternatives with the impacted residents until the aforementioned steps (Le, -- environmental review, fedrai authorization, land acquisition) are completed, it is uncertain where the impacted residents would be relocated. Therefore, the physical relocation is not reasonably foreseeable. At such time that the relocation site(s) can be determined, the relocation would HART, Kil,JE3 .�! COLDREN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 10 be subject to environmental review pursuant to CEQA. (August 5, 2010 City Environmental Checklist Form, Page 3) However, in the City's project narrative, the City makes clear that the relocation alternatives are "foreseeable" alternatives: The foreseeable alternatives include on-site reloation to a comparable unit, off-site relocation to another park with a comparable units, or a monetary offer for residents who no longer choose to own a manufactured home. (City Project Engineer Project Narrative, Page 2) The City's position that it must put off considering the environmental impacts of potential conditions of foreseeable future governmental permits, and of potential alternatives for foreseeable relocation is based on faulty reasoning. The lack of present funding for relocation and lack of final permit approval do not prevent consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the presently foreseeable relocation alternatives or of the presently foreseeable conditions, Furthermore, during the Planning Commission hearing, it was revealed that the City has not prepared a hydrology study or prepared a drainage plan to study the environmental effects of relocation of a Park storm drain, but acknowledges it will have to do so prior to movement of the Park storm drain In order to assure continued proper Park drainage. Thus, the Project that was studied in preparation for the MND does not include environmental review of all of the foreseeable components of the proposed Project, such as the government approvals, the relocation plan, and the movement of the Park storm drain, Therefore the MND is an invalid approval of merely a segment of the proposed Project, The City's promises that it will study the potential environmental effects of relocation, government conditions and drainage plans in the future do not excuse the failure to study foreseeable environmental effects during initial project environmental review 6, The HIND Does Not Provide for Adequate Mitigation of the Proiect's Significant Environmental Effects. A mitigation monitoring plan or program is only as good as the information contained in the environmental review about the significant impacts. Because the City failed to study the environmental impacts regarding relocation alternatives, government conditions the City cannot determine whether it mitigated all significant environmental impacts, especially those concerned with relocation. (See Sunstrom v, County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 ["By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to that policy of Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 11 CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process."]) Environmental impacts pertaining to relocation of mobilehomes are more significant than environmental impacts from ordinary resident relocation. As Section 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook states: Displacement of mobile home park residents may involve impacts not typically encountered by residents of more traditional houses or apartments. First, the term "mobile home" is now somewhat of a misnomer as most units only move from the factory to a permanent site. The term "manufactured housing" is becoming more common, especially when applied to models constructed in the part quarter-century or so. Mobile home parks often occupy an unfavorable position in community planning and zoning due to their low tax base and because conventional residential owner- occupants rarely want them to be located nearby because they feel they may affect their neighborhood's overall property values. Manufactured housing still suffers from financing and zoning barriers arising out of old attitudes towards mobile homes. Consequently, new parks that could be built to accommodate displaced mobile home owners are difficult to establish in some parts of California. When mobile home park occupants must relocate, themobile home is often sold in place due to the loss in value when it is not established on a pad or site and the relatively high cost of moving the home. Some parks charge a fee when a home remains, but this is usually less than the cost of transporting it. Also, an old mobile home may be considered obsolete or unattractive and so may not be allowed in other, or newer, parks. Therefore, changes in occupancy do not always resut in vacant spaces, and this limits the supply of spaces available to accommodate displaces. Too, often the rental rate for the mobile home is raised to "market levels" for a new owner. In cases where a vacant space does become available, the space is often filled as a result of a continuing agreement between the park management and local mobile home dealers who have what is tantamount to an option on the vacant site for their customers. HK I-FOPT. K!r4G .S: GQt_aP[hl Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 12 Normally, new parks will accept only new or nearly-new manufactured housing units. When used units are accepted, park management often requires painting, new skirting and awnings, landscaping, and such. New parks are generally designed to accept "double wide" units" (the average size of new mobile homes is 1,210 square feet). This eliminates them as a source for more affordable "signle wide" units. Because of these special characteristics, it is often difficult to locate mobile home residents near their former area or with their neighborhood friends and relatives. This exacerbates the other relocation impacts such as loss of support groups, commute time increases, and so forth. (Section 4-7,2, Pages 55 & 56) The resident letter presents substantial evidence that those particular mobilehome relocation impacts required to be studied and mitigated have not been studied or mitigated for the proposed Project: Also, the relocation plan outlined by the city, is 100% NON committal ... you could at your option, relocate us anywhere you wanted, and offer very undesireable living arrangements. You should note ... all but one of the homes you !want to "move" can[not] actually be moved ... you will have to replace/purchase new homes. An expense I think you may have underestimated. My home, for example is actually more square footage of traditional foundation and wood frame construction than] is it mobile home ... in my case, you are literally destroying a "real home. (October 26, 2010 Resident Letter, Pages 2-3) The City's mere reference to the future environmental review of a future relocation plan or to environmental review of a future conditional use/coastal development permit with future hydriology studies as a mitigation "plan" fails to take into account the special circumstances of mobilehome relocation required to be considered by CalTrans. Furthermore, mitigation measures cannot be put off into the future by reference to a future "plan." (See Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at 306 ["The requirement that the applicant adopt mitigation measures recommended in a future study is in direct conflict with the guidelines implementing CBQA."]) HK:,r ,'::�' c HAFT, KiIIG ;: CCJLDRr-N Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 13 7. There are Additional Unstudied and/or Unmitigated Environmental Impacts as Indicated by the Park Owner As the enclosed September 27, 2010 letter written on behalf of the Park Owner discusses, the City's analysis of other significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project are deficient, including but not limited to its growth inducing impacts and noise impacts. CEQA requires that road widening projects which increase the capacity of the road include a study of the particular project growth inducing impacts. The City cannot excuse itself by relying upon its General Plan instead of studying project specific growth inducement impacts. (See City of Antioch v. City Council (1988) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332 ["conformity with the general plan for the area ... does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement where it may be fairly argued that the project will general significant environmental effects."]) The October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, seeking to run away from the "choke point"justification for the Project, reveals that the real objective for the proposed Project is not to eliminate a "choke point," but instead to increase traffic capacity: The MND states that the project would bring the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue into compliance with the primary arterial designation specified in the General Plan, Atlanta Avenue has been designated as a primary arterial since 978, long before consideration of the Pacific City project. The Pacific City project has already widened Atlanta Avenue from the First Street to Huntington Street to its ultimate configuration, which leave a "chokepoint" on the subject segment of Atlanta Avenue. While the project would alleviate the "chokepoint" and improve traffic safety in the project area, this is not the primary purpose of the project. (October 26, 2010 Planning Commission Staff Report, Pages 11- 12) Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook expressly states that capacity improvements are growth inducing and must be studied: A traditional shorthand way of looking at growth inducement is as the removal of obstacles to growth, and is specified as such in the CEQA Guidelines highlighted previously. Capacity improvements should be considered removal of transportation related obstacles to growth. By this given definition, a project to increase capacity in a highway can be understood as growth inducing. That does not make it a "bad" project, however. The conclusion sought from HAP.T. KIHG C0LDIREH Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 14 the analysis is whether or not the future project capacity will exceed the predicted traffic capacity as needed by the planned population of the area. The identified excess capacity is an indicator of the likely significance of the growth induced or facilitated by the project. (Section 4-3, Page 39) Volume 4 of the CalTrans Environmental Handbook also makes clear that the City of Antioch requirement to study particular project impacts still holds true even for road widening projects in already established urban areas: If any growth is expected, the discussion must be more analytical than a statement that growth will occur anyway and local agencies have the power to control growth rates and patterns. The discussion should not be loaded down with generic explanations of the typical relationship between transportation and growth; it should be specific to the project and affected area. (Section 4-3, Page 39) The City's vain attempt to distinguish City of Antioch is thus without merit because the proposed Project will provide for increased capacity, as admitted by the City. Therefore, the City failed to include, study and/or mitigate for the proposed Project's growth inducing impacts in violation of CEQA. In conclusion, on behalf of the Park Owner and the Park residents, we request that CalTrans refuse to issue a categorical exclusion for the proposed Project, but instead require the City to prepare an EIR/EIS in connection with the proposed Project. Sincerely, HART, KING & COLDREN Boyd L. Hill Enclosures: September 27, 2010 Park Owner Letter October 26, 2010 Resident Letter October 26, 2010 Orange County Register Newspaper Article Aerial Photo a. - TART, 1:1HZ & G0LEDPEN Jim Kaufman Charles Baker CalTrans Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project November 4, 2010 Page 15 cc: Mark Hodgson Gary Hodgson Jeff Hodgson Robert Coldren Travis Hopkins Mike Vigliotta Scott Hess Jennifer Villasenor — ] — October 26.2010 October 25, 2010 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Attn: City Council, Attn: Dept. of Public Works Dear community leaders, Due to previous business commitments that cannot be changed, I am sending this correspondence to be read and presented in my absence. I am writing this letter on behalf of the homeowners that are scheduled to have their homes demolished in Pacific Mobile Home Park due to the widening of Atlanta Ave. We do not agree this widening is in the best interest of the public, it is an irresponsible use of scarce public funds, and is a serious and destructive intrusion into the lives of the homeowners that will be affected, as well as the owner of Pacific Mobile Home Park. In addition, this is a very irresponsible use of the ultimate power of Government over Citizens...Eminent Domain. The City of Huntington Beach has stated several items that are priorities, and reasons for justification: • Street Capacity • Traffic Safety • Accommodation of Local Transit • Bicycle Safety • The City's General Plan • Development of adjacent property These justification items provided by the City are all based on a flawed premise that there are actual traffic, and safety issues, (there are not !). The general premise is the current street capacity is inadequate. This is not true---the current street capacity is indeed adequate, and would still be adequate in the event of further development in adjacent empty land. In addition, just because something is on the General Plan, does not mean it's correct or the right thing to do. The Mobile Home Park has been in place far longer than the current General Plan.. (the park has been in place since the raid 50's). This private property should —2— October 26,2010 have been acknowledged and respected when the decision to take this property as a part of the General Plan was made. It was a wrong decision. Overall, the justification provided for this project is basically political rhetoric, and could be applied to and used as a generic justification for any potential street widening, in any city in this country. 1. As anybody who lives in the area of the intersection of Atlanta Ave. and Huntington St. knows...there is absolutely NO traffic issue that warrants adding 740ft of one lane to Atlanta Ave., We all drive this section of Atlanta, and use this intersection daily...many of us several times a day. I cannot stress enough----as any citizen who drives this intersection knows... there is no backup, no traffic jams, no rush hour jams, no lengthy wait at the intersection, no traffic hazard, no safety hazard that exists at this section of street and intersection in it's current configuration. Currently, pedestrians, bike riders and vehicles can easily commute and travel simultaneously.. with no extraordinary hazard or danger that is offered on any other street/ sidewalk configuration in the city. There'is absolutely nothing that warrants the destruction of our homes and lifestyle for the addition of 740ft of one lane of asphalt. In addition, now that a light has been put in to manage the intersection...this is without question a safe and well managed intersection...WITH NO TRAFFIC OR SAFETY HAZARDS OR LIMITATIONS 1 2. Based on the fact that there is no real need or impending traffic flow disaster if this widening does not occur, the point needs to be made this is a very irresponsible use of funds. With the current economic and revenue crisis, I am quite sure there are many, many better uses for this funding. 3. The City's justification for the displacement of the homeowners, and the disregard of the property owner are both unacceptable. The justification is presented as a very matter of fact, very simple, very easy process. Nothing could be further from the truth, and there are numerous issues that have not been presented to the funding sources and decision makers who approve the funding for this project. You are planning on destroying our HOMES. There are seniors, disabled, families with young children, as well as pending retirees that are affected. The environmental impact study states although homes will have be destroyed, and individuals moved...it can easily be done and this potential negative effect mitagated... Let me tell you council members...just because we live in mobile homes, doesn't mean they are meant to be moved on the whim of an unnecessary civil project.... All of us live in our homes, and our location because we CHOOSE to live there. We are a strong community.---.we are friends, and neighbors..we help each other, and look out for each other. We have a secure, safe and enjoyable lifestyle. These are our HOMES...we have worked, planned, and made specific decisions because of the incredible lifestyle offered us in this location in this community. Also...the relocation plan outlined by the city is 100% NON committal... you could at your option, relocate us anywhere you wanted, and 3— October 26.2010 offer very undesireable living arrangements. You should note..all the but one of the homes you want to "move" can actually be moved...you will have to replace /purchase new homes.. An expense I think you may have underestimated. My home, for example is actually more square footage of traditional foundation and wood frame construction that is it mobile home... in my case, you are literally destroying a "real" home...... 4. Obviously, the City employees who request this funding will have a very positive "spin" on the justification. This is expected, as these projects are what keep them employed. They cannot be expected to have an objective opinion, since they are being well paid to have the opinion that will keep them employed, and keep the projects flowing... Cal Trans and OCTA as the funding approval agencies only get one side of the story--naturally, the justification paints a perfect picture, that provides the impression this so called improvement has to be done, or there are severe public consequences.. Nobody at Caltrans or the Federal Highway Administration has heard the other side... the homeowners, or the property owners side of the facts relative to the project. In closing, I would like to point out to the Government employees 1 have written to... We do understand there can be many valid reasons to destroy homes under eminent domain. There are indeed traffic needs, areas of urban distress and degradation, as well as needs of overall public housing, or public buildings that can justify the taking of homes and property. If there were indeed an overwhelming traffic issue or problem, some terrible safety issue, discarded or dangerous housing that provides an outlet for drugs or some community hazard, etc..etc. we are quite capable of understanding this, and would realize the destruction of our homes and forced change in our lifestyles is valid, and something we need to accept. This is absolutely not the case here. The City is set to destroy one of the few remaining classic, and culturally, historically, and architecturally significant pieces of property not only in the city of Huntington Beach, but in Southern California. Under objective analysis, everything about this project's justification is weak and rhetorical....it is a classic example of everything that is and can be bad about Government. The fact is...there is no actual need to destroy our homes, implement this unnecessary widening, and spend very scarce public funds so irresponsibly. Thank you for your time. I am happy to discuss this further, and provide additional detail to any City, Caltrans, OCTA, or FHA employee who needs further clarification as to the points make in this statement. —4— October 26,2010 Sincerely Rod Stolk, 80 Huntinton St., #302 Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 r - ---"-a---- --- .. r....f.