Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - Growth Management Element - Negative Declar APPROVED By CITY COLTNCtf REQUF FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION ir --- cY c r,Rx Date April 20, 1992 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administr r �� Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Developnw Subject: GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Consistent with Council Policy? I-A Yes [ New Policy or Exception /"', b Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Transmitted for your consideration is the Growth Management Element (GME) of the General Plan. The purpose of the Growth Management Element is to establish goals, policies and programs that will promote growth and development based on the City' s ability to provide an adequate circulation system and public facilities and services . Adoption of this document is a requirement for establishing eligibility to receive a portion of the Measure M revenues generated by the 1/2 cent sales tax increase in Orange County. RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission Recommendation: Motion to: "Adopt Negative Declaration No. 92-3 and approve Resolution No. `3�a adopting the Growth Management Element of the General Plan. " Planning Commission action of April 7, 1992 : A MOTION WAS MADE BY BOURGUIGNON, SECOND BY NEWMAN TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-3 AND PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1468 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT AS A MANDATORY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kirkland, Newman, Shomaker, Bourguignon, Leipzig NOES: Richardson, Dettloff ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None i N P10 5/85 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Susan Pierce Julie Osugi To Associate Planner From Assistant Planner Subject ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Date February 6, 1992 FORM NO. 92-3 Applicant : City of Huntington Beach Request : Adoption of a Growth Management Element which will mandate growth and development be based upon the City' s ability to provide adequate services . Location: Citywide Background Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the project . In view of this, a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a Thirty (30) day public review period commencing Thursday, February 13 , 1992 and ending Friday, March 13 , 1992. If any comments regarding the draft negative declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No . 92-3 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment . JO: lp (2268d-3)• f i LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission for their consideration . The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days commencing Thursday, February 13 , 1992 . Draft Negative Declaration No . 92-3 evaluates the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption of the proposed Growth Management Element . The Element will mandate growth and development in the City based upon the City' s ability to provide adequate services . A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development , City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street , Huntington Beach, California . Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within thirty (30) days of this notice by providing written comments to the Department of Community Development , Planning Division, P .O. Box 190 , Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . (2250d-3) ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 92-3 1 . Name of Proponent: City of Huntington Beach Address: 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Phone Number: (714) 536-5271 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: February 5, 1992 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s): N/A 4. Proiect Location: City—wide 5. Proiect Description: Adoption of a Growth Management Element. For description and background on Growth Management Element see attachment #1 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X Discussion: The project does not involve any site development and does not propose any policies which will result in or create unstable earth conditions or result in changes to geologic substructures. b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? _ _ X Discussion: The project does not involve any site development and does not propose any policies which will result in any alteration to the way the City addresses projects which propose disruptions, displacements, compaction of overcovering of soil . • • Yes Maybe No C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ _ X Discussion: The Growth Management Element project does not consist of any site development and does not propose any policies which will alter the way the City processes projects proposing topographical changes or changes to ground surface relief features. Therefore, adoption of the document will not result in any impacts to topography or ground surface relief features. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X Discussion: The proposed project does not involve any site development or any policies which will generate destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features. No significant impacts will occur. e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ _ X Discussion: The Growth Management Element project does not consist of any site development and does not propose any policies which would result in an increase in wind or water erosion. f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X Discussion: The project does not consist of any site development. In addition, no policies are proposed which will result in the deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any, inlet or lake. g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ _ X Discussion: The Growth Management Element project does not consist of any site development and does not propose any policies which will result in an increase in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards. 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ X Discussion: The Growth Management Element project does not consist of any site development and does not propose any policies which will result in increases in air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality. b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ X _ Discussion: The Growth Management Element project does not consist of any site development and does not propose any policies which will generate any increase in objectional odors. C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? _ _ X Discussion: The Growth Management Element does not propose any development or policies which will not alter air movements, changes in moisture, or temperature and climate (either locally or regionally). 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: Environmental Checklist —2— (2136d) • �• Yes Maybe NQ a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? X Discussion: Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements will not occur if the proposed Growth Management Element is adopted as no physical improvements or policies are proposed which will alter such features. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ _ X Discussion: No change in absorption rates, drainage patterns or runoff will occur if the proposed Growth Management Element is adopted since no physical improvements or policies which will effect such issues have been included. C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ _ X Discussion: No changes to the course or flow of flood waters will occur as the result of the adoption of the Growth Management Element. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X Discussion: No changes will occur in the amount of surface water in any water body. e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ X _ Discussion: No direct adverse impacts to surface waters or surface water quality are anticipated as a result of Growth Management Element adoption. f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ — X Discussion: The direction or rate of flow of ground waters will not be affected if the project is adopted. g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result any impacts to groundwater quality. h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ _ X Discussion: No substantial reductions in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies will result from the adoption of the Growth Management Element. The Element proposes standards for water service in the City which will need to be maintained by subsequent development. i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in the exposure of people or property to water—related hazards (e.g. , flooding or tidal waves). 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —3— (2136d) ( • • Yes Maybe No Discussion: Neither changes in the diversity of species nor deterioration of vegetation will occur with the adoption of the Growth Management Element. b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X Discussion: Reduction of the numbers of any unique, or rare or endangered species of plants will not occur if the project is approved. C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ - X Discussion: No new plant species, or barriers to replenishment of existing plant species will result with the adoption of the Growth Management Element. d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X Discussion: A reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop will not result from the adoption of the Growth Management Element. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X Discussion: Neither changes in the diversity of species nor number of any species of animals will occur with the adoption of the Growth Management Element. b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ — X Discussion: Reduction of the numbers of any unique or rare or endangered species of animals will not occur with the adoption of the Growth Management Element. C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ _ X Discussion: No new species of animals, or barriers to migration of existing animal species will result with the adoption of the Growth Management Element. d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ _ X Discussion: No deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat will result from the adoption of the Growth Management Element. 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? X Discussion: The Growth Management Element wdoes not propose any policies which will result in an increase in the existing noise levels. b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Environmental Checklist —4— (2136d) section 5 policies 5 . 0 POLICIES The following specific statements of principles or guiding actions provide the direction that the City sets to follow in order to meet the goals and objectives established in Sections 4 . 0 and 4 . 1 respectively. These policies were established following an in-depth evaluation of public services and facilities by the Ad Hoc Growth Management Committee. 5 . 1 Police 5 . 1. 1 Establish a 5 minute response time for priority 1 calls (where there is a threat to life or property) for service 85% of the time. 5 . 1.2 Continue long range planning for police services to include appropriate equipment, facilities, and staffing. 5 . 1 .3 Establish response times for priority 2 (where a threat to life or property is possible) and priority 3 (where there is no threat) calls with concurrence of Chief of Police and City Council . 5 . 1.4 Ensure new developments meet security requirements . Growth Management Element -12- (1379D) 5 .2 Fire/Paramedic Services 5 .2 . 1 Provide a 5 minute response time for emergency fire services 80% of the time. 5 .2 .2 Provide a 5 minute response time for paramedic services 80% of the time. 5.2.3 Ensure new development includes fire prevention methods and standards . 5 . 2 .4 Provide appropriate fire facilities, apparatus, equipment, and staffing. 5 . 2 . 5 Provide adequate fire protection for all areas of the City. 5 . 3 Traffic/Circulation 5 .3 . 1 Increase the city' s involvement with contiguous and regional agencies in circulation planning. 5 .3 .2 Resolve differences between City' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways and the County' s Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. 5 .3 .3 Establish Level of Service "C" as the minimum acceptable standard on the city' s arterial streets. 5 . 3 .4 Establish Level of Service "D" as the minimum acceptable standard on arterial intersections except those intersections included on the Deficient Intersection List established by Public Works . 5 . 3 . 5 Establish a plan to fund transportation improvements . 5.3 . 6 Promote traffic reduction strategies including alternate travel modes, alternate work hours, and decrease in number of vehicle trips. 5 .3 . 7 Participate in the Measure M sales tax revenue allocation program for mitigation or construction of improvements to the existing circulation system. 5 .4 Parks 5 .4 . 1 Provide 5 acres of parks per 1, 000 population. 5 .4 .2 Ensure maintenance funds are available for present and future parks . 5 . 5 Water 5 . 5 . 1 Provide water service to all areas with the following standards : Growth Management Element -13- (1379D) a. Water pressure be provided under average and peak hour demand conditions (minimum 50 psi, maximum 80 psi, average 60-65 psi no more than 5 psi fluctuation in a 24 hours period) . b. Provide fire flow capabilities that meet the Fire Department ' s requirements. c. Provide emergency water supply for a minimum of five days. d. Provide the best quality of water available at the most reasonable cost. e. Meet all requests for service in a timely manner. 5 . 5.2 Explore the economic and practical feasibility of using reclaimed water. 5 . 6 Sewer 5 . 6 . 1 Encourage completion of the Orange County Sanitation District ' s Coast Trunk Sewer Line and Slater Pump Station. 5 . 6 .2 Support extension of the Coast Trunk Line in the environmentally sensitive Bolsa Chica Wetlands only after necessary environmental safeguards have been provided. 5 . 6 .3 Encourage new development to comply with Orange County Sanitation District 3 and 11 requirements . 5 . 7 Drainage 5 . 7. 1 Provide the Local Storm Drain System to comply with 25 year storm standard. 5 . 7 .2 Encourage completion of the Santa Ana River Project and work with appropriate State, Federal, and local agencies to provide 100 year flood protection of the Santa Ana River. 5 . 8 Land Use 5 . 8 . 1 Promote balanced growth of residential and non-residential land uses and supporting public facilities and services . 5 . 8 . 2 Promote involvement with SCAG, County of Orange, and neighboring cities to achieve a consistency with policies and strategies to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and public services and facilities . Growth Management Element -14- (1379D) 6 . 0 PROGRAMS To achieve the goals and objectives described in Sections 4 .0 and 4 . 1 and policies of Section 5 . 0 the necessary actions, activities, or strategies are divided into three programs . The first program, Development Mitigation, identifies the actions, activities, or strategies necessary to mitigate development. The comprehensive phasing program consists of two parts addressing infrastructure and phasing of development. Lastly, the Performance Monitoring Program establishes a method to ensure that the development mitigation and phasing programs have been implemented. 6 . 1 Development Mitigation Program 6 . 1. 1 Police Services a. Obtain and utilize Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management Systems (RMS) . b. Participate in the planning process to ensure new developments optimize security standards . c. Update the Safety Element to incorporate standards for Police Services. d. Insure adequate funding for maintaining "state of the art" equipment for providing police services . Growth Management Element -15- (1379D) 6 . 1. 2 Fire/Paramedic Services a . Obtain and utilize Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and Records Management Systems (RMS) b. Identify and prioritize intersections for OPTICOM devices and expedite a plan for installation. C. Increase the number of trained paramedics to meet the response time as established. d. Identify a specific site for the Talbert Avenue fire station and develop a funding plan and construction plan for the fire station. e. Establish a program for the relocation of the Heil Avenue fire station to a city owned site on Graham Street. f . Upgrade the City' s water service to ensure adequate fire protection for all areas of the City. g. Update the Safety Element to incorporate standards for fire/paramedic services. h. Participate in the planning process to ensure fire prevention measures are incorporated into development projects . 6 . 1.3 Traffic/Circulation a . Adopt a Comprehensive Traffic Improvement Plan implementing the Circulation Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways. b. Establish a traffic impact fee and a provision to terminate it. c. Assess a mitigation fee on development projects contributing measurable impacts on the Deficient Intersection List and those that contribute cummulatively, or individually, 10% or more of the traffic using an intersection. d. Annually match revenues generated from the previous year ' s traffic impact fee for improvements to the City' s Circulation System of Arterial Streets and Highways . e. Restrict use of Measure M sales tax revenue allocation to existing circulation system and disallow its replacement of private developer funding which has been committed for project or subdivision obligation. Growth Management Element -16- (1379D) f . Conduct at least one meeting a year with contiguous cities to discuss transportation issues of mutual concern. g. Establish a task force to meet with the County to resolve differences between the City and County Master Plan of Arterial Streets and Highways . h. Update the Circulation Element to include levels of service standard as city policy. i . Adopt a Transportation Demand Management Ordinance. 6 . 1.4 Parks a. Update the Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan. b. Withhold any additional park development unless sufficient maintenance funds are available. c. Require land dedication to continue to be 5 acres per 1,000 population. d. Require payment of fees in lieu of parkland dedication whenever permissible by ordinance. e. Encourage open space maintenance and preservation by community associations . 6 . 1. 5 Water a. Withhold approval of development projects unless assured that adequate water will be available to the project at the time of occupancy. b. Review the city water rates annually and adjust them as necessary to insure that adequate revenues are available to cover operating maintenance and capital cost of the water service. c. Require use of drought resistant landscape plant materials within public and private projects . d. Require use of automatic irrigation systems within private and public projects. e. Update the Community Facilities Element. f . Require use of reclaimed water to irrigate private and public properties including parks, landscaped medians, common areas, and school sites. Growth Management Element -17- (1379D) g. Review, analyze and implement the Water Master Plan. 6 . 1. 6 Sewer a. Evaluate the City sewer fees annually and adjust them as required to reflect current sewer needs and construction costs. b. Withhold approval of development projects unless assured that adequate sewer facilities will be available to the project at the time of occupancy. c. Update the Community Facilities Element. 6 . 1. 7 Drainage a. Evaluate drainage fees annually and adjust them as required to reflect current drainage needs and construction costs. b. Allocate drainage fees within individual districts for improvements to comply with the 25 year storm standard. c. Continue to implement the City' s Floodplain Ordinance. 6 . 1. 8 Land Use a. Identify development mitigation requirements in the project review and approval process . b. Require all new development to pay its share of the costs associated with that development. c. Address the City' s balanced land use mix in conjunction with the review of any General Plan Amendment application that would increase housing and/or employment opportunities. d. Establish and implement residential and non-residential development objectives every five years concurrent with revisions to the Housing Element. e. Conduct at least one meeting a year with contiguous cities to discuss land use issues of mutual concern. f. Participate in and provide staff support to inter-jurisdictional forums regionally and within GMA for coordination and compatibility in land use and growth management. g. Update and rewrite the zoning ordinance to simplify and streamline the development process . Growth Management Element -18- (1379D) 6 .2 Comprehensive Phasing Program 6 . 