-...� .,............ 1 Lire 1 U1 _ THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTLIX H.B. mobile home park owner fights city's property seizure By JAIMEE LYNN FLETCHER 2010-10-25 11 41:39 HUNTINGTON BEACH—The owner of a mobile home park is challenging a city street-widening project that would require the city to take eight mobile homes by eminent domain, saying the city did not sufficiently study the potential impacts of the project. Attorneys representing Pacific Mobilehome Park have a filed an ;.ate appeal that is expected to be reviewed Tuesday by the Planning Commission on the city's environmental review for the project to widen Atlanta Avenue between Huntington and Delaware streets. City staff suggests the commission pass a mitigated negative declaration,which means the possible environmental impacts are not significant enough to do an in-depth study of the project. Boyd L. Hill contends the city did not appropriately study the environmental impacts of the project and officials have not established a public necessity to take the eight mobile homes and possibly relocate its residents. "(The city's report)provides evidence that the project is both not needed and not presently viable," Hill wrote in a letter to the city. The project was first recognized in 2006 by the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program to widen the street and bring it up to standards to qualify as a primary arterial highway,which means including two lanes each way, a bike lane and a sidewalk, among other improvements. Atlanta Avenue currently has one lane in each direction in the proposed project area. The city will have to obtain federal funding in three stages to get the project under way: preliminary engineering, right-of-way, in which they would acquire the needed land to build out the street, and construction, City staff reported they cannot yet get into negotiations to discuss the possible taking of the eight units from Pacific Mobilehome Park because they have not received the go-ahead from the federal government to pursue this part of the project. The city also identified some possible alternatives to relocating the residents outside their park, including offering them payment for their home or relocating them to a different area within the park. The city's zoning administrator on Sept. 15 approved waiving the need for an in-depth environmental report, saying widening the street would not have any significant impacts on a variety of areas including air quality, noise and cultural resources, among other criteria. Hill disagrees, saying possibly having to relocate 16 residents should have prompted the city to take a deeper look. He added that he doesn't believe the city looked hard enough at the impacts on traffic, noise and drainage near the mobile home park. "A road-widening project that will displace several families and result in the loss of the residential litip://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=272699 1 1/4/2010 community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly," Hill wrote. Roger Savoie Jr., who lives in one of the units that would be taken by the city, said the city should leave the street, and his mobile home, alone. "There are about two days a year where widening Atlanta would be beneficial. The rest of the year, it's not necessary," he wrote in a letter to the city. "My only hope is that funding doesn't happen and that this ridiculous project doesn't happen," In addition to securing federal funding for the project, the city will also have to obtain a coastal permit, a conditional use permit and city approvals for the project, which would come to the commission for separate hearings. City staff reported the earliest construction would begin on the project is 2013. Contact the writer: 714-796-7953 or ifletcher(a�ocregister.com ©Copyrighl 2010 Freedom Communications.All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy I User Agreement I site Map littp://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=272699 1 1/4/20l 0 HART. Kl1`QG & COLDREN Boyd L.Hill bhill@hkclaw.com September 27, 2010 Our File Number:36608.005/4840-1342-0039v.1 VIA HAND DELIVERY City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 c/o Scott Hess, Director of Planning Planning and Building Department Re: Atlanta Avenue Widening Project ("Project' Appea! of Zoning Administrator Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND")No. 2009-001 Dear Commissioners: We represent the owner of the Pacific Mobilehome Park, whose property would need to be taken for the proposed Project. This letter constitutes the Park Owner's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of the City's MND for the Project. The appeal fee in the amount of $2,002 is enclosed herewith. The grounds for appeal are as follows: r 1. There is no substantial evidence of public necessity for the Project which involves the taking of private Park property on which resident mobile homes are located. 2. An Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") should have been prepared because the MND wrongfully fails to consider that part of the Project which involves relocation of Park residents, which relocation, if considered, would require preparation of an EIR. 3. An EIR should have been prepared because there is a fair argument that the Project, as mitigated, may have significant impacts on the environment, parlicularly regarding land use, housing, growth, air quality, drainage, noise and biological resources impacts. THE MND CONTAINS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF PROJECT PUBLIC NECESSITY In order for the Project which encompasses the taking of private Park properly to be lawful, the City must establish the public necessity for the Project. (See Code Civ, Proc., 1240.030) The MND does not point to any anticipated Park change in use that will justify building out the adjacent street to the maximum general plan width. In addition, the MND candidly admits that there is no current funding source that would allow the Project to be built within the near future. A Professional Law Corporation 200 Sandpoinle, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, Catilornia 92707 Ph 714.4328700 1 v✓wv✓hkclaw.com I Fx 714.546,7457 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 2 The MND alleges that the Project is made necessary by the previous approval of the mixed use Pacific City Development just west of the Project, which Development widened Atlanta Avenue to its ultimate location, leaving an alleged "choke point" along Atlanta Avenue where the Park is located. According to the MND, the existing 26 foot offset in the south curb alignment al the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street "requires additional motorist decisions" and creates "a greater potential for merging accidents and motorists inadvertently driving vehicles off of the street." Neither the MND nor the traffic study attached thereto provide evidence to support this conclusion regarding the alleged safety issues pertaining to the existing south curb offset. The MND provides no evidence of a greater number of accidents at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street, no evidence of a greater number of vehicles running off the street, and no evidence of traffic backups resulting from the south curb offset. Indeed, some of the most heavily traveled roads, highways and interstates in Southern California have well marked lane reductions without any significant reductions in safety. The traffic study attached to the MND provides substantial evidence to the contrary of the MND justification for the Project. The traffic study demonstrates that regardless of the Project there will be significant traffic obstruction at the intersection of Atlanta Avenue and Huntington Street unless there is a traffic signal light placed at that intersection. With a traffic signal light, traffic obstruction at the intersection is avoided. The traffic study glaringly fails to study whether a signal light without the Project would relieve any existing traffic obstruction, although it is clear from the traffic study that the Project without a traffic signal light will not. Therefore, the MND does not provide evidence of the public necessity for the proposed Project and its relocation of Park resident mobile homes. Instead it provides evidence that the Project is both not needed and not presently viable. THE MND CONTAINS AN INADEQUATE PIECEMEAL_ PROJECT DESCRIPTION The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA," Pub. Res. Code 21000 et seq.) is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to the environment. CEtCA is to be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language. (See Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com. (1997) 16 CalAth 105, 112) An EIR is the heart of CEOA. Its purpose it to inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of their decisions before they are made. Thus, the EIR protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. (See Laurel Heighls Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391, fn 2) A negative declaration is proper only if the public agency determines based on an initial study City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 3 that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080 (c) (1) & (d); 14 Cal. Code Regs., §§ 15063 (b) (2), 15070 (a)) An EIR must be prepared whenever there is a fair argument on the basis of substantial evidence that the project will have significant environmental impact. (See No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75) A proper initial study requires that "all phases of project planning, implementation and operation ... be considered." (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15053 (a) (1)). Indeed, an accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of informative and legally adequate environmental review. (See Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport v. Hensler(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 577, 592) An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the potential environmental effects of a proposed activity. A narrow view of a project could result in the fallacy of division, that is, overlooking its cumulative impact by separately focusing on isolated parts of the whole. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136. 1143) For these reasons, CEQA mandates that environmental considerations not become submerged by chopping a large project into many little ones, each with a potential impact on the environment, which cumulatively may have a significant impact. (See City of Santee v. County of San Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1452) CEQA defines the term "project" broadly to include the whole of an action, direct and indirect impacts on the environmental, and any subsequent discretionary actions of the government agencies. (See McQueen v. Board of Directors, supra, 202 Cal,App.3d at 1143) The MND describes the Project as the widening of the south side of Atlanta Avenue between Huntington Street and Delaware Street to comply with the primary arterial street classification in the City's General Plan Element. Currently there is one lane of traffic on the south side. The Project will add an additional lane, a bike lane and a sidewalk along the south side of Atlanta Avenue. The MND lists the scope of the Project to encompass condemnation of Park land, removal and relocation of eight mobile homes, clearing and grubbing of the land, construction of an asphalt concrete roadway, striping, curb, gutter, sidewalk, an 8-feet tall concrete block wall atop a retaining wall possibly 7-feet in height, landscaping that includes the removal of 25 mature trees, reconstruction of a circulation road within the Park, construction of two emergency access gates within the Park, utility and fire hydrant relocation, relocation of a drainage catch basin, relocation of utility poles and overhead lines. The MND states that the Project will require approval of a conditional use permit for the block wall and a coastal development permit. However, the MND makes no attempt to describe any potential conditions for approval of a conditional use permit or coastal development permit. Despite its acknowledgement that the Project will require relocation of eight mobile homes, the MND inappropriately claims that the City cannot conduct environmental review for the relocation City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 4 impacts because the City cannot yet determine whether relocation from the Park will be required because the City has not yet obtained funding for the Project, The City's reasoning here is faulty. The lack of current funding for the Project, while relevant to whether there is public necessity for the Project, does not prevent the City from performing an analysis of whether there is sufficient room for relocation within the Park for those mobile homes that will be moved. Therefore the MND description of the Project is inadequate and incomplete. It appears that the City is deliberately trying to avoid preparing an EIR by segmenting the Project so that it does not include relocation of Park residents. Under CEGA, there is a mandatory finding of significance if the environmental effects of a project will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15065) A road widening project that will displace several families and result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area will clearly cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. (See Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1003) Therefore, by improperly segmenting or piece-mealing the Project, the City violates CEQA. An EIR rather than the MND should have been prepared. THERE 1S FAIR ARGUMENT OF SIGNIFICANT PROJECT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT A mitigated negative declaration is appropriate only if project revisions avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects that are identified or that should have been identified in the initial study to the point where no significant effect on the environmental would occur. (See Pub. Res. Code.§ 21064) Under CEOA a significant effect on the environment means a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21068) Appendix G of the CEOA Guidelines provides a checklist of significant environmental impacts that an agency should evaluate for a project in its initial study. The initial study checklist is included in the MND. The MND initial study checklist contains several erroneous and/or factually unsupported findings regarding significant environmental impacts and/or mitigation thereof: 1. Land Use and Planning. a. Conflict with Existing Land Use Regulation, The MND incorrectly finds that the Project will not conflict with any applicable land use regulation of an agency over the Park. The MND expressly states that the City will need to issue a new conditional use permit for the large (possibly as high as 15 feet) block wall that will be part of the Project, Such a wall is not currently permitted under the Part: conditional use permit and would impose additional burdens and conditions on the Park Owner. However, the MND fails to discuss what conditions City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 5 might be involuntarily imposed on the Park Owner and the impacts of those conditions on the existing conditional use permit. The MND also fails to address any impacts of a 15 foot wall ore removal of existing mature trees on the scenic coastal views of nearby residents. The MND also reveals that it will need an additional coastal development permit but fails to discuss whether the Project complies under the requirements for such a permit and fails to address the potential impact of Project's displacement of housing under the Ellis Act. Thus, an EIR is needed to analyze the scope of the new conditional use permit and coastal development permit required for the Project, including the impact of any conditions that would be associated with such permits. C. Divide an Established Community. The MND also wrongfully claims that the Project will not divide an established community. The MND clearly will remove 8 mobile homes from the Park and thus divide them from the Park community, reconfigure an access road within the Park, and impose a block wall [hat will result in grade separation and impede open access to the street. These are definite physical changes to the environment that will divide and segment the established Park community. Therefore, an EIR is needed to analyze the Project impacts to the Park community. 2. Population and Housing. a. Induce Substantial Population Growth. The MND erroneously claims that the City need not study the growth inducing impact of the street widening because it is within growth projected by the City's General Plan. The growth inducing impacts of a street widening project must be studied and discussed in an EIR regardless of whether they are anticipated by the City's General Plan. (See City of Antioch v. City Council (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1325, 1332 {"conformity with the general plan for the area ... does not insulate a project from the EIR requirement, where it may be fairly argued that the project will generate significant environmental effects"]) Therefore, an EIR is required to evaluate the Project's growth inducing impacts. b/c. Need for Replacement Housing. The MND erroneously claims that it cannot make decisions about replacement housing until it receives Federal highway funds, and Thus wrongfully puts off for later mitigation in the form of a relocation plan. There is nothing in the lack of present funding that prevents the City from determining the potential place and type of relocation housing at the current time. The use of a future study or plan cannot substitute as mitigation for a significant environmental effect in the MND. (See Sunsirom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307) Thus, an EIR is required that includes a relocation plan. 4. Hydrology and Water Oualily. c. Alter Drainage Pattern. The HIND erroneously claims that the Project will not substantially atler the existing drainage pattern of the area despite its admission in section City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page G 4.a. that the existing storm drain at the south side of Atlanta Avenue will be relocated and that there will need to be reconstruction of the Park on-site drive aisle and a grade change. Grade and location changes can substantially alter the ability of the existing on-site drainage system to adequately contain drainage flows. Those impacts to the Park drainage system should be studied in an EIR. 5. Air Quality. The MND makes unsupported assumptions about mitigation of short term air quality impacts and erroneously fails to consider long term air quality impacts of the Project. alb. Violate Air Standards/Sensitive Receptors. With respect to the short term impacts, the MND acknowledges that construction of the Project will cause significant air quality impacts. The MND admits that the mitigation measures, if completely successful "can" at the maximum, only result in a 50 percent reduction in particulates matter. The MND then leaps to an unsupported conclusion that a 50 percent reduction will somehow get rid of all of the 40% excess of particulate matter, not just 50% thereof. An EIR is required to study whether the mitigation measures will reduce particulates matter to a less than significant level. e. Cumulative Increase in Emissions. The MND erroneously fails to consider the cumulative impact of potential increased traffic on long term emissions resulting from the Project. An EIR is required to study the impact of increased future emissions from additional traffic enabled by the Project, 7. Biological Resources. The MND improperly fails to contain a tree replacement plan that would allow for replacement of the mature trees in the Park that will be eliminated. 10. Noise. The MND wrongfully fails to admit that construction noise is a significant impact of the Project, despite its acknowledgement that construction noise levels will increase the ambient noise levels for residents located within 50 feel more that 25 dBA up to 98 dBA, an intolerable amount despite what the City ordinance allows during daytime, The mitigation measures suggested thus are not evaluated as to whether they bring the noise levels to a less than significant level. An EIR is required to determine mitigation measures that will reduce Project noise for Park residents to a less than significant level, 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance. While the MND admits to all three mandatory findings of significance, the MND insists, without any substantive discussion, that the minor mitigation measures proposed will suffice. The MND also fails to admit to all of the significant effects, including land use, housing, population, traffic, drainage and noise impacts. In essence, the Project is similar in many respects to the project in the Friends of "a" Slreel case where an EIR was required: In the present case the adoplion of a negative declaration was an abuse of discretion, The city's initial study revealed that the short kt _ ri :r City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Pe: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MIND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 7 term effects of the "B" Street Project include increased dust and auto exhaust, disruption of business during the construction of the project, and increased bank erosion and possible loss of wildlife habitat along San Lorenzo Creek during construction of a bridge. Among the long term effects of the project are increased traffic, increased noise, paving and removal of grass and garden areas, the removal of vegetation, landscaping, shrubs and hedgerows, the removal of 153 mature trees (some more than 80 years old) which presently line the street, and the elimination of on-street parking on "B" Street and Center Street, aggravating present parking problems that already exist in the area. Two neighborhood stores would be removed, and 12 families would be displaced due to the removal of residential structures. The project would result in the loss of the residential community characteristic of the area, and a decrease in residential property values. The residential desirability of adjacent properties would be adversely affected by the increased noise and exposure to traffic, reduced setbacks of the structures from the street, and the loss of on-street parking. The conversion of single-family dwellings to commercial or multi- family use would be accelerated. The project would also result in a decreased visual or aesthetic quality of the area due to the removal of the trees, grass and garden areas, and the decrease in the setback of the structures from the street. This evidence indicated that a finding of significant environmental effect was mandatory. (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 15082.) The trial court correctly determined that there was substantial evidence that the "B" Street Project might have a significant environmental effect. (Friends of"B"Street v. City of Hayward, supra, 106 Cal.App.3d at 1003) [continued on next page] City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission Re: Appeal of Atlanta Avenue Widening Project MND 2009-001 September 27, 2010 Page 8 In conclusion, the failure of the MND to recognize the numerous significant environmental impacts resulting from relocation of residents, road widening, alteration of drainage and noise and the failure of the MND to sufficiently mitigate impacts resulting from the Project require the preparation of an EIR. The MND fails to analyze the whole of the Project and demonstrates that the Project is not necessary or viable at this time. An EIR should be prepared to appropriately analyze the Project. Sincerely, HART, KING & COLDREN r Boyd All BLHIdr Enclosure: $2,002 appeal fee cc: Mark Hodgson Robert S. Coldren Fred Wilson, City Administrator r lL Atlant New; MU�i - trip Islands n � Htp ; y Development ` . t . c, CASH RECEIPT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Treasurer — Shari L. Freidenrich, CPA o P. O. BOX 711 + HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648-0711 www.surfcity-hb.org/payments DATE I�' 'I Issuing Dept. Dept. Phone# FUNDS RECEIYED FROM d C vi41 ADDRESS �(�LI C nO �tMe Abe£. rl0 v ( "I 4 Phone#: �qq FOR l V 6 KIJ 10iY1( AMOUNT RECEIVED O Cash XCheck# O Credit Card $ , Prepared Received Finance By B YApproval > IF OBJECT= 50000 THRU 90000, FINANCE APPROVAL REQUIRED Approval Date 1 Bu�iness.0 it.,. Cib - - 5 �„ Sub;Led9er, T e + ————— —— — — ——— — - - ——— ———— — — TOTAL $ Stamped Validation Only Please do not write in the box below i i ' 11 No. 1217721 rI-IBTOMER COPY NOM OF PUBLIC HEARING "'111ME THE CIFIr COUNCIL OF THE, yv qT1'OF:HUNTUdGTON BEACH y OTItE;?.IS, .HEREBY;°GIYENZthat`;on,_;Tuesda `nuary'_`I8;.2011':a#_,6:00 p rnci in;the'City'Counc hambers 2000 Main Street"Huntington Beac e`.P CRO`VAL'">:O;=F ;ITAIGATE -,' If Rowing planning and'in{ngtemsti;o APOTi,= LM HE=PLANNING:;CQMMISS10N!® ®®F OF ION N® b90O1'(ATUNTA'NAVENIE'.WDENIN p ;'C+ty.of HuntmgtonBeach PubticWor epar,tm6nt ColdreULICATIN pewr itlanta;Avue-,20W en = uptington;.Beach .'Pacific`:;,Mobile",Home, Par acifjc, Mobiie:Home;';Park;;;LLC;-80'.:Huntingto tree#,_Huntington;B;each;;^OA`92648„Regbest:a opal yzethe p'ofential;,enviionmental,.impacts,,ass fated w+th a proposal to widen the south s!de_. STATE ®F CALIFORNIA) Be A I FO R 1�9I A) elaw Avenue between -HuntmgYonz Street an �Y E�'$ 6�1EL 9`� M elaware=Street 'to''comply,' wfth.the prirriar rtenat sheet-classihcatfon in tfie-General-Pla j SS. frculatfon Element. The proposed street -i_ ! ndb p� �/ p� rovements�wfll_pro�fde an adddfonal-through tan . CUNT 1 ®F ®RANGE ddf � rC iarie each direction of-travel: hon the proiectincludes dearfng and grtsbbin e_,,construction, of,as_phalt=,concrete'_roa$wa trfpmg-',.=curb:;gutted `sidewalk an"8foot"'ta oncreYe'tilock:.viait;atop„a egh_V66able;hf- 7 f ax'), Ir i fng'=wall landscaping (including th am a citizen of the United States and a mgval relocatipn_of;25-:trees,_within th xfstmg mobile:home'park)` reconstruction'of resident of the County aforesaid; I am s rt w,de ,drive a+sle (circulatwn' road) an mergency access':gates_witfirn the,'`mobile horn over the age of eighteen years, and not ark and utfhty'-and fire if+ydrant adjustment an fo' ion:;,The.`'project=requires,`approval,`of. a party to or interested in the notice oastal Devetopnient Pe'rmit'(CDP)for developme Rhin;the Coastal.Zone and a-.-Conditional Us published. I am a principal clerk of the erm+t{CUP)for the construction of the retainiri aII:,A.separate,,pubhc'fiearing,before the'Plannin HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, ommission-:Will-be-5phedyled for the.associate DP'and;°CUP:`Construction-'of the.-proposed stre which was adjudged a newspaper of prove merits' will require the-:acquisition of`a dditional25,feet,of. pubfic;,street right-of-wa general circulation on August 24, 1994, oufh.of,the"centerline`of A#lanta Avenue: Th dditional_25 feet of-:right-of-way will come fro case A50479, for the City of Huntington 25 feet;wide by 630;feet.long(approx)'strip nd from the Pacific'Mobile'Home.1 ark'locate Beach, County of Orange, and the State mediately south of.Atlanta Avenue."The acquis 'on-.of.=,the',-25,'.feet would" impact' eigh of California, Attached to this Affidavit is anufactored%mobiie'homes,(Uhif Nos.-101,;10 01;361;;302;`4ol;;501,and 502).within"the;par a true and complete copy as was printed he impacted residents would`need to be relocate ursuant=to,the_Federal.Uniform'.Refocation A'ssi and published on the following date(s). nce:'and Real_ Property Acquisition'.Policiss A f'1970=("The Uniform AcV)..,At`this time th ature`of'a relocation project cannot be determine rid' therefore; a;refocatioq;uproject would' b naiyzedkas'a separate"project-pursuant,6 CEQ oration: Atlanta.-Avenue Right-of'Way> betwee untington,'Street;and Delaware_Street; Pacifi Wile,Houle'Park:'80::Huntington Street,(lout ide of At Ian ta.Avenue;;`between Huntington Stre nd�De_laware Planner:, Jennif - - � January 6 2O i i 1 I NOTICE-;,'IS HEREBY. GIVEN,that_the initi + nvironmental;assessment''for the above item wa rocessed and completed-in accordance with th alifornia Environmental Quality-Act: It was deter ined that;Item';#,1;-;with'=mitigation, would n ave any sigm icant`environnterital effects and th mitigated;hegative-,d(,claration.is warranted. Th itigated�,'negative,-ii 6faration(No. 09-0,01) is o le.at,the;City of Huntington'Beach Planning an certify (or deciare) under penalty of wilding Department, `2000' Main Street, and i vailahfe for public inspection and comment b perjury that the foregoing is true and ontactmg the Planning and Budding Departmen r by`telephoning(714)536-5271. correct. N FILE: A`copy-of, the proposed,request is=-o le'in tfietPlanning and.Building;Department, 200 ain Street,"Huntington Beach,'California 4264 r-inspection by the public. A,copy,of.the sta port'willtbeadailable to'9nteresYed parties at tti ity'derk''s'Offi6e on-Wednesday,January 12,201 LL'INTERESTED PERSONS are,invited to atten Executed on January 7 2011 aid hearing' and express opinions or subm ' yidence for,or against,the application as outline at Costa Mesa California bove:-If you challenge the City Council's actin court,.Jgq.may.beAimited to raising only thos i sues=you,.or-someone=else raised at the=pubfi Baring,described ud.this:notice,:or in.,writte orrespondence;delive(ed to;-tfie'tity at, or.pri ;''the°'pu'U,"fiearirig there.`'are anyi fur th uestions,please-..calL;Ahe::Planning-.and-B vuildin ep art rnent'sat 536-5271 and'refer to the abo y „ ems.'.Direct your written communications to`th ity Clerk. 'Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Signat 2000 Main-Street,2nd Floor Huntington.Beach,California 92648, (714);536.5227' CityCtarkdgendd @ sirfcity-hb`.org http=%%www.hunfingtonlie6chca.gov/ Published'Huntington Beach Independent Januar ,'2011; 001-36 ,R NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING '` y BffORE THE tITY�OUNCtt OF THE " QTY 4 HUNTINGTOK Bt'ACH „ 0710E IS.rNEREBY 1:61VENr:tfiat bn;;Tuesda rivaPyul8,`2011 at:§:OO:p:rni,in`the_City;Cqunc ' hambers",`2000 Main'.Stoet;fHunfngton.:Beac i e�-Crty Council wdi.fold a public hearing'%on th r ®®F ®F Ilo`inrmg planning and-zoning Items: 1 APPEAL,OF,TNE:f'LANNItdGsCOMIili1SS10N_ - ' ?PROVAL-OF,+MITIGATED"NEGATIVE DEC ION NO 09=001 (ATLANTA AVENUE WIDENIN. PUBLICATION '���'®� pplicant-.City of Huntington Beach Public;Work epartment'_Appellant >Hart King and 'C,oldrg roporty,!Dwper: "Atlanta"'Aveiue ROW:'City, " untmgton- Seach_.Pacific< Mobifeiz Home:Par acific.�%Mobile aHome:Park;.'LLC;;K!Huntingto treet;:Huntingtoh'.Beach;;CA,.92648:-Request:",, nalyze the-potential environmental impacts ass: ���®� ®� CALIFORNIA) +:tied with:: proposal.to widen-=the 'south.--side" I tiantati Avenue hetwe_en Huntington Street an elaware Sheet to comply"with the:prlmar rtenal street-classrflcation.in.;the General Pla ; SS. dculation 'Element' The;="proposed "street r 'ovements will provide;an additionalAlt' Ian COUNTY O1 C 1` Y F ORANGE NGE \ nil bike tan'e m each directioh of trayet V AEI 9 I \.9 F1/'"48�IL:1 ) ddifon the_pyolect-Includes clearing and g"rubbtn e..;constructiW,.'of asphalt-=concrete;-roadwa" trijiing;fctirb;,�;gutter„:sidewalk;°san,$,fooE�.�ta oncrete<block;wail'atop°a:,var`iable„height`t.(7�fi axi) reta"ihing wall,-`landscaping (mci_u`dingth am a citizen of the United States and a mcivar:_e�_relocatign of 25:gees-_within,":th xisting mobile home park) reconstrriefion of;` ' resident of the County aforesaid; I am 6;-ft wide,drive aisle cc+rculaaon road) an over the age of eighteen years, and not nI@ry;e"s ':a��ess--gates-,within'the;:nobije;:hem a:rk;�"and;utility:and:fire`hydrant,adjdstirient^an 'location��3he project requires approvab of a party to or interested in the notice oastal Development-Permit(GDP)for developme ithin Yhe--Coastal Zone and A.,Conditiorial':`Us published. I am a principal clerk of the ermit(CUP)J6r the construction of the retafnin HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a11:1. 1.p rate'pu6licfiearingbeforetfie-Plannin ommission;will`be..scheduled`for,;the°associate DP.ano'CUP:'Construction-of the:gropose8�stce_ which was adjudged a newspaper Of proyements:,will'require the:acquisitionSof a general circulation on August 24, 1994, dditional .25.'fe of;public street righf-of-wa outfi,`,"of;;tfie.-eentnterline- of.Atlanta Avenue:'�:Th dditional'25:feet of,right-of-way,:will.coni`e.fro case A50479, for the City of Huntington 25.fee4 wide(by 630 feet long(approx.) strip", nd,fromahe,.Pacific.°Mobile Home.Park.locat Beach, County of Orange, and the State mediately;south`o1 Atlanta Avenue:The acquis ion;of "the 25 .feet would' impact:"eig" of California. Attached to this Affidavit is anufactured/mobile homes,"(Unit Nos. 101,.10 61;`301,-302;401;501,-and 502).withimthe pal- _ a true and complete copy as was printed he impacted residentswould`heed to be relocate ursuant to the Federal Uniform Relocation,'Assi and published on the following date(S): nce and,Real Property Acquisition°Policies_'A f"1970 {"The"Oniform 'Act'_). ;At"this titne th i ature"of a relocation project-cannotbbfdetermine i nd=.,therefore, :a relocation'proiect.:would..b ' naiyzed,a's ay,separate project'..,pursuant.,to3CEQ cation: Atlanta__Avenue Right-of-Way:- betwee - - untington Street•,and".Delaware,.Streeti.Pacifi ` obile'H6me''Park:`80. Huntington;Street�(sout ide of;Atlanta Avenue,`betwe-en Huntington;;Str'e" nd, e Delaware Street),'Prol ,t`Planner;-'Jenriif illasenor January 6, 2011 NOTICE-IS-HEREBY GIVEN' that"the_�initi nvironmental assessment for the above item wa recessed and completed in accordance with,:th alifornia Environmental Quality Act.It was dete ined that Item,# 1;=with mitigation,-."would"n ave any significant environmental effects and' mitigated negative declaration is warranted.