2 . 1 Develop a two part Comprehensive Phasing Program a . The Seven Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) will ensure that infrastructure is added as development proceeds . The CIP shall correlate infrastructure improvements to land use with specific emphasis on circulation capacity and public facility needs. The CIP shall provide reasonable lead time for the design and construction of specific transportation and other public facilities improvements. This program shall be updated annually. b. The Development Phasing Program (DPP) will establish the requirement that building and grading permits shall be approved and issued in a manner that assures implementation of required transportation and public facilities improvements . The DPP shall specify the order of improvements and the phasing of residential and non-residential development based, at a minimum, on mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with environmental documentation and other relevant factors . The City will require as a condition of new development that specific transportation improvements needed to maintain appropriate Level of Service Standards be completed at a specified date from issuance of the first grading permit or building permit. 6 .3 Performance Monitoring Program 6 .3 . 1 Establish a Performance Monitoring Prdgram (PMP) to provide an annual evaluation of compliance with development phasing plans . This program will review and evaluate the implementation of phasing plans which reflect conditions of approval for traffic improvements and public facilities and services required as mitigation measures for the project . The monitoring program is intended to ensure that improvements or funding were actually provided as required in order to determine whether development may continue. If the improvements or funding required have not been provided, development shall be deferred until compliance with the provisions of this program are achieved. The monitoring program shall include an annual review of new development projects until all required improvements have been constructed. Traffic related mitigation requirements such as traffic demand management programs shall be continued in conformance with the provisions of project approved programs . Growth Management Element -19- (1379D) 6 .4 Traffic Improvement/Public Facilities Development Agreements In the event the financing and implementation provisions of this Element are implemented through subsequent, legally valid Traffic Improvement/Public Facilities Development Agreements, said agreements shall be consistent with this Element and its implementing ordinances, plans and programs. Growth Management Element -20- (1379D) section 7 appendices wgr ,���.�p ,►�S1Tjf��i'!�1` �;�.�1;I�� i1��11� l�:�I �' j�\.. ��► *��gma.1: ��► ♦ Jim t. .♦! �,. NcMw[ ,ram►;` - PC v op Ur ININ IN ME i. ;�► . > ��������_��s �"'�..�.� _ ,-ram' , _ �� •,,� �-�' • The following pages are excerpts from the 1989 Comprehensive Transportation System Improvement Program prepared by Public Works and adopted by the City Council in conjunction with the Transportation Demand Management and Traffic Impact Fee Ordinances. The ultimate levels of service for the year 2000 assume no adoption growth management efforts. "EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE ON ARTERIAL STREETS: Based on the recent counts conducted in 1988-89 the levels of service on the arterial streets were analyzed. The traffic volumes were compared against the capacity of the arterials operating under level of service "C" . The streets that are presently operating at levels of service worse than "C" are depicted in Exhibit "B" . (Page 22) "ULTIMATE LEVELS OF SERVICE ON ARTERIAL STREETS FOR THE YEAR 2000: In order to project the traffic volumes onto the year 2000 the following assumptions were made: 1. A 3% annual growth in traffic due to the increase in the through traffic utilizing the city streets. This assumption was based on the trend in traffic growth for the previous years and the average growth in this region. 2 . That all undeveloped land in the city will be developed by the year 2000 with the exception of Bolsa Chica wetland area. "The trips generated as a result of future developments were distributed on the arterial streets on a uniform basis except for the areas where specific traffic studies or models provided better estimates . (Page 23) "EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE INTERSECTIONS: Recent intersection movement counts were conducted at the intersections with seemingly critical volumes. The computer program "CAPSSI" which uses the delay methodology as described in the Highway Capacity Manual, 1985 edition, was utilized in order to analyze the intersection level of service. The intersections that are currently operating at or above capacity are depicted in Exhibit "F" . (Page 24) "ULTIMATE LEVELS OF SERVICE AT THE INTERSECTIONS: The previous traffic projection approach was utilized in order to estimate layout of the intersections based on the planned projects, was used in order to determine the ultimate levels of service at the intersections . The intersections operating at or above their capacity are shown in Exhibit "G" . (Page 25) "Table "12" is a summary of the intersection capacity analysis for the current and future conditions. It was assumed that the intersections operating at "D-" level are at their capacity in order to allow a safety margin for the estimates and assumptions made in the analysis . (Page 26) " Growth Management Element -21- (1379D) EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE ARTERIAL STREET AMENDMENTS ft. CT VE5TM1Xj}ER CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL DATE RESOLUTION DATC RESOLUTION NU1fl[R NUA1bCR \ STREETS AND HIGHWAYS IOK7-76 IZ]{ II-{-7 {{{{ � 4' re-7 I:.] rb• {7:{ ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL te-e1 I$ IO IYBy] 3 3 24 a+r s. I]e: {-.-{. B]u RESOLUTION NO 4368—DEC-12.1976 I-to-{{ ISM 8-7-0110 BOBS` LEGEND A AVE- —— FREEWAY STREET CAPACTY ARGOSY _ \.\ moommommom MAJOR 45,000 taooEN Al PRIMARY 30.000 � . \ Q - SECONDARY 20.000 T v K NOTE -. EDINGER \ AVE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY •y \ NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT CIF WAY \ DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO l RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS N HEIL \ } \ AV I 7 (� HER � \ v / 21-ATER AVE- C � TALBERT I K. / Q \\\6�• �'\J E c \ AV[. 9~ r ' •4i OWN AVE. / AC{. ADAMS I A. I M IAI AP AV ATLANTA © o ILT IL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH °ORANGE COUNTY COUNTY CALIFORNIA \ •. :: / I D-F EXHIBIT B 22 ATIMATE LEVELS OF ARVICE ARTERIAL STREET YEAR 2000 AMENDMENTS WESTMINSTEI, CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL oATET,t-Es*-.,m DATET-m-ux-T-o- "'U."It NUMKR STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 2 469: 5-6- I13461 472 ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL o'' iig' &'2-83� :31.0 DEC 12.1976 "5- 3 2 .-.'.4 53" RESOLUTION NO 4368 -00 gala 8-7-ft GW3 LEGEND I-@-to 0090 SA FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR 456000 Qo.sy PRIMARY 30.000 MC FAODEO ........ Avt_ SECONDARY 20.000 tN :�•, • ..... NOTE GER AVE SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY ...... .......... .... ... .... . NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTTS m: AVEI .......... AT I AVE -EAT 71 of AVE. X \\ ',� 4 AVE ARFIE 0 �i AVE ............. ....... . APO Av LANTA AVE AVL CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 8"mm ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA D-F EXHIBIT D 23 &,STING LEVELS OF S?RVICE INTERSECTIONS AMENDMENTS WESTMII STjj PLANNING C." CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL ,ON co D T ATE REWLu D-TS0lUTW K :"2,03061"0-a-re 4n: STREETS AND HIGHWAYS 3 - - ..-T. � S-6-7 2.3 472 ADOPTED BY CITY COUWJL 8_2_03 1 5".0 RESOLUTION NO 4368-DEC 12.1976 BID$15-4114 1322 6_4_@4 5385 1-20-94 1360 0.7.49 .3 LEGEND: 1.... 6099 SOLSA — E. 77— FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY ESTM' ST p MAJOR 45,000 PRIMARY 3OL000 MC FADDEN SECONDARY 20,000 NOTE: EDtNUR AV SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT DF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS HEIL A NER ;LATER TALBERT K. ELW AVE. X AFIFII L 000 0 10RICTOWN AN ADAMS R /INDIANAIN] AV w ATLANTA 0 CITY OF �-9\- ;? HUNTINGTON BEACH ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 0 E-F EXHIBIT F 24 UMIMATE LEVELS OF SAVICE INTERSECTIONS YEAR 2000 AMENDMENTS CITI WE TYIMSTfq , CIRCULATION PLAN OF ARTERIAL oo ,� �CZ OATC RESOLUTION GATE MMXUTM ' \' ft"K sera NUYIER STREETS AND HIGHWAYS lo•IT-n Izse a � 4 re-T an+ �..�\ ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL s-z-as IS1a-e1'ays saz• 0 r RESOLUTION NO 4368—DEC.12.1976 0•IS-e1 1322 6-4-04 SSee I-zo-u IDee a-Tye 00e3 LEGEND: - e 90 60te • q.c. =— FREEWAY STREET CAPACITY MAJOR 45.000 PRIMARY MOOD rADDEN 1•YE SECONDARY 20.000 q \ 21 NOTE- R WE.I SOLID LINES INDICATE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY 77 NOT NECESSARILY ULTIMATE RIGHT OF WAY DASHED LINES INDICATE AREAS WHERE NO RIGHT OF WAY EXISTS X. \ ■ V I i. ..., ER = � - AVE.� K TALBCRT VE. AV E. op _ i gg F -�% YORKTOWN AWL i INDI AN AV ` 7 \\ ATLANTA /— © O t -- sR LT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH °AN --- ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA .,,. ...-.1 E-F EXHIBIT G 25 INTERSECTION CAPACITY ANALYSIS Intersection Level of Service Year 1989 Year 2000 Golden West/ D E+ Warner D D- Golden West/ D- F Heil C+ F Golden West/ D+ F Edinger D+ F Golden West/ D- F McFadden D- F Bolsa Chica/ D E Edinger C- E+ Bolsa Chica/ E- F Warner D- F Edinger/ D+ F Gothard D+ F Warner/ D+ D- Magnolia D+ D- Adams/ D+ D- Bushard C- D Adams/ D+ E Brookhurst D+ D- Bolsa/ D+ D- Springdale D+ D- Legend• Bolsa/ D+: Critical Movement Los Springdale D+: Whole Intersection Los Growth Management Element (1379D) 26 Date: Feb -91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Agency Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Current 91/92 2 M 93/94 2 M 25126 96/97 2ZL2� Huntington Beach Blvd. Regional R 170 170 Beach at Edinger Measure M C 902 902 Widening Total: 1,072 tv Huntington Beach Blvd. Gas Tax and R 330 330 Beach at Warner Regional Measure M C 1.295 1,295 Widening Total: 1,625 Huntington Beach Blvd. Regional C 515 515 • Beach Stark to Measure M Ellis Re-Channelize Total: 515 and add two through lanes P= Preliminary Engineering & Environmental R = Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C = Construction (includes 4.8% escalation) 2904g 1 Date: Feb- 91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) • Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Agency Tyne of Work Fund Source Phase (Current $) 91192 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 22M Huntington Beach Blvd. Regional C 150 150 Beach at Terry Measure M Traffic Signal Total: 150 & Channelization Huntington Beach Blvd. Regional C 150 150 tv Beach at Newman Measure M O Traffic Signal Total: 150 & Channelization (CT) (M) Huntington Pacific Coast Hwy., Caltrans, R 6,500 3,500 3,920 Beach Beach to Brookhurst Regional (M) • Measure M C 3.000 3,295 Widening Total: 9,500 P= Preliminary Engineering& Environmental R= Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C= Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) 2. Date: Feb-91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) • Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Agency Type of Work Fund Source. Phase (Current$) I 2 92/93 93/94 94/95 95136 96/97 97/98 Huntington Circulation Measure M P 200 200 Beach and Growth Elements of General Plan Total: 200 N Huntington Hamilton Ave. Measure M, Reg. P 500 100 100 100 200 �O Beach Beach to Newland Measure M R 2,000 1,500 Traffic Impact C 6.000 2,025 7,950 New Street Fees Total: 8,500 Connection Huntington Gothard/Hoover Redevelopment P 500 200 100 100 100 • Beach Street, Center Traffic Impact R 5,000 2,500 2,500 2,024 to Bolsa Regional C 3.000 3,619 Measure M New Street Total: 8,500 Extension P= Preliminary Engineering & Environmental R= Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C= Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) 3. Date: Feb-91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost A$encv Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Curr nt 91/92 92/93 93/94 29-25 2519-6 201 9T12$ Huntington Beach Boulevard Measure M P 75 75 Beach at Adams Avenue & Regional R 1,000 1,120 Measure M C 300 330 Intersection Widening Total: 1,375 w 0 Huntington Bolsa Chica Rd. Measure M P 75 75 Beach at Bolsa Avenue & Regional R 1,000 1,254 Measure M C 300 346 Intersection Widening Total: 1,375 Huntington Bolsa Chica Rd. Measure M P 75 75 Beach at Warner Avenue & Regional R 1,000 1,405 • Measure M C 300 363 Intersection Widening Total: 1,375 P= Preliminary Engineering & Environmental R= Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C = Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) Date: Feb-91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost AgencX Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Current $1 91/92 92/93 93/94 94/95 95/96 96/97 9 Huntington Golden West Street Measure M C 1,380 980 419 Beach PCH co Yorktown, Warner to Slater Widening Total 1,380 Huntington Beach Blvd. Measure M P 300 100 100 100 Beach Stark to PCH C 2,915 400 400 400 800 800 1,062 Rehab. Total: 3,215 Huntington Warner Avenue Measure M P 40 40 • Beach Algonquin to PCH C 214 247 Rehab. Total: 254 P= Preliminary Engineering& Environmental R= Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C =Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) 5. Date: Feb- 91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Agenc Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Current 91/92 92/93 93B 4 94/95 95/96 96/97 M1 Huntington Major Arterial Measure M P 100 100 Beach C 759 300 400 306 Rehab. 2 Miles Total: 859 w N Huntington Primary Arterial Measure M P 80 280 Beach C ¢� 00 200 396 Rehab. 2 Miles Total: 681 Huntington Secondary Arterial Measure M P 70 70 Beach C 5U 200 200 270 • Rehab. 2 Miles Total: 576 P= Preliminary Engineering& Environmental R= Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C = Construction (includes 4.8% escalation) 6. Daze: Feb- 91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Agency Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Current 91/92 92/93 93/94_ 94/95 25126 9-6m 22M Huntington Garfield Avenue Traffic Impact, P 600 600 Beach Ward to . Regional R 400 629 S.A. River Measure M C 7.000 8,849 Bridge and Extension Total: 8,000 w w Huntington Atlanta Avenue Traffic Impact, P 600 600 Beach Brookhurstto Regional R 400 705 S.A. River Measure M C 7.000 9,274 Bridge and Extension Total: 8,000 Huntington Banning Avenue Traffic Impact, P 600 600 • Beach Brookhurstto Regional R 400 705 S.A. River Measure M C 7.000 9,274 Bridge and Total: 8,000 Extension P= Preliminary Engineering& Environmental R = Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C =Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) 7. Date: Feb-91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) • Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Agencv Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Current $) 91/92 92/93 93/94 94M 95M 96/97 97/98 Huntington Newland Street Regional P 300 300 Beach over Measure M C 1.800 1,977 405 Fwy. LJ Bridge Widening Total 2,100 Huntington Mc Fadden Avenue Regional P 300 300 Beach over 405 Fwy. Measure M C 1.800 2,072 Bridge Widening Total: 2,100 • P= Preliminary Engineering& Environmental R= Right-of-Way(includes 12% escalation) C =Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) 8. i Date: Feb-91 MEASURE M Seven Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 1991-92 through 1997-98 PROGRAM SCHEDULE ($1,000) • Estimated Project Descrip. Proj. Cost Aeencv Type of Work Fund Source Phase (Current $) 91/92 92/93 9 L24 2L25 95/96 96L91 21M Huntington Traffic Signal Measure M C 400 100 100 100 160 Beach Opticom Devices w 50 Locations Total 400 Ln • P= Preliminary Engineering & Environmental 0 R= Right-of-Way(includes 12 k escalation) C=Construction(includes 4.8% escalation) 9. PERFORMANCE MONITORING PROGRAM MITIGATION MEASURE MONITORING CHECKLIST Monitoring Phase: Pre-Construction Construction Post Occupancy Project Case Name/Number: Brief Description of Project: Project Location: Requirement Met Or Is Continuing To Be Met: Date Yes No Description of Project Mitigation Measures 1. 2. 3 . 4 . 5. 6 . 7. 8 . 9 . 10. Comments : Growth Management Element (1379D) 36 CITY OF HUNTINGTON B&ACH 1NTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: HONORABLE MAYOR and MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: April 16, 1992 SUBJECT: School District appeal concerning Growth Management Element Attached for your information is a copy of my recent opinion memorandum relating to the school district's desire to appeal the Planning Commission's recommendation that the Growth Management Element be approved. According to law, the Growth Management Element can receive final approval only by the City Council and therefore an appeal would be duplicative of the public hearing which has already been set, an idle act! "The law neither does nor requires idle acts." California Civil Code, Section 3532. It is my understanding, that the school district plans to attempt to appeal the item, notwithstanding the fact that the district will have an opportunity to be heard at the public hearing scheduled for April 20, 1992. The possible reason for this is the district's attempt to use what appears to be a procedural technicality to delay the proceedings and coerce the Council into adopting the district's recommendations for the Growth Management Element. GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GCH:SL:k Attachment — Memo dated 4/16/92 cc: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Mike Adams, Director Community Development Howard Zeleksy, Planning Director • • jj CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY c CLERK r INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUsTIkC,C!TY OF �� A LeLIF, HUNTINGTON BEACH 4PR 1,6 (` /L TO: CONNIE BROCKWAY, City Clerk FROM: GAIL HUTTON, City Attorney DATE: April 16, 1992 SUBJECT: Appeals from the Planning Commission RLS 92-116 You have inquired whether you should set an appeal for a public hearing when the issue which a party wants to appeal is one which the City Council would decide, whether there was an appeal or not. Some recent examples of this have been appeals from Planning Commission recommendations that Council approve a general plan amendment, a zone change, and a specific plan. Some confusion has evidently been engendered by the wording of the City ordinance regarding appeals from Planning Commission decisions, Huntington Beach Ordinance Code section 988. That section provides that any action of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. What section 988 is intended to cover is the situation in which a person aggrieved by a Planning Commission decision would be unable to have Council review, absent the filing of an appeal. It thus provides a second level of decision-making on matters upon which the Planning Commission would otherwise have the final word. This analysis recognizes the fact that our City Council is the ultimate decision-making authority in the City. Contrarily, it should be obvious that section 988 does not apply to matters which must and will be addressed by City Council in any event. Were that not the case, section 988 would be a meaningless redundancy, serving only to generate revenue by.the two-hundred dollars which the City charges for an appeal. The law abhors the doing of a useless act. In sum, if an issue is one which only City Council can decide, such as the adoption of an ordinance, an aggrieved party should be informed that appeal is not necessary because he or she will be able to be heard before the City Council at the public hearing which must and will be scheduled before Council, following the Planning Commission's recommendation. We are preparing a proposed amendment to Section 988 to clarify the points made in this memo even further. '4 GAIL HUTTON City Attorney GCH:SL:k cc: Mike Uberuaga, City Administrator Mike Adams, Director Community Development Howard Zeleksy, Planning Director CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK April 17, 1992 i This document delivered today by Marshall Krupp is received in the City Clerk's Office for the record however it will not be set for appeal before the City Council pursuant to the City Attorney's memorandum dated April 16, 1992. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk GCI 1125K (Telephone:714-536.52271 10fl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Gail Hutton, City Attorney FROM: Connie Brockway, City Clerkch/ DATE: 2/13/92 SUBJECT: Anneal from CSA on behalf of Huntington Beach City School District Attached is a memo from the Community Development Director advising that an appeal is not needed for the eight zone cases as the zone cases will automatically appear before the City Council. As your office has not yet prepared the code amendment stating that only final Planning Commission actions can be appealed, I would like concurrence from your office that I should advise CSA to appeal only the tentative tracts. which do not automatically go to City Council. The Community Development Director advises that $200 must be charged for each tentative tract as the tracts are in different areas and will require separate mailings. I will advise CSA of the additional money required, however, I need to hear from your office as to the certainty that the zone cases should not be appealed and will not be considered by the city as being appealed. CC: Community Development Director 0994K �A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH L'a INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Robert Sangster, Acting City Attorney DATE: February 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Huntington Beach City School District Appeal RLS 92-116 We concur that appeals are not necessary on zoning cases, since Planning Commission decisions are merely advisory to the City Council . We have prepared a code amendment to clarify the situation. G 1/ Robert Sangsle-r— ` - Acting City Attorney m c ��ys oA- cc ���^s CO IZ- T x � C-41 CA�k v wD Ar � 4-f- v�i � o aN -;I-a.k Cl,&.. eS • • 9870--9871 Article 987 9074 Public Hearing. 9870.1 Setting of Public Hearing. 9670.2 Hearing By Commission Before Favorable Recommendation. 9470.3 (Repealed Ord. Nos. 495, 556, 1782-11/72) 9471 Notice of Hearings. Newspaper Publication. 9872 Additional Notice. 9872.1 Posting Notices: Time. 9§72.1.1 Distance Between Notices. 1$12.1.2 Rztension Beyond Limits of Property. 9J#.1.3 Limits of Sztension. 9673 Form of Posted Notices. 9074 Mailing Notices in Lieu of Posting. 987S Time of Hearing. 9876 Rules: Continuances. 9877 Failure of Commission to Act. 9878 Summary Denial . 98 0 j%hlic Bearing. Public hearings may be held whenever desired in any matter relative to administration of applicable provisions of Division 9 (495, 556) 9870. 1 In any matter in which it is necessary to set a public hearing, the City Clerk, upon receipt of the item or transmittal, shall set such matter for a public hearing upon deposit of the appropriate fees and papers notwithstanding any other provisions of this code to the contrary. (1231) 9870.2 Hearing By !Qommi Aion Before Favorable Recoamenda- tjM*. A public hearing shall be held by the Commission, or its authorized agent, prior to recommending that a conditional exception be granted. (495, 556) 9870.3 (Repealed Ord. Nos . 495, 556, 1782-11/72) 9871 Notice of Hearing ELONsRaRer Publication. Notice of the time, place and purpose, together with the boundary delineation or description of the property or area under consideration, for all public hearings held by either the Council or the Commis- sion, shall be give by at least one (1) publication thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in this city, ten (10) days before the date of said hearing, except as provided by Section 9815 . 3 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (1524) 11/87 9872--9875 9872 Additional _Notice. If any such hearing is to be held by the Commission, and is relative to a proposal which would alter district boundaries, additional notice shall be given by: (495, 556) 9872.1 Postina Notices: Time. Posting public notices thereof not less than 10 days prior to the date of said hearing mentioned therein. 9872.1.1 Distance Between Notices. Such notices shall be placed not more than 300 feet apart along both sides of the street and streets abutting the property said proposal seeks to affect . 9872.1.2 Extension Beyond Limits of Property. Such posting shall extend along said street or streets a distance of not less than 300 feet beyond the exterior limits of said property. 9872.1.3 Limits of Extension. Posting shall not, however, be required within 25 feet of or below the extreme high tide line in the Shoreline District or more 600 feet in each direction upon such street frontage from the building or the actual area subject to the purpose for which the action is requested. 9873 Form of Posted Notices. Posted notices shall have a heading entitled "NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING" printed in plain type not less than one ( 1) inch in height, and in small type there shall be a statement of the time, place and purpose ,of said hearing, together with a description of the boundaries or a general description of the property or area involved. (495, 556, 1524) 9874 Mailing Notices in Lieu of Posting. In lieu of posting notices of public hearings, as provided in Section 9873, notices containing the same information as required for posted notices, may be mailed. Such notices shall be mailed not less than ten ( 10) days prior to the date of hearing stated therein to the owner or owners of the property described in said notice, and to all persons owning property within three hundred (300) feet of the described property, for which purpose the latest address as shown on the Orange County assessor' s Roll shall be used. (495, 556, 1524) 9875 Time of Hearing. If, in response to a proposal, a hearing is to be called, it shall be called within sixty (60) days after final environmental evaluation unless a time extension is required by applicant, in writing, and the city authorizes such extension of time. (2273 - 5/78) 11/87 9876--9877 %17k, Rules: ---Con- inuances . The Council and the Commission may respectively prescribe its own rules and regulations for conducting its hearing and taking testimony, and may continue hearings, when necessary. (495, 556) 9877 Failure of Commission to Act. Failure of the commission to take final action on any matter submitted in accordance herewith, within thirty (30) days after the public hearing, shall be considered a decision of the Commission recommending that such matter or petition be denied, and thereupon the Council may act directly as to the matter, but under the same procedure and hearings prescribed for use by the Commission; provided, however, that written agreements for extensions of time in which to take final action may be made. (2273-5/78) 9878 Summary Denial. The Commission may recommend that a petition be denied and the Council may deny a petition without a public hearing. (495 , 556) (Prior Law: 495, 556, 1524 , 1782-11/72, 2273-5/78) 11/87 9880--9883 Article 988 ePPRAL Sections: 9880 Appeal By Applicant or Interested Parties . 9881 Challenge By City Council . 9882 Report . 9883 Notice. 9884 Action of Appeal . 9885 Issuance of Permits or Entitlements Prohibited. 9880 ARneal By Applicant or Interested Parties. Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made. Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himself aggrieved. (972) 9881 Challenge By City Council. The City Council or any member thereof may request in writing, within the ten ( 10) day period for appeal , a hearing before the City Council to consider any decision or requirement of the Planning Commission. Said appeal shall specify in detail the reasons for the appeal and the hearing on appeal shall be limited to such specified reasons . (1865-11/73) 9682 Report. The City Clerk shall report the filing of such notice to the Planning Commission and a written report shall be submitted to the City Council by the Planning Commission or shall be represented at the hearing . The party whose decision, determination or requirement by the Planning Commission is upon appeal, may submit a written report to the city Council for consideration. (972) 9883 Notice. The City Clerk shall give notice of any such appeal to all property owners within 300 feet of any property on which an appeal to the City Council has been filed. To cover the expenses of such notice, a fee, set by resolution of the City Council , shall be paid by the applicant . This notice fee must be paid at the time notice of appeal is filed. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mean that a filing fee is necessary if the appeal is made by a member of the City Council . (2441-8/80) 11/87 9884--9885 9884 Action of ADDeal. Said appeal shall be set for hearing within thirty (30) days, or longer, if requested by appellant, from the time the matter is received. by the City Clerk, together with the necessary fees . Upon the hearing of said appeal , the City Council may affirm, overrule or modify the decision appealed from the enter such order or orders as are in harmony with the spirit and purpose of applicable provisions of Division 9 , with reasons stated. In cases of appeal of matters relating to conditional exceptions, the Council shall, prior to affirming the grant of or reversing the denial of a conditional exception, make findings of fact in support of and relevant to the hardship standard. Disposition of appeals by the City Council shall be final . (1230, 1656-7/71) 9885 Issuance of Permits or Entitlements Prohibited. No permit or entitlement shall be issued by any department of the city which permit or entitlement is issued pursuant to any administrative procedures or hearings for which an appeal period is provided by this code, pending the expiration of such appeal period or the final determination of any appeal filed pursuant to this code. (1830-7/73) (Prior Law: 972, 1227, 1230, 1656-7/71, 1830-7/73, 2441-8/80 11/87 9950--9952 Article 995 AMALS Se,Ations 9950 Appeals, Advisory kgency. 9951 Appeal Fee. 9952 Notice. 9950 Appeals. Advisory Agency. The subdivider may appeal from any action of an advisory agency with respect to a tentative or tentative parcel map to the City Council as provided by Government Code Section 66452. 5. Such appeal shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the subdivider deems himself aggrieved. The hearing on such appeal shall be conducted in the same manner provided by Government Code Section 66452 . 5(a) notwithstanding the appeal procedures as set forth by Article 981 and 988 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9951 Appeal Fee. At the time any appeal is filed pursuant to this chapter, a fee set by resolution of the City Council shall be paid by the appellant to the city to cover all costs. (2441-8/80) 9952 Notice. The City Clerk' s Office shall give notice of the hearing to the be held by the City Council on an appeal pursuant to this article. Such notice shall be given on publication in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Huntington Beach. 11/87 e RECEIVED CITY CLERK _ t C!TY OF tt� t1= T — t��tl _ C Llf. N '"c5'lll lit; ram..-If..! 4 25 Piz '92 Community Systems Associates, Inc. - r� f EApril 17, 1992 Ms. Connie Brockway 1 City Clerk f CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH f! 2000 Main Street ' P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 I SUBJECT: Appeal by the Huntington Beach City School District of the Planning Commission Decision, Determination and Requirements of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dear Ms. Brockway: i On April 17, 1992, the Huntington Beach City School District ("District') filed an appeal ("Appeal') of the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission decision on Agenda Item No. B-5 which included Negative Declaration No. 92-3 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 1468. t In conjunction with the filing of the Appeal pursuant to Section 9880 of the Huntington Beach 1 Ordinance Code, a filing fee of $200.00 was paid at the time the Appeal was filed and mailing labels of all properties within the City of Huntington Beach were conveyed to your office in ` order that the Notice of Public Hearing on the Appeal is given to all property owners. + We note Section 9883 of the Ordinance Code which states that 'The City Clerk shall give notice of any such appeal to all property owners within 300 feet of any property on which an appeal to the City Council has been filed." In as much as the Growth Management Element affects and applies to all properties within the City, such notice should be given to all properties affected. i We further note Section 9884 of the Ordinance Code, which states in part that "said appeal should be set for hearing within thirty (30) days, or longer if requested by the appellant, from the time the matter is received by the City Clerk, together with the necessary fees ...." i There appears to be no provision in Article 987 or Article 981 of the Huntington Beach I Ordinance Code, which supersedes the provision of Article 988. In addition, it appears that the City Clerk's notices shall be given ten (10) days prior to the public hearing on the Appeal. 730 EL CAP0INO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 W7-T,19C,4112 c,fI% TO JWPGl�L L— iin �= iMMF--= Community Systems Associates.In — I Ms. Connie Brockway April 17, 1992 Page 2 We are aware that the City Council has scheduled a public hearing on April 20, 1992, to consider the recommendations of the Planning Commission on the Growth Management Element and its accompanying Negative Declaration. In our opinion, the Growth Management Element and Negative Declaration cannot be considered without first considering the Appeal, prior to or in conjunction with the items being appealed. In consideration of the acceptance of the filing of the Appeal within the prescribed time as set forth in Section 9880 of the Ordinance Code, the Appeals compliance with the requirements of Section 9883 of the Ordinance Codes, and the City Clerk's inability to give notice to all property owners in the City ten (10) days prior to April 20, 1992 (the scheduled public hearing on the Growth Management Element and Negative Declaration), we would suggest that the most appropriate action for the City Council on April 20, 1992, would be to: a) Not open the public hearing and continue the matter to a date when both the Appeal and the Growth Management Element and Negative Declaration can be considered by the City Council at a public hearing; or b) Refer the Growth Management Element and Negative Declaration back to the i Planning Commission for reconsideration of its testimony and grounds set forth in the Appeal, in order to permit the Planning Commission to appropriately and adequately address the concerns raised by the District; or c) Have the City Council take action prior to opening the public hearing on April 20, 1992, to incorporate language in the Growth Management Element and Negative I Declaration which addresses the concerns the District has raised relative to the i management of growth and the adequacy of school facilities within the City. Upon the City Council taking such action, the District will immediately rescind its Appeal, which would enable the City Council to open the public hearing on April t 20, 1992, and take the appropriate actions to adopt the Growth Management Element and certify the Negative Declaration, including addressing the school issues, without the implications of the standing Appeal. I Although the District certainly acknowledges the benefit and necessity of a growth management statement for the City and its incorporation into the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the District believes that they have followed all necessary procedures and requirements of the City's i Ordinance Codes, statutory requirements of law, and have suggested several alternative I approaches to protect the administrative and legal remedies of the District. We would certainly hope that the City would address the Districts concerns and issues with the same diligence and rationale that the District has used to cause the Appeal to be filed. i i E Cammuniry S 0I...,AAasaciaW�1,1 1 �lr—� r Ms. Connie Brockway April 17, 1992 Page 3 We will be available throughout the day on April 20, 1992, to meet and discuss this situation with any representative of the City, so as to facilitate the appropriate solution prior to the City Council meeting on that date. If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact i our office. Sincerely, C4resident NITY SY TEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. . p MBKiyt cc: Mr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Assistant Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Mike Uberuaga, City Manager City of Huntington Beach i Mr. Mike Adams, Community Development Director City of Huntington Beach Ms. Gail Hutton, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director i City of Huntington Beach i 1117\brockway.ltr S II- jaiJr a� Community Systems Associates, Inc. ®=�� f April 17, 1992 i Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street i P.O. Box 190 j Huntington Beach, California 92648 j SUBJECT: Addendum of Appeal Dear Ms. Brockway: ! Attached please find an addendum for the Huntington Beach City School District Appeal, filed ' on April 17, 1992. j I Sincerely, COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. � C John Hutt Associate I JHiyt attached 1 brockadd.ltr —ea c r r Cn 0 730 EL CAMINO WAY SUITE 200 TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 N 7' IF• DETAIL OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL JZ The Huntington Beach City School District ("District') has appealed the April 7, 1992 Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No.92-3 and Resolution No. 1468,recommending to the City Council to adopt the Growth Management Element("GME') as a mandatory element of the General Plan. The appeal was filed by the District on April 17, 1992 in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, and an appropriate fee and mailing labels of all properties within the City of Huntington Beach have been transmitted to the City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach. The District does hereby appeal the action of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach to accept as adequate Negative Declaration No. 92-3 and to approve the GME. The GME fails to adequately consider school issues, and the City has failed to comply with the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), the CEQA Guidelines, and the Government Code, as follows: 1) The City did not property notify the District as required under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; 2) Negative Declaration No.92-3 in inadequate to evaluate the environmental effects of the GME, and an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') should be prepared; 3) The GME may result in significant adverse environmental impacts on the District which should be evaluated in the environmental documentation; 4) The GME is an inter- and intra-element inconsistent and in violation with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code relating to the adoption of General Plan Elements; and 5) The GME has been processed in violation of applicable provisions of the California Government Code relating to the adoption of general plan elements. 1_ Failure to Comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines a) Lack of Proper Notification Section 21 151 of the Public Resources Code states: "21 151. All local agencies shall prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of an Environmental Impact Report on any project that they intend to carry out or approve which may have a significant effect on the --I- M • • environment. When a report is required by Section 65402 of the Government Code, the Environmental Impact Report may be submitted as a part of that report. For purposes of this section, any significant effect on the environment shall be limited to substantial, or potentially substantial adverse conditions which exist within the area, as defined in Section 21060.5." (emphasis added) As noted, an EIR is required to be prepared on a project which may have a significant effect on the environment. It would appear that a Negative Declaration could be prepared if there is no significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Checklist form on the GME (Environmental Assessment No. 92-3) dated February 5, 1992, states: 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: C. Schools? No Discussion: No new school facilities will be required as a result of the Growth Management Element. The Element does not propose any policies which will impact school development." The Environmental Checklist form goes on to state: 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. No a. Does the project have the potential to upgrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communi- ty, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endan- gered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre-history? Discussion: The Growth Management Element is specifically intended to improve the quality of the environment through manag- ing the rate of development to reduce impacts to public services and infrastructure. 