-Th itigated negative declaration(No.'09 001), is:6 le at the'City of.Huntington-Beach-Planning"an certify (or declare) under penalty of uilding Department, ;2000 Main Street;',and" perjury that the foregoing is true and ontac i for public inspection and comment b ntacting the Planning and"Building Departmen r by telephoning(714)536-5271: ,:-__,.: correct. N FILE_ A.copy of the proposed request is::o le in the.Pianning and Building'Department, 20 ain 'Street,I Huntington Beach,'California;926 r;inspection by the public. A-copy,,of_Afte sta port will be:available to,interested-parties at ity Clerk's:Office on"Wednesday,January 12,201 LL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to atteri Executed on January 7, 2011 aid hearing.and express opinions; or;;,suhm vidence for or against.the application as,outline at Costa Mesa, California bode. If you challenge the City'Council's actio i court, you:maybe limited to raising only-thos i sues you,oi,someone else raised at'tt'e:; Ii eating described- iri;this notice,--or` in.,writfe orrespondence delivered,to the:Gity..at,-,os_:,p'ri } the=public'xhearing.,�If"there are any','_fuith: uestions'please:call,Nthe Planning..and'., diadin epar'tment`at'536-527Land&-refer to"the'abov ems. Direct your written communications to,fh �- ity Clerk. - _- Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk SiCityof Huntington Beach na},_„� ` g �u i o 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach;"California 92648` (714)'536-5227-" CityClerkAgendd stir fcity-hb.org:=-' http://iFww.hirntingtonboaihco.gov/, Published Huntingfon'Beach independent Januar 2011 001-36 ' RECEIVEDR ,P u w�E I am,E+EN G *SrwoL° ' E~~' OF — 'ITY Charles To ^Qaodio.Jonathan" <JC|audio@sodtity-hb.org`. ^0mos. Buker/D12/Ca|Uonu/C�\Gov Tony"<Tuny.O|moo@uudtity'hbo/g>. WiUauenor. Jennifer" JV '7ai�o Larry" 1O05�O1001�55P� `^ "'"°,",' r`°��' ' � oo Sylvia Voga8J12xCuUm .Jim KaufmanDD12KCaltransKCAGov@DOT ono Subject Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Sylvia and | received the [NNDand its attachments, as well as Jonathan C|uudio'uamai|ed notification of the appeal of the MND, and we have been considering all of these items carefully over the past week. We are extremely concerned about what we are seeing in these documents. VVe were rather taken aback 10 read the letter from the property owner's attorneys, since we had been assured by the City all along that the property owner was on board with the Atlanta project and had had no objections to the right of way takes. We had informed the City on previous occasions that we cannot issue a NEPA CE if there is controversy involved in this project. Given the change in circumstances, we need Vz decide ifweshould revert to the initial plan of having the City prepare an Environmental Assessment. To help us make this determination, we have decided that we are going to require more information from you: 1) According 0o the Relocation Impacts Memo that you submitted recently, the City'o intent was to relocate the displaced occupants of the 8 mobile homes to a strip of land along Delaware Street. A change in plans is evident when we read in the responses to comments that''the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant toCEOA'' /HKC'12\. |f the relocation analysis io not done until after the commitment nffederal funds has been made, that would in effect be deferring the mitigation until after the environmental process has been completed. An Environmental Document isin essence a disclosure document meant to inform the public about a project's anticipated effects, and the mitigation methods must be spelled out in some detail us part of that informational process VVo can't simply defer developing the mitigation details to some future date, after the ED is signed. We could not state in one document that we intend to move the residents to the Delaware SL parcel, while stating in another that such a plan is not"reasonably foreseeable." The KAND does state that alternatives exist, \n the form of off-site relocation to other nnnbUe home parks, orin the form nf monetary compensation. Since the City claims it cannot accurately determine the feasibility of on-site relocation at this point, then Caltrans is going to require more information on the alternatives. Specifically,wewould like Draft Relocation Impact Report, including a table listing other mobile home communities within Huntington Beach (their names and addresses) that currently have available spaces and/or units. The available units would have\obe comparable )n terms of size (square footage) and number of rooms, and also comparable in terms of the monthly rental costs for each space. 2) Furthermore, the issues addressed in the Responses to Comments raise concerns about community impacts, and in particular, environmental justice issues.To this point, Caltrans has not received any demographic information about the residents being impacted by the right ufway takes. 800uuue of that lack ofinformation, we cannot accurately assess whether the potential exists for disproportionately impacting any disadvantaged groups, namely, racial/ethnic minority groups, the elderly, low income individuu{u, or physically handicapped people, In order to make this da1ernoinadon, we require that you provide us with demographic information about the residents of the entire mobile home park: approximately what percentage of the residents iselderly? Physically handicapped? Low income? What is the racial/ethnic breakdown of the mobile home park? This data should be compared with data for the larger population (such as for the entire census tract), to help assess "proportionality of impact". Thank you for your attention\uthese project matters. Please keep us informed of any new information related to the relocation impacts and the property, and any new complaints about the impacts. Charles Baker Senior Environmental Planner Cuhrans District 12 Irvine, CA 949-724-2252 .V '47 Charles To "Olmos,Tony"<Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> Baker/D 1 2/Caltrans/CAGov cc Cindy.Quon@dot.ca.gov,"Claudio, Jonathan" 10/19/2010 04:07 PM <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org>, "Jim Kaufman" .` <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>, "Villasenor,Jennifer" bcc Subject RE:Atlanta Ave widening project,recent developments[j Tony et al: We disagree that nothing has changed with the project. The property owner's appeal adds an element of controversy that may well force us to reconsider the appropriate level of environmental documentation for this undertaking. You have asked us to honor our original determination. You may recall that our original determination was to have the City produce a Routine Environmental Assessment for this project. That determination was specified in the PES form that your agency signed in January of 2009. We understand that not all of the details of the relocation plan can be spelled out at this time. Given the fact that no relocation strategy can be reasonably certain at this stage of the project, we reiterate our call for additiional information on the alternatives to the Delaware Street relocation, including providing data on available spaces/units in other mobile home parks in your City. Based solely on the information given to us to date, we cannot issue a CE at this time. Sylvia and I are more than willing to meet with you in our office to discuss these matters further. Please indicate the date and time you would prefer to hold such a meeting. Thank you, Charles Baker "Olmos, Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> "Olmos,Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.or To "Charles Baker"<charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> g> cc "Sylvia Vega"<sylvia_vega@dot.ca.gov>,"Jim Kaufman" 101112/2010 09:27 AM <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>,"Claudio,Jonathan" <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org>,"Villasenor,Jennifer" <JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org>,<Cindy.Quon@dot.ca.gov>, "Ryan Chamberlain"<ryan_chamberlain@dot.ca.gov> Subject RE:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Charles, (Sorry for this long email, but we felt the need to provide a response to your latest concerns. ) First, I would suggest that we all take a step back and look at the big picture. Environmentally, nothing has changed on this project. It' s still the same project we presented to you and the conclusions in the technical studies have not changed. What apparently has changed is the property owner's approach to negotiations. For the record, City staff met with the owners of the park before the issuance of their comment letter and the Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing. We felt very comfortable with our mutual understanding and expected no resistance from them. At the ZA hearing, there were 4 residents in attendance. The residents only asked questions regarding timing and process, but none expressed their opposition to the project . Since neither the property owner nor their attorney attended the meeting, we were surprised when we learned that they had filed an appeal. We felt and still feel confident that our Response to Comments had adequately addressed their concerns. To specifically answer your concerns regarding our MND, we do not agree that mitigation has been deferred. The MND identifies the impact of the project, which is the displacement of people/housing, as potentially significant. The MND provides for mitigation by requiring relocation of impacted persons in accordance with all applicable laws, including the Federal Uniform Act. The document for implementation of the relocation mitigation would be the required relocation plan, as specified in the mitigation measure, which would ensure that the relocation would occur and the impact (displacement of people/housing) would be reduced to a less than significant level. Understanding that it has been, and continues to be, the City' s intent to relocate the residents to the area along Delaware Street, until the City is authorized for funding and can begin discussions with the park property owner and impacted residents, it is uncertain if that area will ultimately be the relocation site. As such, the MND had to disclose all of the potential relocation alternatives. In addition, because the relocation site is uncertain, it is not reasonably foreseeable to include the physical relocation in the analysis of the project for purposes of CEQA. Also, as the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable, the potential impacts of the physical relocation can be analyzed as a separate CEQA project. The flip side to that is if the Delaware area had been analyzed in the MND and, for whatever reason the relocation would not occur there, you would have to go back and recirculate your CEQA document. Depending on the timing of this, it would probably trigger other revisions to your project approval and perhaps documents of other agencies. As a side note, 16 residents/8 units probably is not a substantial number of people/housing that would be displaced (the CEQA questions asks if the project would "displace a substantial number of people/housing. . . ") . The number of impacted residents would likely be less than 5°s of all residents of the mobile home park and even less when you compare it to census tract population and negligible when compared to City population. Nevertheless, because those residents would be relocated, the impact on those residents was identified as potentially significant without regard to the fact that the number is likely not considered substantial. Caltrans stated in their email that a large part of the CEQA document is to provide public disclosure, which is what we aimed to do. We identified the 16 impacted residents as a potentially significant impact and (even though the Uniform Act is federal law and compliance would be required even if it was not identified as a mitigation measure) , included the relocation pursuant to the Uniform Act as mitigation to provide assurance to the public that relocation would occur and that there are laws enacted to protect them. As we've discussed, things are a little different in Huntington Beach. Letters from attorneys and appeals to higher Boards are commonplace and do not change our approach to our policies and procedures. In this case, it appears as the owner is simply looking to preserve their rights as articulated in the attached copy of their cover letter. The owner still intends on working with us to reach a "mutually favorable resolution" . Outside of the 1 letter from the owner's attorney and 1 letter from a resident, there were no other comments to this MND from the 741 notices that were sent out on August 5th and September 2nd. As a result, the City feels this project is not controversial. Our Planning staff has utilized its extensive experience to prepare a thorough and appropriate environmental document for this project. It is extremely rare for our Planning Commission or City Council to uphold an appeal on the grounds that the environmental documentation prepared by staff was not adequate. Finally, we ask that you honor your original determination and not lose sight of the environmental facts that we were all previously in agreement with. As you well know, changing the Caltrans requirement to an EA will kill the project and the City will lose $1.6M in funding. In addition, we will all need to appear before the OCTA Board to explain the reasons why we couldn't make this work. We are willing to meet with you immediately to clarify any items. If we meet, I request that Cindy Quon be in attendance since our Director of Public Works is planning on attending the meeting as well. Sincerely, Tony Olmos City Engineer (714) 375-5077 -----Original message----- From: Charles Baker [mailto:charles baker@dot.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:56 PM To: Claudio, Jonathan; Olmos, Tony; Villasenor, Jennifer; Taite, Larry Cc: Sylvia Vega; Jim Kaufman Subject: Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Svlvia and I received the MND and its attachments, as well as Jonathan Claudio' s emailed notification of the appeal of the MND, and we have been considering all of these items carefully over the past week. We are extremely concerned about what we are seeing in these documents. We were rather taken aback to read the letter from the property owner's attorneys, since we had been assured by the City all along that the property owner was on board with the Atlanta project and had had no objections to the right of way takes. We had informed the City on previous occasions that we cannot issue a NEPA CE if there is controversy involved in this project. Given the change in circumstances, we need to decide if we should revert to the initial plan of having the City prepare an Environmental Assessment. To help us make this determination, we have decided that we are going to require more information from you: 1) According to the Relocation Impacts Memo that you submitted recently, the City's intent was to relocate the displaced occupants of the 8 mobile homes to a strip of land along Delaware Street. A change in plans is evident when we read in the responses to comments that "the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA" (HKC-12) . If the relocation analysis is not done until after the commitment of federal funds has been made, that would in effect be deferring the mitigation until after the environmental process has been completed. An Environmental Document is in essence a disclosure document meant to inform the public about a project's anticipated effects, and the mitigation methods must be spelled out in some detail as part of that informational process we can't simply defer developing the mitigation details to some future date, after the ED is signed. We could not state in one document that we intend to move the residents to the Delaware St. parcel, while stating in another that such a plan is not "reasonably foreseeable. " The MND does state that alternatives exist, in the form of off-site relocation to other mobile home parks, or in the form of monetary compensation. Since the City claims it cannot accurately determine the feasibility of on-site relocation at this point, then Caltrans is going to require more information on the alternatives. Specifically, we would like a Draft Relocation Impact Report, including a table listing other mobile home communities within Huntington Beach (their names and addresses) that currently have available spaces and/or units. The available units would have to be comparable in terms of size (square footage) and number of rooms, and also comparable in terms of the monthly rental costs for each space. 2) Furthermore, the issues addressed in the Responses to Comments raise concerns about community impacts, and in particular, environmental justice issues. To this point, Caltrans has not received any demographic information about the residents being impacted by the right of way takes. Because of that lack of information, we cannot accurately assess whether the potential exists for disproportionately impacting any disadvantaged groups, namely, racial/ethnic minority groups, the elderly, low income individuals, or physically handicapped people. In order to make this determination, we require that you provide us with demographic information about the residents of the entire mobile home park: approximately what percentage of the residents is elderly? Physically handicapped? Low income? What is the racial/ethnic breakdown of the mobile home park? This data should be compared with data for the larger population (such as for the entire census tract) , to help assess "proportionality of impact" . Thank you for your attention to these project matters. Please keep us informed of any new information related to the relocation impacts and the property, and any new complaints about the impacts. Charles Baker Senior Environmental Planner Caltrans District 12 Irvine, CA 949-724-2252 ., Charles To "Olmos,Tony"<Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> Baker/D12/Caltrans/CAGov J�tea cc Cindy.Quon@dot.ca.gov,"Claudio,Jonathan" 10/19/2010 04:07 PM <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org>,"Jim Kaufman" , �,� <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>,"Villasenor,Jennifer" bcc Subject RE:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments[) Tony et al: We disagree that nothing has changed with the project. The property owner's appeal adds an element of controversy that may well force us to reconsider the appropriate level of environmental documentation for this undertaking. You have asked us to honor our original determination. You may recall that our original determination was to have the City produce a Routine Environmental Assessment for this project. That determination was specified in the PES form that your agency signed in January of 2009. We understand that not all of the details of the relocation plan can be spelled out at this time. Given the fact that no relocation strategy can be reasonably certain at this stage of the project, we reiterate our call for additiional information on the alternatives to the Delaware Street relocation, including providing data on available spaces/units in other mobile home parks in your City. Based solely on the information given to us to date,we cannot issue a CE at this time. Sylvia and I are more than willing to meet with you in our office to discuss these matters further. Please indicate the date and time you would prefer to hold such a meeting. Thank you, Charles Baker "Olmos, Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> "Olmos,Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.or To "Charles Baker"<charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> cc "Sylvia Vega"<sylvia_vega@dot.ca.gov>,"Jim Kaufman" 10/12/2010 09:27 AM <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>,"Claudio,Jonathan" <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org>,"Villasenor,Jennifer" <JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org>,<Cindy.Quon@dot.ca.gov>, "Ryan Chamberlain"<ryan_chamberlain@dot.ca.gov> Subject RE:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Charles, (Sorry for this long email, but we felt the need to provide a response to your latest concerns. ) First, I would suggest that we all take a step back and look at the big picture. Environmentally, nothing has changed on this project. It' s still the same project we presented to you and the conclusions in the technical studies have not changed. What apparently has changed is the r� b.+ property owner' s approach to negotiations. For the record, City staff met with the owners of the park before the issuance of their comment letter and the Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing. We felt very comfortable with our mutual understanding and expected no resistance from them. At the ZA hearing, there were 4 residents in attendance. The residents only asked questions regarding timing and process, but none expressed their opposition to the project . Since neither the property owner nor their attorney attended the meeting, we were surprised when we learned that they had filed an appeal. We felt and still feellconfident that our Response to Comments had adequately addressed their concerns. To specifically answer your concerns regarding our MND, we do not agree that mitigation has been deferred. The MND identifies the impact of the project, which is the displacement of people/housing, as potentially significant. The MND provides for mitigation by requiring relocation of impacted persons in accordance with all applicable laws, including the Federal Uniform Act. The document for implementation of the relocation mitigation would be the required relocation plan, as specified in the mitigation measure, which would ensure that the relocation would occur and the impact (displacement of people/housing) would be reduced to a less than significant level. Understanding that it has been, and continues to be, the City' s intent to relocate the residents to the area along Delaware Street, until the City is authorized for funding and can begin discussions with the park property owner and impacted residents, it is uncertain if that area will ultimately be the relocation site. As such, the MND had to disclose all of the potential relocation alternatives. In addition, because the relocation site is uncertain, it is not reasonably foreseeable to include the physical relocation in the analysis of the project for purposes of CEQA. Also, as the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable, ,the potential impacts of the physical relocation can be analyzed as a separate CEQA project. The flip side to that is if the Delaware area had been analyzed in the MND and, for whatever reason the relocation would not occur there, you would have to go back and recirculate your CEQA document. Depending on the timing of this, it would probably trigger other revisions to your project approval and perhaps documents of other agencies. As a side note, 16 residents/8 units probably is not a substantial number of people/housing that would be displaced (the CEQA questions asks if the project would "displace a substantial number of people/housing. . . ") . The number of impacted residents would likely be less than S% of all residents of the mobile home park and even less when you compare it to census tract population and negligible when compared to City population. Nevertheless, because those residents would be relocated, the impact on those residents was identified as potentially significant without regard to the fact that the number is likely not considered substantial . Caltrans stated in their email that a large part of the CEQA document is to provide public disclosure, which is what we aimed to do_ we identified the 16 impacted residents as a potentially significant impact and ('even though the Uniform Act is federal law and compliance would be required even if it was not identified as a mitigation measure) , included the relocation pursuant to the Uniform Act as mitigation to provide assurance to the public that relocation would occur and that there are laws enacted to protect them_ As we've discussed, things are a little different in Huntington Beach. Letters from attorneys and appeals to higher Boards are commonplace and do not change our approach to our policies and procedures. In this case, it appears as the owner is simply looking to preserve their rights as articulated in the attached copy of their cover letter. The owner still intends on working with us to reach a "mutually favorable resolution" . Outside of the 1 letter from the owner' s attorney and 1 letter from a resident, there were no other comments to this MND from the 741 notices that were sent out on August 5th and September 2nd. As a result, the City feels this project is not controversial. Our Planning staff has utilized its extensive experience to prepare a thorough and appropriate environmental document for this project. It is extremely rare for our Planning Commission or City Council to uphold an appeal on the grounds that the environmental documentation prepared by staff was not adequate. Finally, we ask that you honor your original determination and not lose sight of the environmental facts that we were all previously in agreement with. As you well know, changing the Caltrans requirement to an EA will kill the project and the City will lose $1.6M in funding. In addition, we will all need to appear before the OCTA Board to explain the reasons why we couldn't make this work. We are willing to meet with you immediately to clarify any items. If we meet, I request that Cindy Quon be in attendance since our Director of Public Works is planning on attending the meeting as well. Sincerely, Tony Olmos City Engineer (714) 375-5077 -----Original Message----- From: Charles Baker [mailto:charles baker@dot.ca. gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:56 PM To: Claudio, Jonathan; Olmos, Tony; Villasenor, Jennifer; Taite, Larry Cc: Sylvia Vega; Jim Kaufman Subject: Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Sylvia and I received the MND and its attachments, as well as Jonathan Claudio' s emailed notification of the appeal of the MND, and we have been considering all of these items carefully over the past week. We are extremely concerned about what we are seeing in these documents. We were rather taken aback to read the letter from the property owner's attorneys, since we had been assured by the City all along that the property owner was on board with the Atlanta project and had had no objections to the right of way takes. We had informed the City on previous occasions that we cannot issue a NEPA CE if there is controversy involved in this project. Given the change in circumstances, we need to decide if we should revert to the initial plan of having the City prepare an Environmental Assessment. To help us make this determination, we have decided that we are going to require more information from you: 1) According to the Relocation Impacts Memo that you submitted recently, the City' s intent was to relocate the displaced occupants of the 8 mobile homes to a strip of land along Delaware Street. A change in plans is evident when we read in the responses to comments that "the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable and would be analyzed for potential environmental impacts as a separate project pursuant to CEQA" (HKC-12) . If the relocation analysis is not done until after the commitment of federal funds has been made, that would in effect be deferring the mitigation until after the environmental process has been completed. An Environmental Document is in essence a disclosure document meant to inform the public about a project 's anticipated effects, and the mitigation methods must be spelled out in some detail as part of that informational process We can't simply defer developing the mitigation details to some future date, after the ED is signed. We could not state in one document that we intend to move the residents to the Delaware St. parcel, while stating in another that such a plan is not "reasonably foreseeable. " The MND does state that alternatives exist, in the form of off-site relocation to other mobile home parks, or in the form of monetary compensation. Since the City claims it cannot accurately determine the feasibility of on-site relocation at this point, then Caltrans is going to require more information on the alternatives. Specifically, we would like a Draft Relocation Impact Report, including a table listing other mobile home communities within Huntington Beach (their names and addresses) that currently have available spaces and/or units. The available units would have to be comparable in terms of size (square footage) and number of rooms, and also comparable in terms of the monthly rental costs for each space. 2) Furthermore, the issues addressed in the Responses to Comments raise concerns about community impacts, and in particular, environmental justice issues. To this point, Caltrans has not received any demographic information about the residents being impacted by the right of way takes. Because of that lack of information, we cannot accurately assess whether the potential exists for disproportionately impacting any disadvantaged groups, namely, racial/ethnic minority groups, the elderly, low income individuals, or physically handicapped people. In order to make this determination, we require that you provide us with demographic information about the residents of the entire mobile home park: approximately what percentage of the residents is elderly? Physically handicapped? Low income? What is the racial/ethnic breakdown of the mobile home park? This data should be compared with data for the larger population (such as for the entire census tract) , to help assess "proportionality of impact" . Thank you for your attention to these project matters. Please keep us informed of any new information related to the relocation impacts and the property, and any new complaints about the impacts. Charles Baker Senior Environmental Planner Caltrans District 12 Irvine, CA 949-724-2252 "Olmos,Tony" To "Charles Baker" <charles_baker@dot ca.gov> <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.or g> cc <Cindy.Quon@dot.ca.gov>, "Claudio,Jonathan" <JC laud io@surfcity-hb.org>,"Jim Kaufman" 10/19/2010 04:24 PM <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>, "Villasenor, Jennifer" boo Subject RE:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments History:,, This message:has"been replied to. The City is meeting with the property owner and their attorney on Thursday of this week. If the property owner decides to rescind their appeal, would Caltrans be comfortable enough to move forward with the CE as planned? Tony -- ---Original Message---— From: Charles Baker [mailto:charles baker@dot.ca.gov] Sent : Tuesday, October 19, 2010 4 :07 PM To: Olmos, Tony Cc : Cindy.Quon@dot .ca.gov; Claudio, Jonathan; Jim Kaufman; Villasenor, Jennifer; Ryan Chamberlain; Sylvia Vega Subject : RE: Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Tony et al: We disagree that nothing has changed with the project . The property owner ' s appeal adds an element of controversy that may well force us to reconsider the appropriate level of environmental documentation for this undertaking. You have asked us to honor our original determination. You may recall that our original determination was to have the City produce a Routine Environmental Assessment for this project. That determination was specified in the PES form that your agency signed in January of 2009. We understand that not all of the details of the relocation plan can be spelled out at this time_ Given the fact that no relocation strategy can be reasonably certain at this stage of the project, we reiterate our call for additiional information on the alternatives to the Delaware Street relocation, including providing data on available spaces/units in other mobile home parks in your City. Based solely on the information given to us to date, we cannot issue a CE at this time. Sylvia and I are more than willing to meet with you in our office to discuss these matters further. Please indicate the date and time you would prefer to hold such a meeting. Thank you, Charles Baker Charles, (Sorry for this long email, but we felt the need to provide a response to your latest concerns. ) First, I would suggest that we all take a step back and look at the big picture. Environmentally, nothing has changed on this project. It ' s still the same project we presented to you and the conclusions in the technical studies have not changed. What apparently has changed is the property owner's approach to negotiations. For the record, City staff met with the owners of the park before the issuance of their comment letter and the Zoning Administrator (ZA) hearing. We felt very comfortable with our mutual understanding and expected no resistance from them. At the ZA hearing, there were 4 residents in attendance. The residents only asked questions regarding timing and process, but none expressed their opposition to the project_ Since neither the property owner nor their attorney attended the meeting, we were surprised when we learned that they had filed an appeal. We felt and still feel confident that our Response to Comments had adequately addressed their concerns. To specifically answer your concerns regarding our MND, we do not agree that mitigation has been deferred. The MND identifies the impact of the project, which is the displacement of people/housing, as potentially significant. The MND provides for mitigation by requiring relocation of impacted persons in accordance with all applicable laws, including the Federal Uniform Act. The document for implementation of the relocation mitigation would be the required relocation plan, as specified in the mitigation measure, which would ensure that the relocation would occur and the impact (displacement of people/housing) would be reduced to a less than significant level. Understanding that it has been, and continues to be, the City' s intent to relocate the residents to the area along Delaware Street, until the City is authorized for funding and can begin discussions with the park property owner and impacted residents, it is uncertain if that area will ultimately be the relocation site. As such, the MND had to disclose all of the potential relocation alternatives. In addition, because the relocation site is uncertain, it is not reasonably foreseeable to include the physical relocation in the analysis of the project for purposes of CEQA. Also, as the relocation site is not reasonably foreseeable, the potential impacts of the physical relocation can be analyzed as a separate CEQA project. The flip side to that is if the Delaware area had been analyzed in the MND and, for whatever reason the relocation would not occur there, you would have to go back and recirculate your CEQA document. Depending on the timing of this, it would probably trigger other revisions to your project approval and perhaps documents of other agencies. As a side note, 16 residents/8 units probably is not a substantial number of people/housing that would be displaced (the CEQA questions asks if the project would "displace a substantial number of people/housing. . . ") . The number of impacted residents would likely be less than 5% of all residents of the mobile home park and even less when you compare it to census tract population and negligible when compared to City population. Nevertheless, because those residents would be relocated, the impact on those residents was identified as potentially significant without regard to the fact that the number is likely not considered substantial. Caltrans stated in their email that a large part of the CEQA document is to provide public disclosure, which is what we aimed to do. We identified the 16 impacted residents as a potentially significant impact and (even though the Uniform Act is federal law and compliance would be required even if it was not identified as a mitigation measure) , included the relocation pursuant to the Uniform Act as mitigation to provide assurance to the public that relocation would occur and that there are laws enacted to protect them. As we've discussed, things are a little different in Huntington Beach. Letters from attorneys and appeals to higher Boards are commonplace and do not change our approach to our policies and procedures. In this case, it appears as the owner is simply looking to preserve their rights as articulated in the attached copy of their cover letter. The owner still intends on working with us to reach a "mutually favorable resolution" . Outside of the 1 letter from the owner' s attorney and 1 letter from a resident, there were no other comments to this MND from the 741 notices that were sent out on August 5th and September 2nd. As a result, the City feels this project is not controversial. Our Planning staff has utilized its extensive experience to prepare a thorough and appropriate environmental document for this project. It is extremely rare for our Planning Commission or City Council to uphold an appeal on the grounds that the environmental documentation prepared by staff was not adequate. Finally, we ask that you honor your original determination and not lose sight of the environmental facts that we were all previously in agreement with. As you well know, changing the Caltrans requirement to an EA will kill the project and the City will lose $1.6M in funding. In addition, we will all need to appear before the OCTA Board to explain the reasons why we couldn't make this work. We are willing to meet with you immediately to clarify any items. If we meet, I request that Cindy Quon be in attendance since our Director of Public Works is planning on attending the meeting as well. Sincerely, Tony Olmos City Engineer (-714) 375-5077 -----Original Message----- From: Charles Baker [mailto:charles baker@dot.ca.gov) Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 2010 1:56 PM "Olmos, Tony" To <charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.or g> cc 1 0/29/201 0 03:50 PM bcc Subject Re:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments History: - .