2- b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). No Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will achieve short-term as well as long-term goals with- out significantly impacting the environment. C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of those impacts on the environment is significant). No Discussion: Cumulative impacts associated with the Growth Management Element are not significantly adverse. As presented in the environmental analysis, the goals and objectives identified in that document are specifically intended to reduce development associ- ated impacts to public services and infrastructure. The Growth Management Element will have a positive effect on the environment and further reduce adverse cumulative impacts associated with growth in the City. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? No Discussion: No significant adverse effects are anticipated to occur on human beings, either directly or indirectly, of the Growth Management Element is adopted." Finally, the Environmental Checklist form states: "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." —3- In an Inter-Department communicated dated February 6, 1991, Ms.Julie Osugi states: "Background Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above and has determined that a Negative Declaration may be filed for the project. In view of this a draft Negative Declaration was prepared and was published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a thirty (30) day public review period commencing on Thursday, February 13, 1992, and ending on February, March 13, 1992. If any comments regarding the draft Negative Declaration are received, you will be notified immediately. Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No. 92-3 finding that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment." The City did not previously discuss this matter with the District or obtain information from the District or any other professional or technical entity which would support this finding. Further, the City did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act in preparing the Environmental Checklist form or making the findings as set forth in the Negative Declaration. The District suggested to the Planning Commission that a significant environmental effect would be caused to the District as a result of the GME. The District suggested to the Planning Commission that this effect should be addressed in an EIR, and appropriate mitigation measures considered. The conclusions which have been reached by the City are based upon the Environmental Checklist attached to the Negative Declaration. As set forth in Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Initial Study (Le, Environmental Checklist) shall be conducted "to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment." Further, Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "....(c) Purposes. The purposes of an Initial Study are to: (1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an EIR or Negative Declaration. (2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify a project, mitigating adverse impacts before an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the project to qualify for a Negative Declaration; —4- • • (3) Assist in the preparation of an EIR, if one is required, by: (A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant; (B) Identifying the effects determined not to be significant; and (C) Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant. (4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in the design of the project; (5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for the finding in a Negative Declaration that a project will not have a significant effect on the environment; (6) Eliminate unnecessary EIR's; (7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR could be used with the ro'e t." (emphasis added) By not seeking consultation with the District during the preparation of the Environmental Checklist, the City has not substantiated its ability to adequately respond to the purposes of Section 15063(c), in that factual data and information available to the District and unknown to the City has not been considered by the City in conjunction with the preparation of the Negative Declaration. Nor has the City attempted to gain this information and data in order to provide a reasoned analysis of the environmental impact on the District. Rather, the City has suggested that an Environmental Impact Report iss not warranted because the GME will not cause a significant environmental effect without any substantiating information. The City should have consulted with the District upon deciding to prepare an Initial Study for the GME. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: "....(g) Consultation. As soon as a Lead Agency has determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project, the Lead Agency shall consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and all Trustee Agencies responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the recom- mendations of those agencies as to whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be prepared." -5- y 4 • • The City did not consult with the District with regard to the resources affected by the GME to which the District is responsible for, and did not obtain the recommendation of the District as to whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be prepared. Upon the determination of preparing a Negative Declaration, the City should have sent a copy of the proposed Negative Declaration to the District, and allowed the District to provide comments to the Negative Declaration. Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: "(a) Notice that the Lead Agency proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration shall be provided to the public within a reasonable period of time prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration. Notice shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notices, and shall also be given by at least one of the following procedures: (1) Publication at least one (1) time by the Lead Agency in a newspa- per of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. (2) Posting of the notice by the Lead Agency, on- and off-site, in the area where the project is to be located. (3) Direct mailing to owners of property contiguous to the project, as such owners are shown on the latest equalized assessment roll." (emphasis added) In previous letters to the City dated May 17, 1991 and January 29, 1992, the District requested to be notified of such projects. Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: "(a) The Lead Agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. (b) A copy of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project, and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project." (emphasis added. --6- Though the City is required to notify the District under both Sections 15072 and 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the District did not receive notice or a copy of the proposed Negative Declaration. Section 15002(j) of the CEQA Guidelines states: Public Improvement. Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project. (See: Sections 15073, 15086, 15087, and 15088)." (emphasis added) Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments from the District on the Environmental Checklist Form. As such, the public review process has been pursued inappropriately. Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "The purpose of review of EIR's and Negative Declarations includes: a) sharing expertise; b) disclosing Agency analyses; c) checking for accuracy; d) detecting omissions; e) discovering public concerns; and f) soliciting counter proposals." The fact of the matter is that the City did not consult with the District on these issues. The purpose of the review process appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to either a) seek administrative and legal remedies available to the District; or b) over look the error and not pursue any further remedies. Failure to Comply with Section 65300 et seq. of the Government Code b) Inadequacy of Negative Declaration No. 92-3 The Environmental Checklist Form to Negative Declaration No. 92-3 states that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on schools. —7- ANALYSIS' In anticipation of growth management measures being approved by Huntington Beach voters, an Ad Hoc Growth Management Committee was appointed by the City Council in June of 1988 . Although the measure was defeated, the committee met regularly to evaluate the impact that growth and development will have on the City' s ability to provide adequate public facilities and services . Policy recommendations which addressed the City' s long range growth needs and ensured maintenance of a high quality of life standard for the community were formulated. These recommendations were forwarded to the City Council . Adoption of the GME is a prerequisite to establish and continue eligibility to receive monies generated by the new sales and use tax which was approved by the Orange County voters in November, 1990 as Measure M, (Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance) . The Growth Management Element is divided into six (6) sections . Section 1 provides a statement of purpose and intent for the Element . The second section provides an overview of the Element and includes discussion on General Plan consistency and Element implementation. Section 3 provides general definitions used in the Element . Goals, objectives, and policies for the GME are provided in Sections 4 and 5 based on the Ad Hoc Growth Management Committee' s recommendations to the City Council in 1989 . Section 6 includes a series of implementation programs for achieving the established goals, objectives and policies . These implementation programs are divided into three (3) categories . The recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee are the basis for the goals, objectives, policies and development programs of the Growth Management Element. The first program, Development Mitigation, identifies the actions, activities or strategies necessary to mitigate development impacts on service levels . Many of these have been accomplished while others are on-going. For example, the police and fire departments have acquired and are utilizing the computer aided dispatch and records management systems; a transportation demand ordinance has been adopted; a traffic impact fee has been established. The GME establishes a deficient intersection list, this allows the City to assess a mitigation fee to those projects which cumulatively or individually contribute 10% or more of the traffic using the intersection. Modifications necessary to improve the level of service may be funded by the traffic impact fee, gas tax, Measure M monies, and the general fund. The mitigation fee may also be used to make improvements at areas within other jurisdictions where Huntington Beach traffic impacts the access to the freeways . RCA 4/20/92 -2- (2931d) • • The second program, Comprehensive Phasing Program, consists of two parts : (A) the seven year Capital Improvement Program, and (B) the Development Phasing Program. Part A was developed by the Public Works Department, and a copy is included in the Appendix of the GME. Part B establishes the requirement that building and grading permits shall be approved or issued in a manner that assures implementation of required transportation and public facilities improvements . The City will specify the order of improvements and phasing of dwelling units based on mitigation measures adopted in conjunction with the environmental assessment and other relevant factors . The final program, Performance Monitoring Program, will annually review and evaluate implementation of development phasing to ensure that improvements or funding are actually provided until such time as all required improvements have been constructed. This program is a requirement of Measure M and will be implemented by Public Works . Environmental Status : Pursuant to the environmental regulations in effect at this time, the Department of Community Development posted draft Negative Declaration No. 92-3 for thirty days. The written comments received are attached. The Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 92-3 on April 7, 1992 . Prior to City Council action on the Growth Management Element the City Council must review and act on Negative Declaration No. 92-3 . FUNDING SOURCE: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will necessitate use of public and private funding to implement the programs . Program 6 . 1. 8a requires all new development to pay its share of the costs associated with that development. This may be accomplished by the actual installation of facilities, payment of associated fees, traffic fees, pro-rata share of traffic signals, etc. The 1988 Ad Hoc Growth Management Committee report identified costs associated with their recommendations . A summary of the costs is attached. Many of these costs are included in the Capital Improvement Program for FY 1991/92 along with projects for the following three years . Adoption of this Element and continued eligibility will generate approximately $45 million dollars from the new 1/2 cent sales and use tax created by Measure M during the next twenty years . ALTERNATIVE ACTION• 1. The City Council may modify the Growth Management Element to reflect only the traffic improvement requirements of Measure M; or RCA 4/20/92 -3- (2931d) 2 . Deny the adoption of the Growth Management Element and forfeit receipt of a portion Measure M revenues . ATTACHMENTS. 1. Resolution 2 . Growth Management Element 3 . Negative Declaration No. 92-3 4 . Summary of 1988 costs 5 . Capital Improvement Program FY 91-92 budget 6 . Errata Page MTU:MA:SP: lp RCA 4/20/92 -4- (2931d) RESOLUTION NO. 6368 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING A GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HEREBY RESOLVES AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has adopted a General Plan; and The planning and zoning laws of the State of California provides for the adoption of additional general plan elements to address local concerns; and On November 6, 1990, Orange County voters approved the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (Measure M) which provides for new transportation revenues; and Measure M requires local jurisdiction to adopt a growth management element of its general plan to be eligible to receive new Measure M transportation revenues; and In compliance with all notice requirements, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on the proposed growth management element on April 7, 1992; and Pursuant to the planning and zoning laws of the State of California, after giving proper notice, the City Council held a public hearing on April 20, 1992, wherein the proposed growth management element was thoroughly reviewed and public comments were heard and considered; and The City Council has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , the CEQA guidelines and the City environmental procedures by reviewing and considering Negative Declaration No. 92-3; and 1 • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this City Council hereby approves Negative Declaration No. 92-3 as complete and adequate CEQA documentation and finds that, on the basis of Negative Declaration No. 92-3 , the proposed Growth Management Element will not have a significant effect on the environment. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the Growth Management Element of the General Plan as recommended by the Planning Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day of April , 1992. ell Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk Ue t� City Attorney SL -)?-9v REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Admin -ator Director, Community Development 2 s I ' • • Res. No. 6368 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I , CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a . adjourned meeting thereof held on the 27th day of April 19 92 , by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Robitaille, Silva, MacAllister, Kelly NOES: Councilmembers: Green ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moulton-Patterson, winchell i y Cler nd ex-officioalerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I . PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Purpose A new Growth Management (GM) Element of the General Plan is proposed as an important step in complying with the requirements of the Revised Traffic Improvements and Growth Management Ordinance (Measure M) . Revenues generated from the 1/2 cent sales tax increase will provide funding for critical road improvements and help to mitigate traffic impacts generated from existing and proposed development. The GM Element would mandate that growth and development be based upon the City of Huntington Beach' s ability to provide an adequate circulation system; and, adequate fire, police, flood control and other infrastructure services . The GM Element identifies specific goals, objectives and policies as well as implementation programs. B. Goals. Objectives and Policies The goals of the GM Element are to reduce traffic congestion, ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities are provided for existing and future residents of the City of Huntington Beach. Objectives and policies pertaining to the following areas have been established: 1. Traffic Level of Service (LOS) Standards 2. Planning Standards for Public Services and Infrastructure 3 . Development Mitigation 4 . Development Phasing and Annual Monitoring of LOS These policy areas are the basis for implementation programs set forth in the proposed GM Element. II . ANALYSIS The GM Element improves upon the existing framework established in the City of Huntington Beach' s General Plan for growth and development. As a new Element of the General Plan identifying goals, objectives and policies for growth which are equally or more restrictive than existing policies, the GM Element in itself will not create significant environmental impacts, but instead may serve to minimize possible future impacts . The GM Element is intended to improve existing development policies by phasing development commensurate with facilities improvements and providing implementation. • • The GM Element also establishes a Performance Monitoring Program that would ensure the required road and public facilities improvements as well as funding are actually provided. If improvements or funding are not provided, development may be deferred until compliance with the specific provisions of the program(s) are achieved. In this way and by overall implementation of the GM Element, potential significant impacts on circulation and public facilities will be minimized, rather than created. Adoption of the GM Element will not significantly impact the following areas identified on the environmental analysis checklist, but may in fact minimize potential impacts associated with future growth and development in the City of Huntington Beach. • Earth • Air • Water • Biological Resources • Cultural/Scientific Resources • Aesthetics • Energy • Land Use • Transportation/Circulation • Recreation • Public Health and Safety • Noise • Light and Glare • Public Services and Utilities (1375D) • • Yes Maybe No Discussion: The Growth Management Element does not propose any policies which will result in the exposure of people to noise levels which exceed City standards. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in the exposure of people to new light or glare. 