� This-'message.has been replied to and•forwarded _ Charles, City staff met with the owners and their attorneys last week. Meeting was cordial and productive. They expressed a desire to continue working with the City. However, at this point since they've gone this far, they feel that they need to formally continue challenging since they feel that changing their position may diminish their rights to a challenge later. The next step is City Council if they appeal Planning Commission's decision. City Council has final say which we are confident will also result in approval of the MND. P.S. There were only 2 speakers at the hearing and 1 was the attorney. In HB, the truly controversial projects result in more than 20 speakers. This is not even close. Thanks for your consideration. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Baker <charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> To: Olmos, Tony Sent: Fri Oct 29 13:53 :21 2010 Subject: RE: Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Now that the property owner has lost his appeal, has there been any indication that he is going to litigate further? "Olmos, Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfc ity-hb.org> To "Charles Baker" 10/19/2010 04:24 <charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> PM cc <Cindy.Quon@dot.ca.gov>, "Claudio, Jonathan" <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org>, "Jim Kaufman" <jim_kaufman@dot.ca.gov>, "Villasenor, Jennifer" <JVillasenor@surfcity-hb.org>, "Ryan Chamberlain" <ryan_chamberlain@dot.ca.gov>, Charles To "Olmos,Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> Baker/D12/Caltrans/CAGov cc 10/29/2010 04:10 PM bcc Subject Re:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments[ Thanks for your quick response---I thought you were out today. By the way, the data that Jonathan Claudio provided looks fine; and we also received the AQ conformity concurrence from FHWA yesterday. So the issue of controversy is all that remains now. At this point, it's really all up to Sylvia and her legal advisors. I 'll present your message to her and see what she says. Have a good weekend. Charles ----- Original Message ----- From: "Olmos, Tony" [Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org] Sent: 10/29/2010 03:50 PM MST To: Charles Baker Subject: Re: Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Charles, City staff met with the owners and their attorneys last week. Meeting was cordial and productive. They expressed a desire to continue working with the City. However, at this point since they've gone this far, they feel that they need to formally continue challenging since they feel that changing their position may diminish their rights to a challenge later. The next step is City Council if they appeal Planning Commission' s decision. City Council has final say which we are confident will also result in approval of the MND. P.S. There were only 2 speakers at the hearing and 1 was the attorney. In HB, the truly controversial projects result in more than 20 speakers. This is not even close. Thanks for your consideration. Tony ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Baker <charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> To: Olmos, Tony Sent: Fri Oct 29 13:53 :21 2010 Subject: RE: Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Now that the property owner has lost his appeal, has there been any "V Charles To "Olmos,Tony"<Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> Baker/D 12/Caltrans/CAGov cc "Claudio,Jonathan" <JClaudio@surfcity-hb.org> 11/05/2010 12:43 PM bcc Subject Re:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developmentsD Tony: I have some developments that should please you: yesterday we received a letter from the mobile home park owner's attorney, asking us not to issue a CE for this project. I forwarded the letter to our legal staff, and our attorney just responded about an hour ago. He said he has dealt with this attorney before, and knows that his specialty is condemnation, and not environmental law. Our attorney believes the land owner is simply trying to get top dollar for his land, and nothing more. Therefore, our attorney has advised us to go ahead and issue the 6005 CE for the project. I have one last thing to ask of you before I issue the CE: I need your staff to prepare an Environmental Commitments Record (ECR) for this project. This is basically a list of the avoidance and minimization measures that you've agreed to implement for this undertaking (directions on how to prepare an ECR are listed on our Standard Environmental Reference page online). Once I get that, I will go ahead and send out the 6005 CE. If all goes well,we may actually get this wrapped up by next week. I will be off work on Thursday and Friday next week, however, so maybe we can shoot for getting this done by Wednesday? Thanks, and call me if you have any questions. Charles 949-724-2252 "Olmos, Tony" <Tony.Olmos@surfcity-hb.org> "Olmos,Tony" <To4ny.Olmos@surfcity-hb.or To <charles_baker@dot.ca.gov> g> cc 10/29/2010 03:50 PM ` '' Subject Re:Atlanta Ave widening project, recent developments Charles, City staff met with the owners and their attorneys last week. Meeting was cordial and productive. They expressed a desire to continue working with the City. However, at this point since they've gone this far, they feel that they need to formally continue challenging since they feel that changing their position may diminish their rights to a challenge later. The next step is City Council if they appeal Planning Commission's decision. City Council has final say which we are confident will also result in approval of the MND. P.S. There were only 2 speakers at the hearing and 1 was the attorney. In HB, the truly controversial projects result in more than 20 speakers. This is not Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk _•,�-{.o.�,�,-�, City of Huntington Beach cq ar - Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 =�"� •? ;�- ,:• u,:� - - LEGAL fVOTI ;'P# LIHFRiG :::�: . '890-124-65 A - Thompson William G 161 Lake Shore D+ Rancho Mirage,C X 92:3 NFE 1 C091 00 01/10✓11 FORWARD TIME EEXP R`YN TO SEND THOMPSON 'WIi,.LIAM 1035 ANDREAS PALMS OR PALM SPRINGS CA 92 2164--0240 RETURN TO SENDER 9 2`EW'w'?9az.a; Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o`� �� naozR Q12H162�09 �92 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk � �� 2 $00.4 if 4 P.O. Box 190 � -- - — F✓i'd i i J 6 Uit VQ.`zo I-I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 0 g owe L`�' l- 9 A l Mailed From 92648 �o US POSTAGE- LEGAL NOTC� P � got ' 937-152-83 o sWood William R o '7786 Seaglen Dr#43 Huntington B, Pach CA 92648-5426 ,off 6p�. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach' CA 92648TA C �� ''==Fa�t LEGAL NOTIEE-�P ¢LIO HEAR .G :�:�: got � m � o 937-150-06 -'Suarez Jose �pd - 857 W Palm Ter Homestead, . RETURN TO SENDER :IMSUF"F"IC:'•IEN T ADDRESS UNABLE TO FORWARD a�" ))I,I),„,,,Il),1„11,,,1,1,,11,,,,,I,II Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ®� M. r 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach 0 q Office of the City Clerk o a O0.414 00 P.O. Box 190 `� a ' w - � � � 01iClb%2Ciis Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �1 � P 6 [Mailed From 92648 US POS7AGE LEGAL NOTL ; PUM--LQ'H R-M4G::-----: 939-500-04 o Q Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 202 �pdo FluntiVon Beach,I'A RE UPN TO WE1aDER t,iNADLEa TO FliiRi,1ARO EEC: 92S490A St?90 `k2077-07470--:19- )W-MA'a ,' }1,1>,„},},}1,,,} ,}}„},}},,,,,,}}1)1„1},l,1)1))0),,,,},11 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach . Office of the City Clerk L 5 00.4 INI P.O. Box 190 W D Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � � Mait_ Fro t 2u`i g � � � �d From 92648 ADS FIOS AGE LEGAL NOTIfe.F,--PLID.LtQ'RE R:N:G .939-500-21 g jResident q 20962 Sandbar Ln Unit 201 rr' Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5856 VACANT ur AzLam TO r-oRwARo 92840001130 11,1„)3l,1,IIM1„ll,a1,11MMI11)11111)1)1)1))11a)„)1)11 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk a� City of Huntington Beach Q12H16209932 Office of the City Clerk 00 14 P.O. Box 190 0 F� 0D— F - 41i� Oi/06i2011 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 °� Mailed From 92648 US P057AGE LEGAL NOTIj oil 937-150-29 Schimmel Andy 6G�p 7805 Seabreeze Dr 429 Huntington Beacl - FORWARD TIME E:xP RTN TO SEND SCHIMMEL'ANrOV 212 22ND ST ► UN'TINDTN BCH CA 92649-3910 RETURN TO SENDER 9264000190 �4lSi3lb�3D11�Sb39F)!i)bfF13bISIbF31141533�33313�I11I1i33333�� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk °�° � 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk o — P.O. Box 190 _ g Huntin ton Beach' CA 92648 z di ��}}�� q �M1pa�il+e F,r}�om�+-y�92�6+48 LEGAL NOT1. .:-`P -I.Q HEAR�G got V o _ _ =024=261-21 ;.Resident o 116 Huntington St Unit B Huntington Be RETURN TO SENDER + Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o o 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 00.414 P.O. Box 190 �' q Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �_ ° Mailed From 92648 o a US POSTAGE LEGAL N0TIM-:*-;PLlKI-QH E A R G3 C::": oolpOa ° 9 39-500-"28 Okamoto Tamaki&Takako 20936 Sandbar#101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5852 �MG�CIi 6a, FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND C3KAmo,ro CRAPEPNFiOFT RC ECX ses TORRA NCE_' Ca'a 905 00-0568 RETURN TO SENDER .�.:'�.6 4a_"-CT#� 'O I1tI)911IlIIlIi91II9II39IIIIill3!)I�Iii3tll3ftlillillttt}}�}FI Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach n 6 ().414 1 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 U11061201i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI.M*-�-..*PU-Rl--I-G,*HEAR-I.W:G .-:..,-.- R, & 024-261-28 :Las Brisas At Huntington 10`13 Technology Df#100 CA,92618 CJ ACTIO29* 927 NSE I 09C 96 0111,3111 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNADLE TO FORWARD 9c: 92649019090 -*0977-0249i-10-40 9264900190 111111111 if IiIIIIIIIJ III IdIll III If III III] Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012M8209932 City of Huntington Beach ® sda Office of the City Clerk ° $00 a4 14 P.O. Box 190 d a° CYI/0121u11 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 T. . •� F„•, e�� lied F.;Qffl US POSTAGE p- LEGAL NOTI€-&:-•PUBLIC-HEAR NG_ s4.hg: r %A. % - 890-124-71 Gambrel Steven Bert 51380 Avenida Diaz ® La Quinta, CA RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED -- NOT KNOWN UNAGLE TO FORWARD ���`���������3 II}�773P17))Ilii)IIIII)71))I181t1)II�l�F1I I77illlilll37777�i'I Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach c� a{ '�r ° 092HI62Q9932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 j� 0 00 $0Q.414 lS U 2 cg W/0612t3 f Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ` K�c @s' ° { Mailed From 92648 V @. US POS7AGE LEGAL IVOTI :y Rk>f$>`FC HEAR4NGKII _:-•:- Pa4Ua6p�a _..._ _. 800-121-t0 o Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 110Huntington rARCTURN 'TO SENDER V3 CANT EICI 92640019090 --*" 47-7-00420 -1:0--21 1111 ii 11j,11111111111 il I M 11)111i111111111111li111111 -ex - P Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach oo 0 00.414 Office of the City Clerk 00 0 P.O. Box 190 91 U'l i 0 6/2 u I I Mailed From o 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ia. E: . US POSTAGE L ALN I FIJI(3 F! A"Gq 890-121-08 Resident 80 Hunti, K ;:027 DU I Huntingb RETUr4N TO VACANT UNAGLE TO PORWARD \ ; ft AMe! 92sI40019090 19114119 - i) MM)IJ) Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk �� 0 i2H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 �� 4��� 'moo��: �� � C � Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � �� o U 1/Ub!LU q, �9 Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE oilpQ_ LEGAL NOTI. >- F I ;'H iR G �o e 800-121-04 Resident { 80 Huntington St Unit 104 Huntingtoi 'AI•::l1M 1027 DV. .1 iEptl 01-J I-3111_s_ VACANT T E�C:11 11�:�1113�t11t1�11Ca;i11�t��Ct311 =t�1�Ctt7st'17-•491i�14ta—;tjL;i31f�-:�'?:t V s ft-Lowi�l}771tFtitlFrttfirl��tltl�rf�rt�flitF;rllrri�t�ri�llttttt�tk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk � 092HZ6209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk o 00.414 P.O. Box 190 � c l Oii0or2011 Huntington Beach, CA92648 , Go g Mailed From 92648 ADS POS AGE LEGAL NOTL1 ,-PUMIQ-HEARING 800-122-59 Resident 80 Huntu c*t snit 259 Runfingt ;VE URN TO SENctEP VACANT UNABLE To Fc)RwARo �ime 0190 }}t}tttt}t}t3}ttt�tt�itt}:},ttttttl�}r!?t}}ttt}t�tt}}ttttttt�� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 912H�6299932 Office of the City Clerk �] ° P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VA _ """ 'L"11 ° 8" qa° • g Mailetl'Prom 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIGEEr•PIJBL••6G HEARWG_ 937-193-60 Resident o Q .2;1250 Alanis Cir 'Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5323 �RCTUAN TO GENDER VACANT wNAMLE to jvoRwARo acv,II 9264 j11019090 'S T1k J 1 Iitl�rrrlrl�Itrrrll�IirrlrFltrt�tlll{titrllt;l�ttltlltttlri)It Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 R '° ® 414 -�? Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o vlr06 [011 �y PAailed From 92648 t� G M� �0����� LEGAL NOTI :. P�J$l�tG REARWG:-:-•:-• oil _...._ _. _ . . _ _ _. . _. . _ _ _ _ VII o Waterfront Construction Q W e 650 Dresher Rd Horsham, PA 19044-2204 RETURN To SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD CC: 9215,4 019090 *1297--03937-3:1--2.9 '9.?4)Abm ls-v' !!il,iiil,l,!liitlif!!iil;itii,iii!!!illilltii8ll3i!l16151lil) Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ° ° ° 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach t �- o ° 0(0° Office of the City Clerk oo �rx ram° �P.O. Box 190 w`— �- cu 0 w U-6i 201 F Huntington Beach, CA 92648 VA 19 r � C mailed From 92648 ° ADS POS 7 P AGE 0 0 LEGAL N0TIM-RVB.LtQ-H R24G= K 024-291-12 w Resident .� ,0795.Starshell Dr Bldg 5 © 6 ' Huntington Beac' n )cn o c n c RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNAZLE TO FORWARD � � 1I11,11,I1IYJIMI„I4),IIII)IM1I11)III IIM111))11)?lll)ii1 Joan L. Flynn, Y Clerknn, City ® o .�" o 012H16209932 � I�°• �° �°° City of Huntington Beach 0®°4 1 Office of the CityClerk 1 _ — P.O. Box 190 z ° ulailed From 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 � � °° us POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI.I Rkl 'H9►IG :�::�: 939-500-08 e� Resident A. o. 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 302 °�°a " o Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5285 vW U U `i�•e s'iti a s y .. iS� � n.�v v�.>�`a.Yi. s..i. RETURN TO SCHOCIR VACANT Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beaches 012FEio209932 Office of the City Clerk 1�5 00 a414 P.O. Box 190 t`r �GG Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �� �`m���`�P��y�� � v i�u�f 2��� _g D 4 "` mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI .::-:PlDB.LL*HFwARtP4G o���a�uun��oa e 024-301-48 Resident o E 7806 Beaches ' Huntington 1? Oan s'S`a.i:s S,'S •i VACANT UNAeUF TO Fg6RWARO )1)IMJ)))IIM)r)))>>),1)>,1,>>1i1))„?lt)>)11)1})rzM1)j) {r rrrcr�{rr{r rrr{ rr r{{{rrrrrr rr rr{rrr r{r{rrII I t It F-MT ty4i-T T _-.err..S 00- OZr - 0S06'i'0Otv9Z;6 %m» AMWM4!900d fit 23-10ti (l INVOVA d3a{ i+ta 01 Nt-SnA. iA )j2UI}Unjj eafl9t8L qua isa 0 � Lt�-i 0£-VZO a•` o 0 tooba��. J 23' H= I�G� I IlON IV031 �10V.bsoc� sn 8179Z6 woJ-A palieW o n?ro i,- 9V9Z6`d0 `pea8 uo}6ui}unH r 0 0 066 X09 'O'd o � o w o pea8 uo}6u1}unH to 40 ZE660MHUO e va10 A}10 `uuAIj ueor Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk 0 P.O. Box 190 wr co 01/06120011 1 Huntington Beach, CA92648 w 0 EZ n: Mailed From 92648 V6 US POSTAGE LEGAL N OT PW B L10 F!96 RNG ONE (eR 939-500-11Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 303 Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5280 VACANT UNAMLE 'ro roRwARo SC: `92S49019090 .-""0400- 047-45- 09- OS i)M I)1)i IM 1)))i))1)i 1))))1)111)b)11)1)j)I Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 00 o` f 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk o P.O. Box 190 aF� t �w�,e $00`414 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ez ac Mailed From 92648 LEGAL NOTI.0 HE4RI 939-500-14 i Resident -7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 304 Huntington r - •'" n'.<''Q_sQ Id ccj CJ i.7 i i,i i i `Y ACANT Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk `����� O1zwI6zo9932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 = � 4� � � C;I iU�oi2A�ii Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ld� o $ Mailed From 92648 0 LEGAL NOTIM PU$j-iC-HIAAR =_ _ ede . ...... 939-500-15 Resident 7668 Baypoint Dr Unit 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5831 '71v 71A-7, � VACANT . i s )i)IMA)))}})))i))i1))i)13))))))Ij1)J)))I)))I)I))j})))))1))I Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �� � �� 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk g 5 % e o o $O0°414 P.O. Box 190 ° 0ii0iii"201 i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ° Mailed From 92648 ADS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTkM=-PUS 1Q-'H AR G- _ „ 939-500-02 ate- Resident 7668 Ba oint Dr Unit 201 � YP Huntington Beach,CA 92648-5264 0(U�q 6p F"IE9iT`4e3RH TO SENDER R VACANT UNAMLE: TO FORWARD ......... Mi : a.~��}�'�C't`�'S�+� j�flll�l}r}x)J���''1,l11,l1l1{lt>MIIIih))))ll�l�ll��llll�l��� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o 012HIS209932 City of Huntington Beach oo a ¢ oe Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Q _ Mailed From 92548 US POSTAGE LEGAL iVOTI RU.a1AQ,,'HEARNG _ " S 0a6ti'����. G5 z.=�•' :, °':six=. 