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in substantial alterations of the present or planned land use in the area. 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in an increase in or substantial depletion of natural resources such as energy, water, and raw materials. The Element proposes water programs, such as use of drip irrigation and drought tolerant landscaping materials, which may help to reduce the water depletion rate. 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil , pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in any risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset condition. b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. 11 . Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will have no impact on population location, distribution, and density. The Element establishes minimum service standards which will need to be met prior to occupancy of new development and may slow growth in areas with substandard services. The Element is intended to ensure that growth (i .e. development) in these areas is phased concurrently with the City's ability to provide adequate public facilities and services. No significant adverse impact is anticipated. 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ _ X Discussion: The adoption of the Growth Management Element will have no significant adverse impact upon the existing housing and will not result in generate a demand for additional housing. The Element is intended to ensure that new development will not result in substandard service levels in areas of existing development. Environmental Checklist —5— (2136d) ' • • Yes Maybe No 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ _ X Discussion: No additional vehicular traffic adverse impacts to transportation/circulation facilities, or alterations to circulation patterns will result. The Element proposes minimum service levels for intersections and arterials which will need to be maintained by subsequent development. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off—site parking? _ _ X Discussion: Existing parking facilities will not be affected if the Growth Management Element is adopted. Furthermore, it does not propose any policies which will necessitate or create a demand for new/additional parking. C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ _ X Discussion: See 13a. d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? — _ X Discussion: See 13a. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _ X Discussion: No waterborne, rail , or air traffic will be affected by adoption of the Growth Management Element. f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? — X Discussion: No additional hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrian will not occur if the Growth Management Element is adopted. The Element proposes minimum arterial and intersection levels of service and may result in slight improvements to motor vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian safety by maintaining the safe and efficient flow of traffic. 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not have an adverse effect upon fire protection services. The Element establishes emergency fire response time standards and identifies programs which the City can pursue to maintain them as the City grows, such as the incorporation of fire prevention mechanisms in new development, relocation of fire stations and additional paramedic manpower. b. Police protection? _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not have an adverse effect upon police protection services. The Element establishes emergency police response time. Like Fire impacts, the police policies idenfy existing needs and identifies programs which the City can pursue to address them and maintain adequate levels of service as the City develops. No adverse impacts to service are anticipated. Environmental Checklist —6— (2136d) • I• Yes Maybe No C. Schools? _ — X Discussion: No new school facilities will be required as a result of the Growth Management Element. The Element does not propose any policies which will impact school development. d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X Discussion: No new parks or other recreation facilities will be required from adoption of the Growth Management Element. The Element contains park and recreation standards already established by the City's General Plan. e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ X Discussion: No adverse impacts are anticipated upon the maintenance of public facilities or roads as a result of the adoption of the Growth Management Element. f. Other governmental services? _ _ X Discussion: No adverse impacts to other governmental facilities are anticipated as the result of the adoption of the Growth Management Element. 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in the use of abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy. b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the development of sources of energy? _ _ X Discussion: No substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy or requirements for the development of new sources of energy are anticipated as a result of the adoption of the Growth Management Element. Implementation of the proposed project will not increase the demands upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy. 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ X Discussion: The adoption of the Growth Management Element will not create the demand for additional power (i .e., electricity) or natural gas. b. Communication systems? X Discussion: No additional demand for communication systems will be created as a result of the Growth Management Element. C. Water? X Environmental Checklist —7— (2136d) Yes Mavbe No Discussion: No additional demands for domestic water will be created as a result of the Growth Management Element. d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ _ X Discussion: No additional demands for sewer facilities or septic tanks will be created as a result of the Growth Management Element. The Element proposes policies and programs to maintain adequate levels of sewer service in the area. No adverse impacts to sewer service are anticipated. e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not necessitate new storm water drainage improvements. The Element does propose policies to maintain adequate levels of drainage in the City. f. Solid waste and disposal? _ _ X Discussion: Growth Management Element does not propose any policies which will impact solid waste disposal facilities in the area. 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _ X Discussion: The creation of potential health hazards, physical or mental will not result from the adoption of the Growth Management Element. b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards. 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will not obstruct any views or result in potential aesthetic impacts to the environment. 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Discussion: The Growth Management Element will not create any adverse impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X Discussion: No alteration or destruction of archaeological , prehistoric, or historic sites will occur as a result of the Growth Management Element adoption. Environmental Checklist —8— (2136d) • • Yes Maybe Ng b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X Discussion: No effects, physical or aesthetic, are anticipated to occur as a result of adoption of the Growth Management Element. C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X Discussion: No unique ethnic cultural values are anticipated to be affected as the result of adoption of the Growth Management Element. d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? - - X Discussion: No known existing religious or sacred uses will be impacted as a result of adoption of the Growth Management Element. 21 . Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub— stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Discussion: The Growth Management Element is specifically intended to improve the quality of the environment through managing the rate of development to reduce impacts to public services and infrastructure. b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term, to the disadvantage of long—term, environmental goals? (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X Discussion: Adoption of the Growth Management Element will achieve short—term as well as long—term goals without significantly impacting the environment. C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid— erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ _ X Discussion: Cumulative impacts associated with the Growth Management Element are not significantly adverse. As presented in the environmental analysis, the goals and objectives identified in that document are specifically intended to reduce development associated impacts to public services and infrastructure. Growth Management Element will have a positive effect on the environment and further reduce adverse cumulative impacts associated with growth in the City. d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X Environmental Checklist —9— (2136d) • . Yes Maybe No Discussion: No significant adverse effects are anticipated to occur to human beings, either directly or indirectly if the Growth Management Element is adopted. DETERMINATION 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 an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 4 /99c& Date Sign ure Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Environmental Checklist —10— (2136d) RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO, 92-3 I . INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Negative Declaration No . 92-3 . This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration as of March 131 1992 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines . This document contains five sections . In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments , Responses to Comments and Appendix. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft Negative Declaration. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups , organizations, and individuals as of March 13 , 1992 . The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment . It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration. 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 City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations , and individuals that a Draft Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project . The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Negative Declaration. 1 . A cover letter and copies of the Draft Negative Declaration were filed with the State Clearinghouse on February 13 , 1992 . The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 92021048 to the proposed project . A copy of the cover letter and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 . 2 . An official thirty (30) day public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration was established by the State Clearinghouse. It began on February 13 , 1992 and ended on March 13 , 1992 . 3 . Notice of the Draft Negative Declaration was published on the Huntington Beach on March 13 , 1992 . Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies , groups , organizations, and individuals . III . COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of March 13 , 1992 are contained in Appendix A of this document . All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages . All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document . IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Negative Declaration No . 92-3 was distributed to responsible agencies , interested groups, organizations , and individuals . The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty (30) days . The public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on February 13 , 1992 and expired on March 13 , 1991 . Copies of all documents received as of March 13 , 1992 are contained in Appendix A of this report . Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered . Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft Negative Declaration, 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" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. Negative Declaration No. 99-3 -2- (1485D) HBEB-1: Comment : The City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board has received and reviewed the above referenced project . This project proposes adoption of a Growth Management Element . The Element will mandate growth and development in the City based upon the City' s ability to provide adequate services . Response: Comment states project description for project identification purposes . Comment does not require any response. HBEB-2: Comment : The Environmental Board concurs that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate level of environmental review for this project . The Environmental Board recommends approval of Negative Declaration No . 92-3 . Response : Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . HBEB-3 • Comment : If you have any question or concerns regarding our comments, please contact Norman Smith, Chairperson of Environmental Assessment No . 92-3 . Response: Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . SLC-1: Comment This is is response to your request for comments concerning the City' s Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Negative Declaration Negative Declaration No . 9Z-3 -3- (1485D) 1'• V (ND) for Adoption of a Growth Management Element (SCH 92021048) . A major goal of the Growth Management Element is to insure that the planning, management and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of the City. Under the California Environmental Quality Act the City is the Lead Agency and the State Lands Commission is a Responsible Agency and a Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses . Response : Comment states project description for clarification purposes and identifies the State Lands Commission as a responsible agency. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . SLC-2 • Comment : By way of background, the State acquired sovereign ownership of all tidelands , submerged lands , and beds of navigable waterways , upon its admission to the United States in 1850 . Tidelands are those which lie between the lines of mean high and mean low tide . Submerged lands lie below the line of mean low water as it last naturally existed. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all the people of the State for the statewide Public Trust purposes of waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. The landward boundaries of the State ' s sovereign interests are generally based upon the ordinary high water marks (Civil Code §830) of these waterways as they existed prior to any filling or artificial accretion, and thus may not be readily apparent from present day site inspection. The State ' s sovereign interests are under the jurisdiction of the SLC. Response: Comment provides background information on properties under SLC jurisdiction. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . SLC-3 • Comment The proposed project area involves or is adjacent to : (1) sovereign lands of the Pacific Ocean; and (2) approximately 320 acres of sovereign lands of Bolsa Chica which have been leased to the State Department of Fish and Game. Of these 320 acres, some 200 acres Negative Declaration No . 9�-3 -4- (1485D) have been restored as the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, leased to the State Department of Fish and Game. Response: Comment identifies sovereign lands located in the City of Huntington Beach. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . SLC-4 • Comment As you are aware, the City and the U. S . Army Corps of Engineers are acting as Joint Lead Agencies in the preparation of a joint EIR/EIS for the Proposed Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program for Bolsa Chica . This joint EIR/EIS includes construction of a cross-gap road through the lowlands over Bolsa Chica . Any expenditure of funds toward the planning and construction of that road should consider its impacts to the biological resources of the Bolsa Chica lowlands and evaluate the need for and alternatives to such a road. The SLC was one of the five core members of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition which developed the Concept Plan for the restoration of these environmentally sensitive wetlands, now being evaluated in the Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program EIR/EIS. The implementation of the Growth Management Element in the Bolsa Chica area should be consistent with the ultimate Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program which is currently under consideration by the City. Response : The comment discusses the Bolsa Chica project, construction of the cross-gap road and the State Lands Commission' s participation in the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition . These comments do not pertain to the Negative Declaration and do not warrant any response . The proposed Growth Management Element is consistent with the goals , policies and programs of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and is anticipated to be adopted prior to adoption of the Bolsa Chica Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program. The Specific Plan/ Local Coastal Program will be required to be consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, including the Growth Management Element . SLC-5: Comment The Draft ND should identify the public trust resources enumerated above and include goals, policies and implementation programs to ensure public trust resource habitat protection, restoration and enhancement . Negative Declaration No . 9,2-3 -5- (1485D) Response • Public trust resources enumerated in the letter will be included in the final record. The comment also suggests that the negative declaration incorporate goals, policies and programs regarding public trust resources . Such comments are not in response to any significant adverse impact to public trust resources associated with the proposed Growth Management Element . Incorporation of the suggested goals, policies and programs is more appropriate for inclusion in GME document instead of in the environmental documentation. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . SLC-6• Comment • Thank you for the opportunity to comment . We look forward to review of the Draft ND. If you have any questions , please contact Daniel Gorfain at (916) 322-7829 . Response • Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project . Negative Declaration No . 9ar3 -6- (1485D) APPENDIX A Negative Declaration No . 9;j-3 -7- (1485D) RECEIVE ® MAR 13 1992 DQpt. of Comm. Development To: Jl.lilPf)sU(7i c✓ rre I !_�rcr1 J tarit P1:anr (:'r F rc)f H!-.;r'It1r:C1; .;rl L)El C. Fn��•1i��7rlr(�i�'r1t�_fi Esoarcl l E'L t I legat ive I L 1-�:!rat i or i t ir) rhF L- , f.r _ I- [ 1 rgrr•)r [..': : ( :,lrri�errt -rl f_;Ci �r �i i1;9'.; (�( 11 r t rh"' Drojec _ j.1ri'' �'"=? :'.�ivj_i .if1r1 0( .a (-,ro'vJtil ::irl i;lerni'r'I� C IChhrYIF rl! I !-IC, F"r]ent W III 1 ril,li1�1 9%r' �"'IrC)W T.In C1ri'; HBEB-1 f7 i:-1!)rlr i, rf� Irl ir;� `.1r V ll��r4>(! [' iI.IF' ( �' - arJll �l! V1.��' service,-; I -ie Erivlronrnent�_11 conc).;1-s tt'iat I`iegative 'L)ndaraiiori i` [ne appro�)riat" level of Privirarlrrier;tdl review for this [iro�E'( t IIBEB-2 1 1he r1V1rC!ilrri:'ntal t'( :=1rCl recornmenc7s a.r_)r); otr 11 G( ('Ir'r:jntl�r� [)PCIrra ion No ``i '-3 If you Have any questions or concerns recl.arwrig our corrirrientS, r>lea e contact Norrnar, Srnith Chairperson of Environmental Assessment No 92._. HBEB-3 LL: Charles I'lontero, Chair, Fnvironrnuntal Board. Roy Richardson, Vic,'--) Chair, Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA ` • • PETE WILSON. Governor STATE LANDS COMMISSION EXECUTIVE OFFICE 1807- 13th Street LEO T. McCARTHY, Lieutenant Governor Sacramento, CA 95814 GRAY DAVIS, Controller THOMAS W. HAYES, Director of Finance CHARLES WARREN Executive Officer 4� March 6, 1992 File Ref: SCH 92021048 Hl 1 W 30029 D°/,/. City of Huntington Beach LCP Ms. Julie Osugi Assistant Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Ms. Osugi: Subject: Notice of Preparation of Draft Negative Declaration for Adoption of a Growth Management Element - City of Huntington Beach This is in response to your request for comments concerning the City's Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Negative Declaration (ND) for Adoption of a Growth Management Element (SCH 92021048). A major goal of the Growth Management Element is to insure that the planning, management and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of the City. Under SLC-1 the California Environmental Quality Act the City is the Lead Agency and the State Lands Commission is a Responsible Agency and a Trustee Agency for any and all projects which could directly or indirectly affect sovereign lands and their accompanying Public Trust resources or uses. By way of background, the State acquired sovereign ownership of all tidelands, submerged lands, and beds of navigable water.=gays, upon its admission to the United States in 1850. Tidelands are those lands which lie between the lines of mean high and mean low tide. Submerged lands lie below the line of mean low water as it last naturally existed. The State holds these lands for the benefit of all the people of the State for the statewide Public SLC-2 Trust purposes of waterborne commerce, navigation, fisheries, water-related recreation, habitat preservation, and open space. The landward boundaries of the State's sovereign interests are generally based upon the ordinary high water marks (Civil Code §830) of these waterways as they existed prior to any filling or artificial accretion, and thus may not be readily apparent from present day site inspection. The State's sovereign interests are under the jurisdiction of the SLC. Ms. Julie Osugi March 6, 1992 Page Two The proposed project area involves or is adjacent to: (1) sovereign lands of the Pacific Ocean; and (2) approximately 320 acres of sovereign lands of Bolsa Chica which have been ]eased to the State Department of Fish and Game. Of these 320 acres, some SLC-3 200 acres have been restored as the Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve, leased to the State Department of Fish and Game. As you are aware, the City and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are acting as Join Lead Agencies in the preparation of a joint EIR/EIS for the Proposed Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program for Bolsa Chica. This joint EIR/EIS includes construction of a cross-gap road through the lowlands over Bolsa Chica. Any expenditure of funds toward the planning and construction of that road should consider its impacts to the biological resources of the Bolsa Chica lowlands and evaluate the need for and alternatives to such a road. The SLC SLC-4 was one of the five core members of the Bolsa Chica Planning Coalition which developed the Concept Plan for the restoration of these environmentally sensitive wetlands, now being evaluated in the Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program EIR/EIS. The implementation of the Growth Management Element in the Bolsa Chica area should be consistent with the ultimate Specific Plan/Local Coastal Program which is currently under consideration by the City. The Draft ND should identify the public trust resources enumerated above and include goals, policies and implementation programs to ensure public :rust resource habitat SLC-5 protection, restoration and enhancement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. We look forward to review of the Draftl ND. If you have any questions, please contact Daniel Gorfain at (916) 322-7829. SLC-6 Sincerely, 2 r%ABEll PATTERSON Resource Planning and Analysis Unit Division of Environmental Planning and Management cc: OPR Dwight Sanders STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY • PETE WILSON, Governor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION R EC E 0 V E D DISTRICT 12 2501 PULLMAN STREET SANTA ANA, CA 92705 MAR 2 3, 0-02 Dept. of Comimi. Development March 23, 1992 Julie Osugi FILE : ATSD/ND City of Huntington Beach SCH#: 92021048 Department of Community Development P.M. : ORA-39 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT : Adoption of a Growth Management Element, No. 92-3 Dear Ms . Osugi : Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Growth Management Element (GME ) for the City of Huntington Beach . Caltrans concurs that implementation of the traffic/circulation mitigation measures on page 12 will reduce significant effects on the environment . Please continue to keep Caltrans informed of all projects with potential adverse impact to State facilities. If further assistance is required , please contact Nathaniel H. Pickett , 714 724-2247 . Sincerely yours , 4 ROBERT J EPH Chief Advanced Planning Branch cc : Ron Helgeson , HQTRS Ping Tom Loftus, OPR STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,..� • PETE WILSON, Governor GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO, CA 95814 Mar 13 , 1992 JULIE OSUGI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET 8 � HUNTINGTON BEACH, CAR l MAR 16 1992 ^ 'o,.m Subject: NEGATIVE DE �'� `�T8N'-No.r 92ent-3 SCH # 92021048 Dear JULIE OSUGI: The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments . This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. Please call Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process. When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. Sincerely, - /,/-—Z'_ David C. Nunenkamp Deputy Director, Permit Assistance SUMMARY OF COSTS OF ALL RECOMhIENOATION S; CAPITAL COSTS OPERATING COSTS Police $ 2.50 Million Fire $ 4.83 Million $1.75 Million Traffic $ 15.0 Million Parks $ -0- Water $ 50.0 Million Sewer $ -0- Drainage/Flood Control $ Undetermined at this time Community Development $ N/A N/A ;'- -15- (3420a) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ' CITY OF HaNniiCTIm BEACH ' CAPITAL PM ' The foll section contains the Capital rovement for FY 1991 92 al with projections for the followin owing P / �g P 7 three years. Like the General Fund budget, the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is prepared in the multi year forma ' The CIP is divided into several major categories such as Transportation, Parks, Drainage, Sewer, Redevelopment, Facilities, Sewer Projects, Drainage Projects, Pier Reconstruction, etc. ' Projects are included in the Capital Improvement Program when a funding source has been identified as available through either an established funding mechanism, one time source, or the use of existing fund balances from the various, ' separate funds of the City. A significant portion of the CIP is projected to be funded frown re-cocurring, annual revenues which are restricted in use for the types of projects for which they were originally collected, ie. Parks, Streets, Drainage, etc. Other projected revenues, both restricted and non-restricted will come from water use rates, redevelopment tax increment, monies available from the prior issuance of Bonds or Certificates of Participation and grants. ' Each project category is presented as a budget program cost center with information provided on similar budget forms as the operating portion of the City's budget. Although under the supervision of various City departments, the CIP programs have been grouped together in this manner to provide a comprehensive Capital Improvement Program section. summary schedule of project expenditures for FY 1991/92, and projected expenditures for the following three years, haV ' been provided to help pant the Capital Improvement Program into perspective in terms of total dollars. ' 550 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDED PROJECTS ' DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION <-----------------PROJECTED-----------------> PROJECT CATEGORY FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 ----------------------------- ------------ 1 --------------- 1 ------------ ------------ ------------ GAS TAX PROJECTS 8,200,000 1 8,200,000 1 600,000 625,000 650,000 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT I 1 FUND PROJECTS 4,718,873 1 2,691,631 1 2,374,750 4,800,062 1,281,250 • ' PARK ACQUISITION AND I 1 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 465,000 1 465,000 1 3,715,000 1,625,000 2,905,000 I I ' TRANSPORTATION FUND PROJECTS 1,605,000 1 1,605,000 1 1,150,000 750,000 750,000 SEWER PROJECTS 900,000 900,000 560,000 572,500 520,000 I I DRAINAGE PROJECTS 1,600,000 1 1,600,000 1 985,000 1,040,000 450,000 WATER UTILITY PROJECTS 950,000 950,000 1,405,000 720,000 0 I I ' GRANT FUND PROJECTS 55,000 1 55,000 I 60,000 80,000 90,000 HOUSING AND COMMUNITY I II DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 1,124,000 I 1,124,000 I 1,180,200 1,239,210 1,301,171 1 REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Main/Pier Projects 6,190,000 1 6,190,000 1 11,000,000 830,000 0 Huntington Center Projects 1,550,000 1 1,550,000 1 15,000,000 0 0 Talbert/Beach Projects 30,000 1 30,000 1 0 0 0 • Oakview Protects 1,200,000 1 1,200,000 1 0 0 0 Yorktown/Lake Projects 54,000 1 54,000 1 68,400 90,000 150,000 20% Set-a-Side 0 1 0 1 850,000 0 0 ' LIBRARY EXPANSION FUND 8,468,000 8,468,000 0 0 0 I I PIER RECONSTRUCTION FUND 3,212,000 1 3,212,000 1 0 0 0 I 1 ' TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 40,321,87TI 38,294,6311 , 551 CITY OF HUNrINOIC�T BLi ' DEPARTHEEtT FU?VTION PROGRAM rVJUUATIVE AO00@TPING DIV. PROGRAM INME Public Works/ General Gov't. SF-PW-740 Street ' Gas Tax Fund Projects PROGRAM OBJECPIVE: To ensure the development and maintenance of an adequate system of residential streets and arterial highways within the City of Huntington Beach. Projects in this program are funded with Gas Tax, County AHFP, ' Federal-FAU, C=ty-Oa=, and State-CA]LTRANS funds. SIGNIFICANT : First time allocation of personal service costs, formerly budgeted in the General Fled, to provide ' accurate project cost accounting. In addition to transfers, 3-new positions are requested including: 1-Civil Engineer Associate, 1-Civil Engineer Principle, and 1 Surveyor. The number of projects will increase aver time due to Proposition ill funding. BODGUn= RESPONSIBI=: City Engineer • 1 ESTIHA! D DEPARTMENT i ' ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST HEYNKENDATIaN PROTECTED- SERVICE ACTIVITIES FY 89190 FY 90 91 FY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94 95 1. Transfer to General ' Fund ($/mil.) $1.29 $1.35 $1.45 1.575 1.575 $1.653 $1.736 $1.823 2. Street Widening ' Projects 2 3 1 3 3 3 3 4 3. Street Rehabilitation Projects 8 10 7 9 9 12 15 17 1 4. Traffic Signal Projects 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 5 • ' TN91Z OF ORGANIZATIC1 RISE CLASSIFICATION ' 548 City Engineer 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 493 Civil Engr. Principal 1 1 1 1 1 478 Civil Engr. Associate 1 1 1 1 1 449 Civil Engr. Assistant 1 1 1 1 1 ' 433 Engineering Technician 1 1 1 1 1 433 Traffic Technician 1 1 1 1 1 433 Inspector P.W., Sr. 1 1 1 1 1 396 Surveyor 1 1 1 1 1 1 7-1/4 7-1/4 7-1/4 7-1/4 7-1/4 PENCHM 552 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION -------FUNDED------- PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ' ---------- -------- --------- Gas Tax Fund General Services E-SF-PC-740 Street Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- A. CARRY OVER PROJECTS: ' 1. Colden West Widening 3,054,000 3,054,000 1. Widen, improve, and inter- • FAU/Irvine Funds connect all traffic signals on CC-575 Golden West Street with 100% FAU/Irvine funding. 2. Beach/Edinger OCUTT 750,000 750,000 2. Improve the intersection OCUTT Funds of Beach Blvd. and Edinger as , CC-728 part of the Super Street pro- gram. 3. Beach Blvd. Traffic 300,000 300,000 3 Design g new traffic signals Signal Design and related improvements in City Gas Tax connection with the Super CC-730 Street program. 4. Hamilton Bridge AHFP 182,000 = 182,000 = 4. Widen the approaches to the ' City Gas Tax: $91,000 bridge in conjunction with the OC AHFP Fund: 91,000 I Costa Mesa widening plan by Total: $182,000 II i combining iGas Tax and County funds.AHFP ' NEW EXPENDITURES: 1. General Fund Transfer 1. Transfer Gasoline Tax funds City Gas Tax: Budgeted collected from Title 2107 into in Operating Expenses the General Fund to offset a portion of the cost of street ' maintenance programs. 2. Minor Street 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 2. Make general small scale Improvements street improvements as needed. ' City Gas Tax Emergency repairs and responses to public service requests are funded from this account. (see next page) FORM 5A I 553 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ Gas Tax Fund General Services E-SF-PW-740 Street Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION -------------- --------- -------- i -------;---- i ----;--- ----;--- -------- ----------- --- -P-- ---------- 3. Traffic Improvements 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 3. This ongoing program con- City Gas Tax I I tinues the replacement of any I signal controllers which have I I worn out ($40,000) , highway I I pavement markers ($20,000) , I lighted street signs, and also* ' I I funds the rewiring of inter- sections damaged by rodents ($40,000) . ' 4. State Highway Signal 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 4. Funding to pa the City's Maintenance I I portion of signal and lighting City Gas Tax I I maintenance on State highways. ' S. Capital Street 200,000 200,000 225,000 250,000 275,000 5. Repair, slurry seal, and/or Maintenance I i resurface about five miles of City Gas Tax I I City streets as part of an on- going maintenance program. 6. Traffic Signal System i i 100,000 100,000 100,000 6. Improve traffic flow by City Gas Tax I I constructing a new signalized ' I I intersection by priority each I I year beginning in FY 92/93. 7. Garfield AHFP II 266,000 1 266,000 1 7. Reconstruct and/or resur- • ' (Beach to Newland) I I face a major arterial highway City Gas Tax: $133,000 I I by combining City Gas Tax and OC AHFP Fund: 133,000 I I County AHFP funds. Total: $266,000 I I ' 8. Garfield OCUTT II 152,000 1 152,000 1 8. Reconstruct and/or resur- (Main to Delaware) I I face a major arterial highway City Gas Tax: $76,000 I I using a combination of City ' OC OCUTT Fund: 76,000 i i Gas Tax and OCTC OCUTT funds. Total: $152,000 I I (see next page) I I ' FORM 5A I I ' 554 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ Gas Tax Fund General Services E-SF-PC-740 Street Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 9. Gothard Widening AHFP 300,000 I 300,000 ( 9. First phase (right-of-way) (Ellis to Warner) I I of a widening project to be City Gas Tax: $150,000 I I funded over several years using OC AHFP Fund: 150,000 I I a combination of City Gas Tax • Total: $300,000 I I and County AHFP funds. 10. Warner AHFP !Ii 426,000 426,000 I 10. Reconstruct and/or resur- (Gothard to Beach) I I face a primary arterial highway City Gas Tax: $218,000 I I by combining City Gas Tax and OC AHFP Fund: 208,000 I I County AHFP Funds. Total: $426.000 I 1 ' I 11. Inlet Drive Rehab 150,000 ( 150,000 I 11. Rehabilitate a residential (East of Edwards) I I street that has suffered from ' City Gas Tax I I differential settlement due to I I underlying peat. 3.2. Tr.a;fic Muriel 35,000 � 35,000 � 12. Develop a system to aid the ' City Gas Tax I I staff in preparing the Capital I I Improvement plan required by I I Proposition Ill and Measure M. 13. State Bridge Retrofit 2,030,000 1 2,030,000 13. First year of a new State ' Program I I program for siesmic retrofits • City Gas Tax: $235,000 I I of State bridges. State will County Funds: 235,000 I I fund 70% of costs. The County ' State Funds: 1,560,000 I I will administer the projects. Total: $2,030,000 I I I I ' I I I I ' (see next page) I I FORM 5A 555 1 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION -------FUNDED- PROGRAM-NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- ------ ------- ------------ Gas Tax Fund General Services E-SF-PC-740 Street Projects 1 DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- 1 ------------ 1 ----- 14. Replace Street Lights 80,000 1 80,000 1 14. The existing luminairs 1 on Pacific Coast High- I 1 and poles are a maintenance way. 1 1 problem. City Gas Tax I I I I • 1 FY 91/92 Funding: I 1 Gas Tax: $ 3,g95,946 1 1 CalTrans: 1,560,000 OCUTT: 826,000 I I County: 817,000 1 FAU: 3,054,000 1 1 1 Total: $10,252,946 I I * Includes Personnel & I I 1 General Fund Transfer 1 I I 1 I I I 1 � I I I 1 I I 1 I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 1,200,000 1 8,200,000 1 600,000 625,000 650,000 1 FORM 5A I I 1 556 CITY OF HIII�OI�0�1 BEAQi D�PA tTME T FE210TION PROGRAM HIdU1A2`IVE Amon T ING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ' Public Works/ General. Gov't CP-PW-710 General Capital Imprv. Facility Proj ects F uz-d Projects PROGRAM OBJECTIVE: To provide for the construction of facilities, on a City-wide basis, which are not eligible for funding from re-occurring, restricted funding sources. Projects which are budgeted under this portion of the Capital ' Improvement Program will be funded frYan a variety of revenue sources as identified in each project description. SICNIIFICAM Carry-aver of $943,000 of prior year projects which have begun, but are yet unfinished. Due to ' funding shortages, only mandatory projects or those which are already eonitted will be budgeted for FY 91/92. :Transfers of reserves for Pier reconstruction and Library expansion will occur to their respective fund units. Bma—A A m . 1—QILI'FY: Director, Public Works, & Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Services ' ESTIMATED DEPAIt TP ' ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUESTRECOMMENDATION PROJECTED- UMKV7LCZ �:11V11'1' � r .+.1- -..07/i-7v.. .�., �.n//n�a a+ FY nn ins w 91 192 FY 9 /02 FV 09/OZ rV Q11QA FV 9d/Ors r 1 �v �v/is a.� 1. Transfer to Library F u-id $2.1m 2. Transfer to Pier Fund $1.5m ' 3. Blufftop Part-jng Continue Continue Continue Complete Complete 4. underground Fuel ' rrdnk Myna:. Pik -dM Continue Continue Continue Continue Continue Ongoing 5. 800 Nhiz Radio System ' • (%- Conplete Cumulative) 20% 40% 40% 60% 60% 80% 100% 6. Capital Outlay ($) $600k $620k $620 $1.4m $228k to be determined 7. Special Projects/Studies 1 1 10 10 to be determined , 8. Public Works Misc. Projects ($) $200k $200k $200k $200k $100k $200k $200k $200k ' TABLE OF CRGA IIZR1 aq RAC CuiSSIFICAT cm r Staff budgeted within various departmP.nts of the City's operating budget. 557 r 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS 1 DEPARTMENT FUNCTION -------FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Public Works/ General Gov't. E-CP-AS-710 General Capital Imprv. Facility ' Projects Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Projects REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- ' CARRY-OVER PROJECTS 1. Civic Center Alarm 130,000 0 250,000 1. Install a combination access System control/fire monitoring audible • I system for all entries & floor ' levels of Civic Center complex. I I Funding: Recommend defer to 92/93 I due to current funding shortfall. 2. A. Fire Apparatus Bay 193,000 0 2-A. Add 1 additional apparatus bay to the north side of Gothard Station to house emergency med. and reserve fire apparatus. 1 I I Funding: Cancel this project and I I utilize 90/91 budgetd funds for I I projects 2-B thru 2-F as described below. ' B. Gothard Improvements 25,000 2-B. Alternative to 2-A. C. Butler Building 110,000 2-C. Alternative to 2-A. tD. Graham/Heil Planning 50,000 2-D Thru 2-F. Relocation of Heil Station to Graham & Production E. Graham/Heil Design I 175,000 St. will improve response times • I I in northern part of City. The r F. Construct Graham/Heil 3,200,000 Graham Station was included in I I the City's 1973 Master Plan. Reassessments of deployment ' I strategy continue to under- score the need for relocation. This development will be I coordinated with the Community ' I I Services Department & the I Library to improve & consolidate existing facilities in a park I location. Funding: Project 2-1) from 90/91 funds allocated for t FORM 5A 2-A above; future yrs unfunded. 558 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ Public Works/ General Gov't. E-CP-AS-710 General Capital Imprv. Facility Projects Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Projects REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 3. Blufftop Parking I I 3. - 7. Projects carried-over Improvements 415,000 i 415,000 ; from FY Funding: Carry-over of 1990/91 H.C.P. Restroom Rehab. 50,000 I 50,000 I funding. 0 Facility Maint Projects 50,000 1 50,000 1 ' 1 i 6. Refurbish Art Center 23,000 I 23,000 7. Carr/Greer Lake Imprvmt 220,000 II 220,000 I I I SUBTOTAL CARRY-OVER 1,6$I,000 1 943, 1 425,6b6 I I TOP PRIORITY REQUESTS FOR 91/92 I i I '8. Police/Public Works 421,000 � 421,000 I 421,000 421,000 8. Purchase/install County-wide 800 Mhz Radio System I I 800 Mhz Communication System 1 through County contract. 