800-122-17 - Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 217 6 Huntington F vs 1. vv %ii. ai.1il RETURN TO SCHDOR '0ACANT Be: 432,5490190 0 --Ir2077- 04372--1i-:24 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach LY 0 0 o Office of the City Clerk o W $00.414 0I W, P.O. Box 190 0 1 i U-612 00 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 W-E� Mailed From 92648 US POS7AGF LEGAL NOTI V.V 024-261-24 esident Atlanta Ave Unit 45 Huntington Bead R, -A M -LAM^ 1. RETURN 'TO SSMDER VACANT u.4Aoi-E: ;ro ro)w;nmo DC: 9:2640019090 *20771-04-575- 11- -24 VLW6-4V"?)IVd-'* i i)IM)1)i)I i)))j))j 1))1)1 i)))11)j j 1)1))11)))1,1))1 IM I III j j Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o 4 -:- 012H1s209932 City of Huntington Beach 0 o Office of the City Clerk 0Q.414 P.O. Box 190co 6/201 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o S z {hailed From 92648 0 0 0US POSTAGE LEGAL I NOTI .-r PQPP .G HF�RING:::-.,- ' a�UMI��oa�e, o _...._ _. _ . . _ _ _ _ - - fiun�yn to❑ Harh<u I ); o � . sm t l) 0 B_�. ox 79 Suuselcp (;�\ 90742 hl:YXIC 917 OC 1 tits 01I 11!11 RETURN TO SENDER ATTEMPTED - NOT ANOWN UNABLE O FORWARD t� L FCC l:+ 92649019090 t II)I)1))I)I)l}f)111))fI)iliJI MI i)�I i�iIf11111i�)i�fii))Jill Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012N16209932 Office of the City Clerk g �, C)(De,4 14 P.O. Box 190 _ _ — Huntington Beach, CA92648 �� �I�'C36r�Ui1 Ex 9 o o Mailed From 92648 v C a.E US POS7AGF LEGAL NOTIG-&-- P-.U- G HELAR4NG-:-..- 800-122-54 i,Resident ° �.80 Huntii Huntingt( Dc -1 00 OiJ. gill RETURN TO SENDER VACANT + MC:; 9.2Ej34�`�j0,-ltas[so -A20 7-012200.-1`om--25 "JiF."eY� 'X�I 111�)IJIIII1111I1II31IJ 2Il JI13)))1 III)II III)III)I))II)I I)IIIII Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk .66 14 P.O. Box 190 0j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 fw haiied From vzu4b M. o p US FICS7AIGE LEGAL NOTIG& TV 800-123-53 Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 353 Huntington 1 00 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNAOLC TO rORWARO SC1 42,640019090 IIII)MI1111 IM11111)J 111))M)JIM)JIMI)II)III)IJ)1111 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o°° •° 42H16209932 City of Huntington Beach v AW M Office of the City Clerk d P.O. Box 190 U 00°4 5 P?_0111 d c u9/ I2C339 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 L 6 5 z mailed mom 94646 �s P MS P037AGE LEGAL NOTL OaEpQ(�J//�� 800-123-67 Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 367 C�O�6p Huntington ERETURN 'TO SENDER 'VACANT UNADI-C TO FORWARD SC: 92S49OA9090 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012H96209932 Office of the City Clerk 00 ° $0®°14 14 P.O Box 190r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 °d _ {gaited From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIP -:-POK.- 0 890-126-t5 `==_`[Zesident 6a 80 [-funtingtot , Huntington Bax:�x 9�7 RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNABLE TO- FORWARD ��,yyyy 9c; 926 4;e 0;19(>90 -*20'7 }7—02197--ii1,2-;r�..5 (1)11111I)1111)1 J III I)J)/I))11))MI1 1))111111h)Ih)31 11 III Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk g �� 00.4 4 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 g Mailed From 92648 US F1027AGE LEGAL NOTE . -PUD.LtQHEARtNG_'..� ��.7 e°ve'tIaYH��:m� bN, sxv NiX; 800-126-07 Resident 80 Hunt 0a 1 00 0-11.>:1:1j i l Hunting RETURN TO SENDER 'VACANT Me: k11114"W"b19W 1111:))71))1111„11111„1,1)1:::>1)1),11111„1111),111:1:)h)1 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk °ems 012-§16209932 City of Huntington Beach r. Office of the City Clerk a o $00e4 a4 P.O. Box 190 0 ems— r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r` ' �°�_ di1eti r,vn, 0206 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOT1.,M"*4..**PLI$I-f,r,-'H R . _ e` ew°aia��W �,a�aam,etl�a. 890-126-03 Eyraud Ronald C 80 Huntington St H603 Huntington Be :.�,x :�z DE: 1 00 0I J 12/11 RETURN TO SM-NDER S.C:jj Sa't2�Sa�,.t�ij{71ppi�#{{'{i;`�Sii�{{}} =Af�3'C3"v 17—tt,s`i'95 -�..js?ii--2S :1 111i1)))1)I11}))IkIn))))11))))))III)I))110 1i111111))))JIII Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 0.0 6 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk C g n' 00.414 oM v6i2011 P.O. Box 190 � Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o 0 0, Mailed From 92648 d US POSTAGE 0 LEGAL NOTI ` = HEA ® k. g00-124-40 i;6aD EZesident cf snit 440 80 Hun EEuntinl }aa-c xm �S7 RETURN TO SENDEP VACANT UNAE)LE TO F'+JfvWARD Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk a�2�ae62o9932 City of Huntington Beach ® � •� o Office of theCity Clerk P.O. Box 190 o, �o Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o oMailed From 92648 ADS P05 AGE LEGAL RIOTI = P.. B :IC:HEAR G 800-125-03 Resident _. 80 Huntington St Unit 503 Huntingtl RETURN N TO w`s't:A DCR VACANT Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach fio 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk g J � - b. ®Oo4 14 P.O. Box 190 00 ,C- 7°��o,,, � � - �� _ 61/66/2011 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _� Mailed r-rom 92648 e' a ? ADS POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI. P 1,-IQ HEARM -::- Q o f_�890-126-29 Resident 80 Huntington St Huntington Beac r : :z V27 De 1 00 01J 12IJ-,1 Ri-;TURN TO ;SENDER VACANT LJNA.OLC TO rORWARD 0 4ft 1„IIII,1IM1 III III,lI,,,,,,111I1„l1M1,1„llM„I,II Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 092H16209932 City of Huntington Beach G Office of the City Clerk ate- ° �� P.O. Box 190 ®� �' ®° �4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 tm o d `��'`��'"'1 19 @c Mailed From 92648 X ADS POSTAGE 0 LEGAL IVOT1 -- PL�BL�C-H.EARNG�:-:- 800426-24 C� Resident 80 [tutitingtoc � Huntington B RETURN TO I"sEAADEaR VACANT BC: �.'s'as?t �7353t7fa�.tScC+'?T—t3:t19:1-1'�:— _$ §- 4AVK%b Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach o°o ° °��� 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 a Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �, � �o�,-o 0-i 06;205I Mailed From 92648 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING � �� US POSTAGE 800 121-03 Resilnt 80 Huntington: srtV.c C r Ors 1 00 0Ij 12V jl:L tI.HuntingtonBe: ;a r rVACAraTrr��a�� . IA0/4C11 11,l,:>>1,1,)1,,,1„ll�,),11„,,,,)I),1,)11:„1)1)?11„::,l3Jl Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ... 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk $0-0.414 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA92648 A �,�,oed From 92648 M? 0 US POSTAGIE LEGAL NOTiq.�--f PURUG FiEAR4NGZF:-..-. 890-122-68 Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 268 Huntingtc 1i A ) WX X 7:C 927 De I rdo QIJI-2.1411 R-ETURN 'TO r-MENOM-P VP40ANT UNAM-E: TO rORWARO Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk era City of Huntington Beach 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 o`99 1i06i2011 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o� g Mailed From 92648 US POS7AGE LEGAL NOT1 :.-PU$ 890-121-18 Resident 80 Huntingte~ t Tnir 1 18 Huntington! �14a-:Ixr- 927 ray; 1 00 0-.,J:.°2,31 VACANT L3h3t ALE: TO 'rORWARD q��y �y €�G: `.�'�i��&'1 f7;3.�C'�i's�1."3 t '=k.'.�:C7 i'``�—t.`+m a�vf tijr?'P'--3.:.v`-:-'.•a2?s •..+e=i�.%.f7'4'^���:"�� ��7�7))111�11�771�17��77�71�)))))I���t�i)Il)i)�)�llil)7I77�7�� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ¢ '�� �`i 012HI6209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 9 $®0"4 14 - ?:� v� _ `�" `2Huntin ton Beach CA92648 I --- - � e iviaiiea Flom US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI _�P � IC HE�R4G ounM�a� sns yap m e9a.aww�NZsa��e ro 890-124-12 ® !Resident 80 Huntingt Huntington sa ar Y� 927 � V ACPIN r UNAMLC TO FORWARD Eye: 92$49 a19090 )IJI ,I)I,II:„I„II„J,11,: 111111 JI Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk — a . ,U1, .� 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach -0 Office of the City Clerk o � $00 e 14 P.O. Box 190 °uz4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 °` o � � o © i�ia�iEd�rorar :ft"v`tati US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI� FIUSL-I.C:'HEAF G;_ _ a ONE OUR MIM ® 890-124-53 Madero Manuel IZ p 80 Ifunting' __ ` "^ -1 Huntington A 'A"tF- 927 tea I of j l�1./i l RETURN 'TO SEEAiDEP 'VACANT T Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0 to 012H16209932 o -414 —k $00 0 Office of the City Clerk s-im:54 Ez P.O. Box 190 C— ft-I 2011 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 z A roaded Flom hzb4b US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIG&-f P-U�L-IQ REAR+NGc...-..,-. 800-124-25 Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 425 Huntington WXX E, S,:21 7 De -1 ncTur,iN TO sr-mopFR VACANT UNAMI-C TO rORWARO DC! Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk °o 0�2�7620992 City of Huntington Beach ®� •• Office of the City Clerk $00• �4 P.O. Box 190 ;ca . � — Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �'�'u6r ' u Mafled From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOT1 oil . _ . . _ . . .. .. _. . _. . eyee= 'M w:®m g:P° a � eP .d e. g Q fr 890-126-22 m' ° .Brandt 2007 Family 6ada `80 Huntington Huntington B, 1�427 DE 1 00 01./12J k.1 RETURN TO SENDE'R VACANT SC: va5f: 0 ��t�ttttis�s}�sttlaslstla�lsaasss���a1aa11taalalsl��aaasaaS1 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach .3 ¢ 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk �5 a� 00e ii J4 P.O. Box 19000 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ° Mailed From 92648 US POSTAOF LEGAL NOTE::PV LjQ'K G r�_e o 890-127-10 p �pd � _ Resident 80 Huntington St )-I'VA S 927 ova I CIO vii 1`'2.I:L:L Huntington Bead RETURN T;VPI �q�pay�}Spy NDER MC : ``92' i4�jj'+019{ii:�ii 0 A207ii7-0.'.{{r2-130-- i1'ta�.-Zs Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach ®� o 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 V fo 01106f2-0 H Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �, az Mailed From 92648 e' US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTICE RQL HEAaRNG — — o �,e 800-127-11 Resident 0 6 '80 Huntington St Unit 711 Huntington Bec )11.1 c'r- 927 7 OC 1 00 0� 1 i I RETURN TO SENDER VACANT UNA�a3, C .TO FORWARD % .L ,,1,11 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ° 12H16Lo932 City of Huntington Beach �o� Office of the City Clerk - �- ° P.O. Box 190 ° -0° ° Q ��°� ��- _ 15 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o o Mailed From 92648 o o US (ram® TAG(E LEGAL NOTI. 890-121-62 Resident _o 80 Huntington St Unit 162 Huntington Bea( RETURN TO SCNOER VACANT __ :� Q, I�3►)III�I�I11317�I)��I) )iI,II)l3��117#IIItI)�)I))��I3313131i Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk 1.4 R P.O. Box 190 w QO 14 Huntington Beach, CA92648 Ulf u0i Z0H M M 'US POSTAGE�M�Olm LEGAL NOTIC--E-n-P.L4BLI�-HEAR.WG.17.:. Vc 800-124-13 Resident 80 Huntingto. -z, Tr-:,, In Huntington 1 7. 927 De 1 00 0111 1211f 11.1 RETURN TO SENDER VACI-4114T U'MAMLX TO FORWARD S.C. 92649019090 A 2 077--0!,.? 4,3-A 2-2 S Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk � a 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 0 4 P.O. Box 190 _._W . Yi Huntington Beach, CA 92648 e fftlCal U`6'B g =- O � ivr:�ied Frorta ��v+ti 1'9 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI - F ICI HE�,RkP IG 890-124-15 .a Resident ... it _�80 Huntiq Al C HuntingW 'K I'A Z r 927 ate 1 00 O I a 121.l i t RETURN TO SENDEP VACANT MCI 92S40019090 -*.20 7--02242--12-2 5 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk s �`6 012H10209932 City of Huntington Beach 0 Office of the City Clerk14 P.O. Box 190 0 �� �015U°4 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 �_ Z 01r oa zu,1 r ZZ� --a�p„�g� inaiiedrfori) Z74'U40 ��5��5�ff� US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTE -1?UR.L0-HFG_� _ ��a�0a6fipa0 c 800-123-14 =r=.1�r o E Resident 80 Huntington St Unit 314 Huntington 927 00 Ica:../I.w t 1 RETURN TO SENDER 'VACANT me o 92k:44£3019090 - 2077--OZ241 --12-2.3 =11,,,1==11„1=1l,,,,=,111=i==11„=l,)=,ll,,,1,1111 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk . 4� a a w N 012HIC,209932 City of Huntington Beach 09) Office of the City Clerk 5 j 25 0 - P.O. Box 190 $0U.41 f@ U U 0,Z -1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Malfed From �u US POSTAGE RLIOHEARWG!��*�-."�LEGAL NOTIC U 800-123-02 Resident est so 1-funtington St ILMIt 302 1-funtington Be RETURN TO SENDER V ACAN T UNAISt-r- TO- rORWARD 0c: N-0114,4W M111W Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o o rya 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach W U) 00 Office of the City Clerk �- :� Q) $O0.414 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 W WI- (Z o Mailed From C32646 US POSTAGF LEGAL fVOTI.fF� �L(f'HRG_ o, d 024-312-27 Waterfront Community Association © ( 26 Corporal Newport Be :; 7-;, 927 Da i 00 0 5.I j I.-I NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADDRESSM0 UNABLE. TO FORWARO yy..,,t� yt ���; t: ii����}�y�,>(�kk#��ii�,�ry{�+� �}* ��t�gJj�jjr--c�(�._:4 f�•�_.j�-�--�.� '9s:��1��� 31)fi3k#!rJ#fiYfJfi Yll3J�3��#YJi#}311i�t#!I3)li#ilt�l#Y1J)i)�� Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk a 012H96209932 City of Huntington Beach �� -� - Office of the CityClerk ' 00.4 J4 P.O. Box 190 Q 01i U-O-i 20-ii Huntington Beach, CA 92648 d oo Mailed From 92648 US POS7AGE LEGAL NOTI.I`',,,�,` PL1aJL-[ H R#XG 5:- Bigp�a ae9& 2 p rsw;$aae 937-193-61 Radelich Curt B & Kelly S 21254 Alanis Or Huntington Beach, CA 92648-53?1 y� G�,,a,, !!jj ii �P Eti T 1..1pR N` '{1''tt O . 2 jN tiia'�RM }} 11 ii tt i \91MMW S.t;L9*-b f#11W1I11ill111 )1{111l1!{11 M1111II)II111f1kill11111I111 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ° ' � 092H962o9932 City of Huntington Beach ® Office of the City Clerk 00°4 14 P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA92648vIC;ul2u5 C� Mailed From 92648 ADS PC57AC-E LEGAL NOTI -r PUI�LIPI MEARKG 7J7-J V V-J`F Clements Robert R 7648 Bay Dr#102 p o Huntington Beach, CA 92648-5876 RETURN TO SENDER NOT DELXVMRAMLE AS ADORMSSMC) y, �,11 ee�� € c: 92S{q�901909 j� "' sj�17'f'—jP.>.',x£ff•d2$ --a!: !!--.',��4 ki-V0 6 :L% I�11J)kk113)��!)SI11I113!lIIS11)1}���S13f�II1Fl1I)Jl�itFll�Sl1 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk near 0OH162)9932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk �14 P.O. Box 190 a Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o o Mailed From .952648 Co US PCS AGE LEGAL NOTI�' =;:Ptt6'taC'HF-ARM I �amot?,� ae p k P m sae 939-500-19 ' T evin Jon J `0962 Sandbar#103 Huntin ton Beach CA 92648-5856 g RE.'TURN TO SENDER NOT DELIVERAML-M AS ADDRESSED UAIAOLC TO rOfiiWARO VYf:LU �)i)}))�S�k1S}kkf})�I)k�)�i})1)lkl�kf)I� k)i�k�klf�)k3kklSl Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk C. City of Huntington Beach c��2N� `fl�9�2 Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 U �� $00°4 j4 Huntington Beach, �CA 92648 � o°v`II Mailed From 9264$ US POS L ±E LEGAL IVOTI;Z--- P:LJ�C- aqq% e w�pea%eptia.P.,a�:�K 024-301-53 , '6D � La Cuesta Community Assn ©� �• Po Box A Huntington Bea . > 927 DE 1 00 0-1.11'i IJ.11 RETURN TO SSMOCR NOT CIELIVERADLE AS ADDRUSSED •»..•»^» s�=�'�"'0� ��Gl:�,z�4� �IS{11#Sif�i3i33SfSSTI1l�3��E1;1#t�llYi}3E�13371�3}�13}3131#�{ Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk $00.414 P.O. Box 190 -6 --0 7 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 W z P Twailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIG.Enlf PUBLIC. 939-500-17 Dunn Ian Marc&Aspen Jenkins 20962 Sandbar#101 Huntington Beach, CA 01�AR-rkSA V- 927 Dry I c'o 01-J71'zil-I METURN TO SCNDER NOT DELIVERAGLE r4S A*C3r)RESSEZr-J UNAOLC TO FORWARO 921S.4901PO90 *2077--00697.- 12--2q -W A*-q1 V*-I @ 9 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk ° °a 012H16209932 City of Huntington Beach ° Office of the City Clerk ( 4 P.O. Box 190 6 ° 1A ��° i� �_—nx .r �, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 to u1r o Mailer!From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI -:.-*P# SL--l.:..H RING i-.-: �a40aIN a' 890-122-65 Tolzien Betty J © 80 Huntington Huntington B, DE i 00 NOT DEL2VERADLE AS ADDRESSE0 MC: t92840019090 i ;k2077-ojos e._12f--.a? Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk , City of Huntington Beach 0 0) e �',,q .. 012H96209932 Office of the City Clerk ° � P.O. Box 190 06o (c��00.414 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 a a10 o e Mailed From 92648 0US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI Rf BLIG:HE k#4 890-121-52 ° Kress Loretta W as ®. 80 Huntington St 9152 Huntington F )i1::gzs 927 DS 1 010 PfVTt)F?N 'TO ZMEENDE F? NOT DMI=1V9RAML9 AS ADDAMSSED papa T. .p�,g� iyNt'�EML��C TO F'C�IRWAR,�s.-3�i�i, { me i 9 Adfv'..fi'�'.01 9090 ':�1b�`�L+•f�t3._•tr'6•.M�.�?__.;k rg._•:yam.�l IRA-1 IWdb Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk $00.4114 P.O. Box 190 0 '- Huntington Beach, CA92648 6 -11 0 US POSTAGE JEA LEGAL NOTUDE�.;.PLISMQ H RNG 890-125-16 Semonell Scot 80 HuntbDpton St#5 16 Huntingt( N'I'XI F- 00 70 i.j 1 11 RETURN TO NOT DELIVERABLE A ADDRESSED UNABLE TO FORWARD MC: 92849019090 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach f 0 Office of the City Clerk $00.414 P.O. Box 190 03 G-3 01106/20 I i Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E9 9 Mailed From 92648 0- E us Pos7AGZ- LEGAL NOTICE PUB L�;G-Hj ARWG 890-127-18 Blonk-lee 80 I-lutitingtol i 010 01./112./I 11untitigton B RETURN 'TO SENDER NOT DELIVERABLE AS ADORMSSED UNAMLE TO FORWARO so.: 92649019090 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach o" fi 092H16209932 Office of the City Clerk e ®®o4 14 P.O. Box 190 1 0 Q rF °tor eru Huntington Beach CA 92648 �./ ` V 9 � 1ed From � ' �_� 0 Mailed From 92648 d US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTI -- PL1$LtO. H RNG`-70 Uagp���< tip; 890-127-E6 Mains David 801-Euntit tol ,„' __..Huntington f3NOT DELIVERADLE AS ADDRESSED RETURN TO SENDER UNADL:Ec. TO rClRt3ARO SC; 9.2540019t]�j 0j` :riarj.j2i9°�)j7_.006-j�50--1.2--.'�.$ . }�jr 111I))11I)I)�IMII17111I)II))1111IIIJI)1II111111)HIM 11111 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o'U Ywr 012H96209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk $0O a 14 P.O. Box 190 a o00 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 l `% ,L" Mailed From 921"548 US POS7AGE LEGAL NOTIM.- P f L Q H RtNG g40G�Qp Vargas Rosatie Ann ® 80 Huntington St 4253 Huntington B, -r Fs 1 4 1 OF 00 01J I-121j i l VARGASIROSALIC MOVED UUFT NO ADDRESS L;-N AO1. C TO J''ORWxAk' D MC: 926400,19090 ,1:,41,rl,il�)Iall III ll,,1l,ill�l�ill:���zl�ll Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk o , V. 012416209932 City of Huntington Beach00 W toy o.. Office of the City Clerk $0 4 14 P.O. Box 190 ° f" "°Q °�° '`' ` Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r mailed From 92-48 EL US POSTAG LEGAL NOTI :'F?LIe.LIQ'H F G-:.