5 year ' I I funding program at $421,000 per 1 year beginning 89/90. (HB share • I 1 of total cost. Funding: CIP Fund. 1 (1991/92 funding from Self Insurance Fund.) 9. Capital Outlay 1,434,873 227,631 1 250,000 300,000 350,000 9. City wide cap ital outlay I 1 for General Fund Department I operations. Funding: Self ' 1 1 Insurance fund for 91/92. 10. Multi-year Underground 200,000 + 75,000 1 200,000 200,000 200,000 10. For modifications, additions, Tank Management Program I I and monitoring of underground ' I storage tanks to comply with 1 mandatory EPA and Dept. of Health Service regulations. Funding: , FORM SA I I Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 559 ' 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS t DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ------- - - Public Works/ General Gov't. E-CP-AS-710 General Capital Imprv. Facility ' Projects Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Projects REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------ ------ ' 11. Florida/Clay Site 15,000 15,000 11. For mitigation of soil Mitigation I I contamination caused by illegal I I oil dumping on street right-of- way. Ordered by the county for • ' City mitigation. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 12. Public Works Maint. 200,000 i 100,000 i 200,000 200,000 200,000 12. Various maintenance and ' Division Projects. I I improvement projects requested by the Public Works Maintenance Division. Requests include; Civic Center and Central Library ' pro ects, improvements to various building and facilities operated by Police, Fire Community Services, & Public Works Depts. I Funding: Self Insurance fund for 91/92. 13. City Wide Geographic 844,000 i 300,000 i 850,000 450,000 500,000 13. Implementation of Geographic ' Information System I I information system pilot study area. Includes hardware and I software data conversions, i training, etc. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 0 I 18 000 14. Needed due to age and poor ' 14. City Hall Elevator 18,00 � � g y Relay Change Out. condition of existing equipment. ' I Replacements are no longer available. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 15. Replacement of 85,000 85,000 15. Existing pans and coils are ' Condensate Pans on Air badly deteriorated and leak Handlers at Central causing a shut-down of these Library i i cooling g units to avoid building and contents•to the Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. ' 560 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ t Public Works/ General Gov't. E-CP-AS-710 General Capital Imprv. Facility Projects Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Projects REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------ - 16. Central Orange County 30,000 30,000 16. Study is to aid the City in Fixed Guideway Study determining the preliminary route ' for the H.B. extension of the central core system. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 17. Street Lighting Energy 30,000 30,000 1/. Study will review the cost- Study effectiveness of the way in which we pay for street light energy and maintenance. Funding: ' I I Self Insurance Fund for 11/92. 18. HB Share of California 25,000 25,000 28,750 29,062 31,250 18. The U.S. Army Corps of Coastline Study Engineers has asked La tuna Beach, ' Newport Beach, and Seal Beach to participate in the 5-year Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study authorized by ' Congress. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 19. Highway Landscape 50,000 1 50,000 1 19. Rehabilitate existing manual ' Irrigation Automation and/or poorly designed roadside median irrigation to stop water waste and improve efficiencies in labor intensive work. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. 20. General Plan Amendments 0 1 157,000 1 20. It is proposed that the cost for the General Fund portion of ' 4 4 General Plan Amendments be funded by the C.I.P. Fund. Funding: Self Insurance Fund for 91/92. ' 21. Police Parking Lot 70,000 1 0 1 21. Expansion and repair to Improvements existing parking lot. FORM 5A 561 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ Public Works/ General Gov't. E-CP-AS-710 General Capital Imprv. Facility Projects Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Projects ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' ------PROJECT-LIST------ FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 ------PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' -------- i ------------ i -------- -------- -------- - - ---- -------- 22. Payroll System Software 135,000 135,000 22. Integrated automated software to replace current system which does not allow for needed features. 23. Consultant for Street 50,000 50,000 23. Assistance in determination 1 Lighting Assessment ( of assessments to pay for annual g 8 street lighting costs for private t properties throughout the City. Includes all estimated costs for outside assistance to implement a 1972 Street Lignting Assessment District. Estimated annual new General Fund revenue-$1.5 million Funding: Self Insurance Fund. 24. Consultant for Sewer 30,000 i 30,000 24. Assistance in determination ' Assessments I of methodology for an equitable fee to cover City costs for sewer I Maintenance. Est. annual new General Fund revenue-$1 million. ' TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS T3 2,691,631 T,774,750 4,800,037 1,281,250 Funding: Self Insurance Fund. TRANSFERS TO OTHER FUNDS 22. Transfer To Pier Fund 0 I 1,500,000 22. Transfer C.I.P. reserve to • Pier Fund for use in 1991/92 for reconstruction costs. Funding: ' Pier capital reserve account. 23. Transfer to Library 0 2,088,000 23. Transfer to new fund being Service Fund established in 1991/92 to account ' for revenues and expenses related to the Library Expansion project. Funding: C.I.P. Fund Revenues earmarked in 1990/91 for Library ' Project. TOTAL TRANSFERS 3,588,000 a 0 FORM 5A ' ' 562 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' DETAIL OF RECOMMENDED CAPITAL OUTLAY FISCAL-YEAR 1991/92----------- ' ------------------------- PROG. # ITEM DESCRIPTION COST PROG. # ITEM DESCRIPTION COST ' ------- -------------------------------- ---------- ------- -------------------------------- ---------- 100 (7) Sharp Fax Machines 4,320 140 (1) Computer Work Station 2,800 100 (5) Portable Telephones 4,750 142 Vault Shelving for City Records 2,500 r 000 (3) Hand Held Dictaphones-NT-IIe 325 174 (1) Micro Computer, CD Drive & Software 7,931 , i00 (1) Chair For Council #451221t 650 176 (1) Sheet/Envelope Feeder 1,950 103 (1) Laser Printer 1,065 176 (1) Micro Computer Terminal 1,750 ' 109 Records Shelving 24.117 I 178 (1) Cable Testor 1,500 109 (1) Warehouse Ladder 745 '109 (1) Computer System 4,993 178 (1) Storage Cabinet 700 178 Back-up Disk Packs 2,000 109 Office Furniture, (1) Desk, (2) (In..Fti,rs, (1.) Fi.l.e 1,750 230 (1) Datanax Terminal 1,200 ' 120 (1) Duplo Bar Code Reader 10,000 I 230 (1) Counter Top Copier 1,200 172 (1) Remittance Processor, Incl. 301 Fire Hydrant Flow Meters 1,000 Hardware & Software 10,000 ' 301 (1) 800 MHz Portable Radio 3,720 030 Various Software for IBM PC 1,500 302 Exhaust Evacuat Sys-Bushard Sta. 7,000 ' 130 (2) Sensor Chairs 650 r r r 563 ' ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DETAIL OF RECOMMENDED CAPITAL OUTLAY ' -----------FISCAL -YEAR 1991/92 ------------------------- ROG' P ITEM# DESCRIPTION COST PROG ITEM DES CRIPTION SC 0N COST - --- -------- -------------------- ---------- ------- -------- - -------- -------- --- --- 302 800 MHz Portable Radios 12,000 I 334 (3) Emergency Breathng Apparatis 1,000 I ' 302 Six-Bank Portable Racio Charger 750 I 354 (1) Computer, Software Printer 4,000 I 302 Frequency Selection Switch On I 410 Office Partitions 15,000 • t Portable Radios 6,500 I 413 Office Furniture 1,100 302 Hearing Protector Helmets with Radio/Intercom Systems 4,500 ' 410 Office Furniture 800 ' 308 (1) FAX/Copy Machine 1,000 i 410 (1) Wang Terminal 600 II 413 CADD Workstation 10,450 ' 321 (20) Prisoner Cages 8,000 I I 415 CADD Equipment 3,150 321 Prisoner Transportations Seats 6,700 I 413 (1) Micro Computer Workstation 3,150 ' 321 (150) Helmets 18,000 I I 530 EM 2200v Generator 2,000 321 Inclement Weather Uniforms 12,750 I I 540 (1) Inventory Processor 1,715 321 Antifreeze Recycler 5,000 I ' I 544 Grandview Trimmer 1,800 326 (1) 120 M Hard Disk Drive 800 I • 331 (1) Fume Absorber 1,800 544 Ground Hog Earth Drill 1,200 ' 331 (1) Silver Recovery System 3,750 I I TOTAL GENERAL FUND CAPITAL OUTLAY 227,631 ' I t564 CITY OF BEACH ' DEPAIUMEM` FUrILTIC K PROGRAM NAR1U TIVE AOOOUNTn G DIV. PROGRAM NAME Cmnlnity Services/ Recreation/ SKIS-340 Park ' Park Acquisition & Culture Projects Development Fund PROGRAM CBJEGTIVB: Zb acquire, design and develop park and recranational properties as per the adapted City General Plan at four acres per 1,000 residents, within budgetary limitations of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund, and per the priorities established by City Council in the Capital Improvements Projects Development List. ' S IFICAw : First time allocation of personal service costs, formerly budgeted in the General Fund, to provide accurate project cast accounting. ' BmGETAn RES ABZBmm: Director of Community Services • ESTIMATED IPPA , ACTUAL BUDGET ALVU1kL MUM - 1Cdv SERVICE ACTIVITIZ8 FY 89 90 FY 90191 FY 90191 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94195 1. Coord. with staff & Co m. ' Svcs. Comm. with reconmd. to Council on matters regarding park acq. & dev. Performed Continuously Continue Ongoing ' 2. Develop General Park Ades 8 5 0 3 3 8 5 24 3. -.Park Egaipnent Renovati0n ' and Replacement ($) $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 4. Acquire Encyclopedia Lorts $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 * 1Wnovate Sports Facilities 1 1 6. Misc. Projects 1 1 ' 7. H.C.P. Sports Coaplex Develop ' 8. Holly/Seacliff Park #1 Acq. Prop. Develop TABLE OF ORGANI2ATION ' RAUM CLASSIF'ICATIM 454 Contract Administrator 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 ' NM PER16aaW RANGE CLAWM CATIC H ' 565 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME --- ------ -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Park Acquisition Recreation/Culture 790 Park Projects & Development ' DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------ -------- 1. McCallen Park 220,000 220,000 1. Develop last phase of Development Phase III I park (Delaware south of I Yorktown Avenue) including irrigation/landscaping around club building and parking lot• tI and street lighting. 2. Park Equipment 75,000 i 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 2. This ongoing program will Renovation/Replacement I provide assistance to ' renovate existing parks. It will include annual replacement of deteriorating t equipment & the addition of new equipment where needed based on usage. An annual replacement program will ensure safe equipment & ' adequate facilities to meet the public need. 3. Huntington Central Park 60,000 + 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 3. Acquisition of encyclopedia ' Encyclopedia Lot lots within the approved Acquisition I boundary of Huntington Central Park for future recreation • development. ' 4. Kettler School Field 100,000 = 100,000 4. Site is used by city for youth Renovation sports programs and Bobby Sox uses it for league play. t Field is currently unsafe and needs renovation. Site is contiguous with Edison Community Park and will be ' ( used concurrently with the park. School District will maintain the site. FORM 5A 566 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ------- - ' Park Acquisition Recreation/Culture 790 Park Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ --------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 5. Murdy Park Court 10,000 10,000 5. Park drainage improperly ' Drainage Renovation I designed resulting in flooding I of basketball courts. This creates safety and liability • I I problems. , 6. Barnett Park- Development Phase II { I 1,080,000 6. Develop Phase II approx. I I 8 of 30 acres of Bartlett Park as neighborhood park. ' Does not incluce expanded parking, the historical village, or natural sections. ' Park is phased so that the residents can have neighbor- hood park facilities avail- able first, because FY 89/90 funding for entire park had been reallocated to phase III I I of Mushroom Farm purchase and I I PA 6 D Fund had insufficient ' funds in FY 90/91. iHCP Youth Sports Complex 2,500,000 7. Develop 6 baseball and 4 football/soccer fields including restroom, snack bar ' and parking facilities. City has $1.1 million in state grants. 8. Gibbs Park Development 490,000 8. Develop 5 acre Gibbs Park I on Graham, south of Heil, I as a natural grove/ neighborhood park with ' limited grass play area and picnicking. FORM 5A I 567 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Park Acquisition Recreation/Culture 790 Park Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ --------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 9. Holly/Seacliff Park #1 I I 1,000,000 9. Acquire land for the ' I I neighborhood park in the quartersection southwest of I I Ellis/Golden West. Acquisi- tion is estimated by Real I I Property Section in 1990 dollars and there may be additional costs if oil lots I I have to be acquired through I I eminent domain. 10. Holly/Seacliff Park #1 = 500,000 10. Development of the 4 acre Development I I neighborhood park in quarter ' i I section southwest of Ellis/ I Golden West. I I 11. Bartlett Park I I 2,000,000 11. Estimated cost for developing Development Phase III I remainder of Bartlett Park I I which includes expanded park- ing lot, natural catch basin I I bluff sides and additional ' I I turf area on upper park area. I I Also includes hardscape, I I utilities and relocation of I historic structures for • ' I I historic village if concept I I approved by City Council. I I 12, Irby Park Development I I 270,000 12. Complete Irby Park by ' Phase II I developing an additional 2 I I acres. Existing Phase I I totals 3 acres. I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 465,000 I 465,000 I 3,715,000 1,625,000 2,905,000 ' FORM 5A I I ' 568 CITY OF HVNFII�?r0[d BEAC�I DS�t l' FUNMIC K PROGRAM DATIVE DIV. PROGRAM NAME Public' Works/ General Services SX-PW-410 Transportation Transportation Fund Planning pRomm cBjBc m: This program establishes a new transportation planning function. It will include maintaining and updating the City's new traffic caquter model which is tied to the Canty model. The program will also include ' preparation of the 7-year Capital Improvement Programs mandated by Measure "M" and Proposition ill regulations. slC FICART : Establish program funded by a combination of Measure "M" funds and City Traffic Impact Fees. ' ��ttime allocation of personal service costs, formerly budgeted in the General Fund, to provide accurate program cost i�mtirg. BUDGETARY RESPOMIBI=: City Engineer ESTnesm DEP d ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL REQUEST RBOOMMENCATION SERVICE ACTIVITIES FY 89190 FY 90 91 FY 90191 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92193 FY 93194 FY 94 95 ' 1,a Cif pater Model Runs 6 10 10 10 10 10 2. Capital Inprovements 1 1 1 1 1 1 3. Cost Estimates 5 20 20 20 20 20 ' • TA318 OF OFIGNRIZATIOH RARGB CLASSIFICATION ' 482 Traffic Engineer Assoc. 1 1 1 1 1 433 Traffic Technician 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2RUM ' ITT P CE ASSIFICATION 569 II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Public Works/ General Services xx-PW-410 Transportation Transportation Fund Planning ' DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Measure M - C.I.P. 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1. Traffic Model runs and cost estimates. 2. Circulation & Growth 150,000 150,000 2. Mandated Measure M portion Elements of General Plan I I of the $600,000 Plan Program. 3. Hamilton Extension 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 3. Preparation for application Design Study I for Regional Measure M Funds. Begin hard design in 92/93. I 4. Plans are complete. Right-of- 4. Goldenwest Street 980,000 980,000 way has been acquired. This Widening(PCH to Yorktown) is the third phase. 5. Beach Blvd. at Adams 75,000 : 75,000 5. The project is identified in Intersection Widening county-wide Congestion Mgt. (Design only) I Plan Capital Imprvmnt Plan. 6. Bolsa Avenue at Bolsa 75,000 75,000 6. The project is identified in Chica Road Intersection I I the county-wide Congestion Mgt Widening (Design only) I I Plan Capital Imprvmnt Program. 7. Warner at Bolsa Chica 75,000 1 75,000 I 7. The project is identified in Road Intersection = the county-wide Congestion Mg Widening (Design only) Plan Capital Imprvmnt Program 8. City-wide Opticoms 100,000 100,000 1 100,000 100,000 100,000 8. Will complete installation of public safety traffic signal pre-empt devices city wide. 9. Beach Blvd. Resurfacing 1 500,000 500,000 500,000 9. Rehabilitation necessary to (Stark to P.C.H.) I complete Super Street project. 10. Goldenwest Street 400,000 10.Plans & R/W are complete. This (Slater to Warner) I is the fourth construction I phase. TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 1,605,000 1 1,605,000 1 1,150,000 750,000 750,000 FORM 5A 570 CITY OF BE& A�PAR'iilFldP FMC IM PROGRAM ZR9UVTIVE DIV. PROGRAM Ia1t+II: ' Public Works/ General Gov't. SZ-PW-800 Sewer Sewer Fund Projects ' pRoGEMN CBJBC=: To ensure the development and preservation of an adequate and functional sewer system for the City of Huntington Beach. ' siGN ICANP a 8: First time allocation of personal service costs, formerly budgeted in the General Fund, to provide ' accurate project cost accounting. • ► ► RtlBIBII�'i'Y: City Engineer ffiTIIYIIs= ' trY,F*r AC11M RBOEWT IrmrreffammmCK 3r VICti ACTIV MME FY 89190 FY 90191 VY 90 91 FY 91 92 FY 91/92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94/95 1. Transfer to General ' .Arvid for Insp. Svcs. $111,600 $39,600 $39,600 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ency for la ects $3.75,000 ' 3. Main Construction 2 0 2 2 i 1 4. nepla:aw :1c.-z. !Amps 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5. ColistrLv-+- H!ixftl as 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 6. 1-axxxistxuct Manholes 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 7. System Upgrade 1 0 8. Slinline Sewers Ongoing Ongolnq Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing as needed ' 9. Seger Master Plan Prepare Prepare TAME OF ORGMZATICH ' NANGH clBIF ICATION 433 Engineering Technician 1 1 1 1 1 433 Inspector P.W., Sr. 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 ' 1-1/2 1-1/2 1-1/2 1-1/2 N= PS[agoaw ' RANG CLAWIFICATICK 57*1 f ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ' Sewer Fund General Services E-SL-PC-800 Sewer Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ------PROJECT LIST ----- FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 ------PROJECT DESCRIPTION --------- -------- ( ------------ -------- -------- -------- --------------------- A. ANNUAL EXPENDITURES: ' 1. Orange County 10,000 = 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 1. By agreement, pay O.C.S.D. Sanitation District for a portion of the capital • Capital Agreement I replacement costs for County facilities within the City. 2. Equipment Replacement 70,000 70,000 75,000 80,000 85,000 2. Annual expenditure for the replacement of worn motors and ' pumps at the lift stations. 3. Manhole Restorations 125,000 = 125,000 , 130,000 135,000 140,000 3. Continue an annual program of restoring manholes damaged by exposure to sewer gas. 4. Manhole Construction 10,000 10,000 10,000 12,500 15,000 4. Construct one new manhole per year to serve the main- ' I I line extensions required by new construction. 5. Slipline Downtown 240,000 240,000 = 250,000 260,000 270,000 5. Slipline deteriorated sewer ' Sewer Mains mains and refurbish attendant manholes over a five year time period. This is the second • year of the program. ' B. CARRY OVER PROJECTS 1. Golden West Sewer Main 200,000 1 200,000 1 1. Construct a 12 in. line to parallel an existing sewer main ' I from Ellis Avenue to 1,300 feet North of Ellis. (Design is now I I comlpete and line will be con- structed with the Golden West street rehabilitation project. I I (see next page) ' FORM 5A 1 572 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Sewer Fund General Services E-SL-PC-800 Sewer ' DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Projects REQUEST RE;COMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' ------PROJECT-LIST------ FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 ------PROJECT-DESCRIPTION ------------ ------ -- - --- - 2. Monroe/Brush Sewer 125,000 125,000 2. Construct 900 ft. of 8 in. Main ! i sewer main in these streets. ' . Sewer Master Plan 100,000 100,000 3. Update the existing 1979 document in accordance with , I AB 1600 requirements. ■ C. PROPOSED PROJECTS: I 1. Public Facilities 20,000 20,000 1. A portion of the $600,000 ' Element of the General I I General Plan Program, Plan i 2. Warren Lane Sewer i 85,000 2. Construct 900 ft. of 8 in. ' sewer main in this street. 