`::-- ��a�oa�pa 890-123-11 Siems Jeffrey D 80 Huntington St#311 Huntington B( r'Fa .:rip R r`rr To .3c;aim WCSTMXNSTCR CA r-? ruA?N To sf-N r,)E F? 11,f„�ililil I)JIMII)MI III 1,)l),l„?1,,,1,1„Il,}ii,1)1] Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk °City of Huntington Beach D12H16209932 �° G d Office of the City Clerk V.P.O. Box 190 — Huntington Beach, CA 92648 °°° ° a Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTL vPUO� ..L --H R.M.G= O���a4Ua�p�O o� _ 890-121-13 Durrie Jack °1✓ I� ' 80 HuntiW-n Rt 9113 Runtingtoi 'AVXI I 927 DE t 00 01/:.j I:. RETURN 7U SENDER NOT &st-:LIVE=RADL_E AS ADDRESSED uNASL E TO F-ORWARO Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 0�2H16209932 City of Huntington Beach ° Office of the City Clerk 4 P.O. Box 190 .2 . � V06 - _ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 o o P� "`���'G"}'� �P iriaiied From V4040 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIP.E-:-:PROp�-IO 0 lift NE 890-123-63 " Fasano Alfred ,o 80 Huntington St 9363 a Huntington Be - RETURN 7O SENDER NC:7 DELZVEPAMLE AS ADDRESSED L7T AMLE TO FORY,-dARO Be: ` �}al�c :� r ) =*s�c �j•j�°_. Iarllj ��--j3 ij--. } `���'!ii'�;Ld:;,76u4d• l�}7}i}2�}1)I�I}}�1)�III�)I�)}Y)}}�I I}I}!ll}}1 t}7}}AS)}}I)1711 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk 012HI6209932 City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk 0 P.O. Box 190 0 0 $00.414 0 If U--012 0-1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Im � Mailed From 92648 US POSTAGE LEGAL NOTIp J�GHF-ARRAG -o -: 937-150-52 Christensen Clark F&Jennifer C 7806 Seabreeze Dr#52 Huntington Beach X 927 NFE I eO9C 00 01/12/11 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN To rsr-No ci-misTENSEN 19572 GARNET LN HUNTING'rN MCH CA 92648-7013 RETURN TO SENDER 9264900190 Hill?11111111111 111111 11JI1111.1m)1;111111 11111)),1111 If!11 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 012H16209932 Office of the City Clerk $ 4 00.4 1,_ P.O. Box 190 (a 0"I U 6!2 U_ 1,1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ffij Mailed From 92648 US POS7AGE LEGAL 890-126-48 Longbrake,Carolyn 80 Huntington "I A 0ngton i Huntington Bead 927 NFE I 11OC 00 01/12/11 RETURN TO SENDER MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS UNAGLE TO FORWARD RETURN TO SENDER mc: 92649019090 -1*217*7--09000--12—.1214 1 1 PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. �- L Sp.# & Sign47 # &Sign Sp.# & Sig p. Sign 4 Sp.#& Sig �� LIt Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign 4-!i p.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOLE PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign �yavv � • Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. ` 'Z ` 2- Z= Sp.# & Sign 4 2 Y Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign 02/06/12 01 :33PM PST '7029914179' -> 17149698775 Pg 2/2 1iA081LE ME PARTS 1!9TITION TQ REAFFIRM PARR RE910INTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific 4 Ile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 20'12 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members. and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City Immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving-their homes and damages for the claimed°tmpasa" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed Clty staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents.by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to haft the over zealous actions of the City.staff approved by the City Council. The Perk residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require lit to give the residents permanetrcy and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and soul justice by the City Council that has swum to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem _ with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental quality Act for the Project. and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involves forcing the residents to move from their homes. 1 Sp.#&Sig .�$ Sign Sp.#&Slg _ Sign Sp.#&Sign / Al Sp.0&Sign Sp,#&Sign 21 O Sp.#&Sign ..... .... . :.. Sp:#&Srgn _ X&:Sign Sp,#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&$ign Sp-0& Sign Sp.#& Sign _....... Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign _ Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign — Sp.#&Sign ��.__ Sp.#&Sign • --..._.___ 02/06/12 01 :33PM PST '70Z9914179' -> 17149698775 Pg 1/2 The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: PETITION012.tif Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled. PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway o resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign �]:( �� Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign \ �Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed 'trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to. run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign D5 , Ail ��1.i s�� Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign q Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign I b a� Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & SignP G �5 Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign - ` Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study, environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City.to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents: The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign t Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to. run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the resideress to move from their homes. (, Sp.# & Sign z-Z Sp. &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes` Sp.# & Sign L, rn, \1a!I 11�11p�_## &Sin Sp.# & Sig S . &Sign Sp.# & Sin Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign�bg GZVV( Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC (MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK( RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign lG°S� }�c r `i Sp.# &Sign J Sp.# & Sign 2/R G� Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign HOvl Lj�-- 4 Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign U� �' Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign -1 Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed 'trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents.. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign0 — Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign �� Sp.# &Sign 7 Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PART( PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed 'trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sig Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. 1/ Sp.# &Sign y Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency.and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. (� Amkt Sp.#& Sign: L0� Ko��2 - �`C p.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign4 O a ( ��/j11 A I/g g' /d Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign �}Q �,�� Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign --7 Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. 6 Sp.#& Sign-'4-2 1 Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has swom to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#&Sign4/6174 Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign,;r/ Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many .have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# &Sign Q &Sign Sp.#& Sign �0 p.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign /J� / f ', ? ��ar�: Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Signer Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PART( RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community,as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign ? ! �%� �r' � /-7 &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. J/ Sp.#& Sign �c / Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILEIRM PARR RE DENTS PETITION TO REA RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT immediate February request an Council m� staff members, one or two City . . to tta� ber residents of the Pacific Mobiee�so c t Park hereby actions pertaining wit We the undersigned ,s intended request that %w y at the Park office with Park rest We also req Ci special meeting Park's proposed Subdivision- ton Street- The City Co" �l c� he, owner representatives to consider and discuss the Ci n a and Park ow Project and th with your - g-�orit Atlantic Avenue Widts lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents move, while its City Attorney, immediately dismiss their homes and damages -r®I- tt stated it does not intend to fore fohCe these residents for moving publicly has pursued a lawsuit which a ec a med right-of-way• claimed"trespass' on the City "�r' ar ou hshod over the needs and and soc"al mp s �f tr staff to run roughshod to study environmentalSeden The City Council has allowed City -and by attempting to evict Park r-e shortcuttmg environmental laws, as a whole, a County judges have no\rt spoke residents by Two )range Council. Project upon Park residents and have lived for,decades-. roved by the City Pr J where many from their homes, sident el to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved scheme, especially for less affluent re decisively 's housing permanency and stability throuc special place ' the reculre it to give the residents p the City Council th; The Park residents hState law mandates that the efforts of City staff working ir-, t�ndei staff is resisting and equal rote:ction of the laws and social justice y City sta The Park residents demand lust rubber sta p subdivision. has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not J that should be st er or corporate interests. tad i ed k With develop articular plans, studies and issues to give full public int3ut ar should be to discuss P Act for the Project, acts upon affected resident The purpose of the meeting ton S to comply with the California Environmental Qualind Hunting treet Wit e City o ect's physical and related sissue of encroachment along to move fro the the Pr J the residents rn the cooperation concerning articular solutions to the The meeting should also discuss p a reasonable thway to re ve the issue that does not involve forcing homes. r, Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sig I Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp##& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.## & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign S Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign SI Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp Sp.# &Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. ' S # &Si n Sp.# & Sign p g Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Parks proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,. has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass° on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community Two Orange Countyting to evict Park judges have nowespoken sidents from their homes, where many have lived decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council tandem that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the City staff working with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable.pathway to resole the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. �,- ` n Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Si g f �v✓- Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign ' Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#.&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &`Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&`Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and -Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request ,that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign*/ Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. . The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. f Sp.#& Sign L p.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTSB RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYM We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City discuss theaff City'smbers, one or two City int intended actions perta Wing to the C tyuncil ss and Park Owner representatives to consider and di Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision.es dents along Huntington 1 St re request The City Council has immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park r publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents t their City damages foy, with your �the has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. f the ark owner and The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshodus nover the eds and concerns to st dy environmental andosocial P pacts of the residents by shortcutting environmental la ws, by refusing evict Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting tohave Park respoken sidents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, es ecially or leand stab affluenr through City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the r permanency n of the laws and justice by the City Cncil that subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protecti rubber stamp the effortslof City staff working m tandem has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular studies Project) and to give full public input t and ssues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social ssue of enc encroachment acts along Hunt ngton Street with The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the a reasonable_pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. ; J Sp.#&Sign/ p.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#-& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable. pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#.& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.##& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign,` !' eSp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#.&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#&Sign C Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,. has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning.the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. 44�� Sp.# & Sign Q U \ Sp.# &Sign 1 ,I/ Sp.# & Sign / Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign : PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous_actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. / a Sp.#& Sign b9 T . K l Sp.# & Sign ti Sp.#& Sign 0 1C� Sp.#&Sign c� S #&Si n Sp.#& Sign �� / � p• 9 Sp.#& Sign .liv`� '� Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign 3 t - Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign C%' 7 e Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK - PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents,.City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority,, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass° on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#& Sign T� - -' Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study. environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#&Sign .0'1l Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable_pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.#&Sign - Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign p.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#&.Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#&Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by'shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have lived for decades. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. . City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable_pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Sign oZ c�C, � .11 Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# &Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign PACIFIC MOBILE HOME PARK PETITION TO REAFFIRM PARK RESIDENTS RIGHT OF PEACEABLE ENJOYMENT We the undersigned residents of the Pacific Mobile Home Park hereby request an immediate February 2012 special meeting at the Park Office with Park residents, City staff members, one or two City Council members, and Park Owner representatives to consider and discuss the City's intended actions pertaining to the City's Atlantic Avenue Widening Project and the Park's proposed Subdivision. We also request that the City immediately dismiss its lawsuit seeking.to evict Park residents along Huntington Street. The City Council has publicly stated it does not intend to force these residents to move, while its City Attorney, with your authority, has pursued a lawsuit which seeks to force these residents for moving their homes and damages for the claimed "trespass" on the City's claimed right-of-way. The City Council has allowed City staff, to run roughshod over the needs and concerns of the Park owner and residents by shortcutting environmental laws, by refusing to study environmental and social impacts of the Project upon Park residents and the Park community as a whole, and by attempting to evict Park residents from their homes, where many have. lived for decades.. Two Orange County judges have now spoken decisively to halt the over zealous actions of the City staff approved by the City Council. The Park residents have a special place in the City's housing scheme, especially for less affluent residents. City staff is resisting State law mandates that require it to give the residents permanency and stability through. subdivision. The Park residents demand equal protection of the laws and social justice by the City.Council that has sworn to protect the interests all citizens, not just rubber stamp the efforts of City staff working in tandem with developer or corporate interests. The purpose of the meeting should be to discuss particular plans, studies and issues that should be studied by the City to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act for the Project, and to give full public input and cooperation concerning the Project's physical and related social and financial impacts upon affected residents. The meeting should also discuss particular solutions to the issue of encroachment along Huntington Street with a reasonable pathway to resolve the issue that does not involve forcing the residents to move from their homes. Sp.# & Si Sp.# & Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#&Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.# & Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#& Sign Sp.#&Sign