3. Parallel Garfield I I 75,000 3. Construct 650 £t. of 8 in. , Avenue Sewer Main I sewer main in this street. I I � I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 900,000 I 900,000 560,000 572,500 520,000 FORM 5A f 573 CITY OF S@TFIIarCH BEACH EEPARnGNr FU?VMC K PROGRAM NARRATIVE ACCOUKrDG DIV. PROGRRM NAM Public Works/ General Gov't. SM-PW-820 Drainage Drainage Ftmd Projects PROCBAM C BJECPIVE: To assist in the development of an adequate storm drain system for the City of Huntington Beach by ' funding storm drain construction and reconstniction by priority within districts as resources permit. ' SIMMCANr : First time allocation of personal service costs, formerly budgeted in the General Fund, to provide accurate project cost accounting.BUDGEnM • t RESPMIMM=: City Engineer FST NAM DEPAIM32M ' ACTUAL EMEGM ACTUAL REQUEST 11BOOMMENDATION PROJECTED- SERVICE ACTIVI3'IE9 FY 89 90 FY 90 91 FY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94 95 1. Transfer to General I ' Fund for Insp. Svcs $124,000 2. Transfer to Flood Fund Fbr EPA Permit Costs $110,000 $110,000 3. Drain Construction 2 0 3 3 2 2 1 4. Drain Extension 1 1 4. Station Expansion 1 0 1 1 2 5. Replace Control System 1 1 1 1 1 1 6. Special Projects 1 0 1 1 2 1 1 7. Drainage Master Plan Prepare Prepare ' nwz MME CLASSIFIC ATIM ' 433 Engineering Technician 1 1 1 1 1 433 Inspector P.W., Sr. 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 1/2 NM PSRKlNENr ' 10UME CL AWIFIQATIM 574 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH t CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Drainage Funds General Services E-SM-PC-820 Drainage ' Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- A. ANNUAL EXPENDITURES 1. Pump Station Controls 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 1. Continue an annual program to replace worn or obsolete • I equipment at the pump stations. 2. Storm Draiii System 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 2. Funding for general small Improvements improvements and hydrology studies. B. CARRY OVER PROJECTS I I 1. Flounder Pump Station 340,000 340,000 1. Redesign and modify the t Improvements I existing pump station in order I to increase capacity. 2. 6th Street Storm Drain 500,000 i 500,000 i 2. Construct a 48 in. drain Phase 11 I I line from Walnut to Orange. , Item listed as Downtown Storm II Drains in the FY 90/91 budget. 3. Graham St. Storm Drain 360,000 ( 360,000 1 3. Construct a 48 in. drain ' I from Heil to the D07 channel. �. NEW EXPENDITURES: 1. Drainage Master Plan 50,000 , 50,000 11 1. Complete a new Master Plan ' Phase II �_ to replace the 1979 document ' and comply with AB 1600. ' 2. Warner/Los Patos 250,000 I 250,000 2. Construct a 42 in. drain Storm Drain II I I line from Algonquin to Sims. II II ' (see next page) I FORM 5A 575 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ' DEPARTMENT FUNCTION -------FUNDED------- PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Drainage Funds General Services E-SM-PC-820 Drainage Projects DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- ------------ -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- ' D. PROPOSED PROJECTS: 1. Newland Storm System 700,000 1. Increase pump station capacity and construct a new ' feeder line. 2. Pecan Ave. Storm Drain 125,000 2. Construct a 24 in. drain line from 22nd to 19th Street. ' 3. Yorktown Pump Station 60,000 3. Fund a study to determine Upgrade Study I how and when to increase I station capacity. ' 4. Halifax Storm Drain 150,000 4. Construct a 30 in. drain line from Victoria to Edwards. 5. Marilyn Pump Station I i 100,000 5. Fund a study to determine Upgrade Study , ( how and when to increase ' station capacity. 6. Edinger Storm Drain ' : 190,000 6. Construct a 36 in, drain ' line from Feola to Sherbeck. 7. Atlanta Pump Station : = 500,000 7. Upgrade the Atlanta pump station. • 8. Indianapolis Pump j : 150,000 8. Fund a study to determine Station Upgrade Study how and when to increase ' station capacity. 9. Atlanta Storm Drain 200,000 9. Construct a 36 in. drain I line from Delaware to Alabama. TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 1,600,000 1,600,000 985,000 1,040,000 450,000 ' FORM 5A I I 576 1 CITY OF HLA�fI'II�inN BEAL�i DEPAIrII ma FUNCTION PAOGF40 kauava= A000O1JrM DIV. PIOGRAM NNM ' Public Works/ WatUtility EW-PW-921 Water Utility Water Fund Projects PnOG AM OBJEC!'M: To provide adequate facilities for the transmiwion and distribution of water to consumers within the City. ' SIGMIF'ICANP None. B DGEnUY RESPONSIBILITY: Water Operations Manager EBTIMRTED wr ACNAL 1A n ACTURL ROQDEST I FR n 71 MffRMR=OJq 1 SEMCE ACTIVITIES FY 89 90 FY 90 91 PY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 91 92 FY 92193 FY 93 94 FY 94195 1. Peck Reservoir Repairs ' 1 nn4 2. Reservoir Hill ' Booster PuW Station (% complete emulative) 100% 3. Water Main Replacements Continue Continue Continue Continue Ongoing ' 4. OC 44 Relocation Construct Construct 5. Import Station Modification's Construct Construct Ongoing ' • 6. Revamp Wells Design 1 Design 1 Construct 1 6. Iarge Meter Improvements Continue Om*dnue Continue Continue Ongoing 7. Warehouse/yard ' Improvements (% coaplete emulative) 50% 75% 75% 100% TRNZ OF ORGANIZATION ' RAtm CLASSIFICATION Staff budgeted within various departments of the City's operating budget. ' 577 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED------- ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME Public Works Water Division 921 Water Planning DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- 1 ------ ----- 1 -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- I I ' 1. Golden West Water Mains 240,000 I 240,000 I 1. Improvements required I I by street widening project 2. OC 44 Relocation 350,000 350,000 2. Relocation of OC44 for • 1 I Army Corps of Engineers ' 1 I S.A. river project. 3. Chevron Line Relocation 100,000 100,000 ' 4. Relocate 6 inch oil line ' I I off water yard to street 4. MWD Import Station 125,000 = 125,000 350,000 400,000 5. Redesign importing stations Modifications t t fluoridation watersupplypermit regs. 5. Large Meter Improvement 100,000 1 100,000 ( 100,000 120,000 6. Continue upgrade of obsolete I ( large meters to reduce I I water loss. I I 6. Well #5 Building 35,000 I 35,000 I 350,000 7. Design & construct new bldg. 1 I to improve access & safety. 7. Chlorine Room I 1 75,000 200,000 8. Design & construct emergency Modifications I 1 access for Wells #6, 7,9, 100 ' 8. Water Operations 1 3. Continue with Phase II Yard Improvements = 1 530,000 canopy & storage & Phase III I I ' I I I I1 I I ' TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 950,000 1 950,000 1 1,405,000 720,000 0 I I FORM 4 ' 578 cn-z op Till T 143 M BIB DMPAAIIGM FMVTIC K PRCMM Iquavam ACCOM 'II+1Ci DIV. PFO RiAM ISMS Public Works/ General Gov't. GB-PW-893 Bike Trails/ Grant Fund Handicapped Improvements PROM M OBMMTM: Zb fund various iqprovements, throxImt the City using State S.B. 821 grant funds, to assist the handicapped in their travels across City streets and on sidewalks and other public properties and facilities. Fluids are also used to caoplete various bike trails as identified in the Master Development Plan. •SIGNIFICMr : None. BUDGunm : City Engineer F.STIIYoom DTP DICE ALvfXVrlrlEB FY 89 90 FY 90 91 FY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94195 1. Transfer to Park Acq./Dev. Fund for Projects $35,000 2. Acoess Raoups 100 50 50 100 100 100 3. Audible Signals As Needed •4. Bike Trails (miles) As Needed 5. Bike Storage Facilities As Needed TABLE OF ORGRNIZATIM ' RANGE CLASSIFIC RTIM Staff Budgeted Within Public Works Department. ' MON PERKRIM mmm cLiashmiTIQU ' 579 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Public Works/ General Services E-GB-PW-893 Bike S.B.821 Fund Trails DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION I I ----------------------- -------- ------------ -------- -- 1. Bike Path System Study 30,000 I 30,000 I 1. Conduct a study to not only reanalyse the system but also to emphesize relocating paths from arterial highways. An analysis will also be perorme� ' I I for safety improvements to th beach blufftop trail. 2. Access Ramps 25,000 25,000 60,000 65,000 65,000 2. Make sidewalk improvements ' I I including wheelchair ramps in selected locations. 3. Bicycle Paths 10,000 10,000 3. The bicycle trails system y I is now complete. Future paths I will be constructed only in response to new development. 4. Bike Storage Systems , ' 5,000 5,000 4. Construct bicycle storage I ( systems at City park and beach I I facilities. ' S. Audible Signals I 10,000 5. The audible signal system I is now complete. Future units I i will be constructed only in I I response to new development. • i � I I I I 1 I ' I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 55,000 55,000 60,000 80,000 90,000 1 FORM 5A 1 580 cm OF H 'I Bpi D FUNCTICK PROGRAM NARnATIVE DIV. PROGRAM NARK Eoommmic Housing HK-ED-894 H.C.D. - Neighborhood Development Enhancement & Capital I Improvement Projects PROGRAM OBJECTIVE: Support comamity and neighborhood enhancement activities which are designed to upgrade declining neighborhoods, expand housing opportunities, promote eoonanic grawth, and meet relocation obligations. neighborhood enhancement areas include: Commodore, Oakview, Townlots, South Shores, Busharrl, Liberty, and BIGNMCANT Qom: None. BUDGETARY RESF0KM1LITY: Deputy City Administrator/Director F..00naftic Development; 1 & Director Redevelopment/Housing. 1osrn4hTM TIPPARTICa ,. A 1 SERVICE ACTIVITIES FY 89 90 FY 90191 FY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 91192 FY 92193 FY 93 94 FY 94195 Provide relocation assist- anne, public ?n�+ovesoents, and other assistance to support redevelopment activities As detailed in project list. Provide rehabilitation I assistance to promote up- grading of residential properties located within both neighborhood enhancement projects and on a city-wide basis. As detailed in project list. Support Social Services: ' Subgrantee Activity, Operation LOGOS, Project Self-Sufficiency. As detailed in project list. TABLE OF ORGAQZATJW RAN= afamIFIQmTIm Staff budgeted within H.C.D. Operating met. 581 f 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME Economic Housing HJ-ED-894 H.C.D. -Neighborhood Deve Enhancement & Capital DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR Improvement Projects REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. Rehabilitation 300,000 I 300,000 I 315,000 330,750 347,288 See following page for project descriptions. 2. Operation LOGOS 107,680 = 107,680 = 113,064 118,717 124,653 3. Public Service 210,750 i 210,750 i 221,288 232,352 243,969 • 4. Oakview/Florida/Yorktow Public Improvements 400,000 I 400,000 I 420,000 441,000 463,050 5. Land Use Enforcement 45,000 II 45,000 47,250 49,613 52,093 6. Contingency 60,570 60,570 = 63,599 66,778 70,117 I I I II II I j II I I I • I I I I I 1 � I I I I I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS —1,124,000 I 1,239,20 1,301,171 FORM 5A 582 CM OF HM?rnq = ARZZ��Ti' FOI=CW BI= GRAND PF4XM= LIST AOOOOIUM DIV. PROM M TAMS ' FAXWX is Housing HK-M-894 H.C.D. - Neighborhood peve,CIPMert & Capital ' Improvement Projects PF0313M a OOMON Seventeenth Year CDBG Program and Statement of Projected Use of Funds. ' 1. Rehabilitation. These funds constitute the contribution to the city's ongoing rehabilitation loan pool. Said funds ' are used to provide below market rate interest home improvement loans and deferred loans to low-income, • owner-occupied, single-family homes and to investor-owner multi-family structures in targeted areas Throughout the City. $300,000 (An additional amount of $915,000 reflects acc uaulated funds from program income and fiscal years ' Ba/g0 arwJ 96/91=) 2. O ep r tics Logos. These funds will be used for the personnel and operating Costs associated with this youth enployment program in the Oakview, Amberleaf Circle and Florida,/Yorktown neighborhood areas. The IDGCS members are ' ,..�,F.F;�; WrWA �l o?ni nrt tm trash in designated areas. $107�680 �� 1:.AAJ.LC AA AL Lt:4W V AAOj yiu�.s..a.�..,.. J T 3. Public Service. These funds will be disbursed as subgrants to human service agencies providing services for low ' and-vtoderate uKxme households within Huntingtcn Beach. Specific agencies to receive a share of these funds are reLtzmanded by the City's Human Resources Board to the City Council. Project Self Sufficiency, formerly funded •o-trier w)n1.i�uxative costs, will become a part of Public Services. 15% of the total CDBG Program is allocated for public services. $210,750 ' 4. _ lew, _n9#dda/Yorktown Mwrov I . These funds witl be used to make traffic circulation improvements such as streets, curbs and gutters in the Oakview and Florida/Yorktown neighborhoods. $200,000 is budgeted for the Oakview ' are? and $200,000 is budgeted for the Florida/Yorktown area. $400,000 (An additional amount of $198,000 reflects • aa�nmulated funds from fiscal year 89/90 which will be added to the above $400,000 amount. In addition, $1,200,000 will to transferred fw--m Pedevelcpment Tax Increment funds from the Oakview area to ecnplete the public improvements.) ' S. Land Use Inforoementa Problem areas will be selectively targeted, putting an emphasis on the Oakview and Florida/Yorktaan neighborhoods, by hiring a code enforcement person to enforce City housing Codes to maintain n ' quality housing standards. $45,000 6. Local Option. Each year as part of the CDBG Program, a share of funds is reserved in a local option account which ' will provide additional financial resources for any currently or previously budgeted activities which may incur cost overruns during the Course of the program year or to meet needs not identified at the time of the adoption of the budget. $6o,s70 ' 583 CITY OF HUNrn4 ffW Bpi ' DBPAI T Eu=C K PF40GRAN NATIVE AOODUNTnO DIV. PROGRAM NNZ Ecmficmic Redevelopment ZT/TM/TP/TY/ Redevelopment Development/t UM-EQ-810 Projects PROGRAM OBJECTIVE: To facilitate Redevelopment within the City of Huntington Beach by providing needed capital ' uq�rwements. SIGNIFICANT None. Continue with projects in progress and integrate planned projects into the hxiget. ' BDDC : Deputy City A&dnistrator/Director Economic Development; & Director Redevelopment/Housing. • ' ffiTII AT D DBP 07MM AEKOUSTIULTCR ACTUAL BUDGET ACTUAL R8QMT CST SEEiVICB ACTIV FY 89 90 FY 90 91 FY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94 95 ' 1. Edinger Ave Utility U ($ mil.) $1.7 ' 2. Parking Structures/Lots 2 1 0 1 3. Main/Pier Area Property ' Acq./Relocaticn ($ mil.) $.94 $1.0 $.250 4. Repayment of Tnmt Deed in Main/Pier ($) $800,000 $800,000 $850,000 $830,000 t5. 3rd Block West Program Implement Implement 6. North Oakview IWnNements Imply Implement 7. Civic Center Land Exchange Implement Implement Ongoing ' 8. Construction Projects 5 5 0 4 9. Design Projects 2 2 ' 10. Talbert/Beach Prop. Aoq. $30,000 $30,000 ' ONUZ OF ORGAIKEZATICK CLASBIFICATIM Staff budgeted within Redevelopment and project related departments of the City. ' 584 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME Economic Redevelopment TM-ED-810 Main/Pier ' Development Project Area DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- ' PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. Repayment of Trust Deed 800,000 I 800,000 I 830,000 Pay off 2 assumed 1st trust deeds I on property acquired in Phase II ' I project. Funding: Tax Allocation Bonds. 3rd Block West A. 4,620,000 = 4,620,000 I A. Acquisition of third party I parcels, relocation, demo- i I lition, fixtures, equipment, I payments, and on-site/off-site I improvements. Funding Source: I Deg:eloper Advance. I I B. 250,000 I 250,000 I B. Toxics Remediation. Funding Source: Developer Advance. ' C. 250,000 250,000 C. Contingency for settlement of I eminent domain in excess of ' 150% of appraisal. Funding I Source: Developer Advance. D. 270,000 1 270,000 : D. Acquisition of. 18 public I I parking spaces to meet ' I I requirement of Town Square • II I C.U.P. Funding Source: C.O.P. 3. Parking Structure North = = 11,000,000 Construction of Parking Structure t of the Pier I I North of the Pier. Funding: Certificates of Participation ' I I I � I ' I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 6,190,000 1 6,190,000 11,000,000 830,000 0 FORM 5A 585 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- --------------- ------------ Economic Redevelopment TH-ED-810 Huntington Center Development Project Area DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' ------------------------ ----;--- ( ------------ --- --- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. Hoover/Gothard 500,000 500,000 8,000,000 Right-of-way acquisition to Connection establish the Hoover/Gothard corridor. Funding: Tax Allocation Bonds. ' 2. Edinger Corridor 200,000 200,000 7,000,000 Design of Edinger reallignment • from Beach Blvd. to Gothard Ave. Funding: Tax Allocation Bonds. ' 3. Beach Blvd./405 Frwy. 450,000 450,000 Landscape improvements to the Landscaping Beach Blvd./405 Frwy intersection Funding: Tax Allocation Bonds. 4. Beach Blvd./405 Frwy. 200,000 200,000 Sign or reader board for a Si na Hunting ton Beach business and g g publicinformation. Funding: Tax Allocation Bonds. ' 1 5. Center Ave. Widening 200,000 200,000 1 Add second lane to west bound Center Ave. at 405 Frwy. ' I Funding: Tax Allocation Bonds. � i • ' I � II I � ' TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 1,550,000 1,550,000 1 15,000,000 0 0 FORM 5A I I ' 586 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION --FUNDED------- ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME 1 Economic Redevelopment TA-ED-810 Talbert/Beach Development Project Area DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR 1 REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. Property Acquisition 30,000 I 30,000 ( Acquire 3 lots to prepare for a 1 II proposed housing project. • i I � i I � I I 1 i . I I 1 I I I I = 1 I I I ; 1 I I • I I I I 1 I I I � � I 1 TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 FORM 5A I I f 587 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ' - Economic Redevelopment TO-ED-810 Oakview Development Project Area DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. North Oakview Street 1,200,000 I 1,200,000 I Physical improvements including ' Improvements I I storm drains, curb, gutter I I undergrounding utilities, I I landscaping, etc. Funding I source: Tax Allocation Bonds. •- ' I I ' I I II I I �I !I II I I ' I I I I I • ! I I I I I ! I ' II I I I I ' I I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 1,200,000 I 1,200,000 I 0 0 0 tFORM 5A I I ' 588 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME Economic Redevelopment TY-ED-810 Yorktown/Lake ' Development Project Area DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. Civic Center Parking 54,000 I 54,000 I 68,400 90,000 150,000 Cost of land purchase/exchange Lot Land Purchase/ I I to provide additional parking ' Exchange I I facilities within the Civic • I I Center site (75% of 80% Tax I I Increment) . I I Funding: Tax Increment Revenue. I i I f II I ' II I t I j I ' I I ' I_ I I ' I I I I ti t TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 54,000 54,000 ( 68,400 90,000 150,000 FORM 5A I I 589 ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME iEconomic Redevelopment TX-ED-810 Housing Development Set-aside DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT TITLE FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- ' 1. Third Block West - 2nd i 850,000 2nd trust deeds for a maximun of Trust Deeds I I 33 affordable housing units. I I Funding Source: 20% Set-aside • funds/Tax Allocation Bonds. I I I I I I I I ' I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I I i TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 850,000 0 0 FORM 5A I I ' 590 CrrY OF NUMH BEA(Z D talum FIO.TIM PROGRAM NRIUgITIVS DIV. PROGIMM NRM Public Wbrks/ General Services LAC-PW-410 Central Library Library Fund Mcpansion Project i PROGRAM amECTm: Zb provide the funding for the central Library expansion project. t siGKMCANI' : First time allocation of personal service costs, formerly budgeted in the General Fund, to provide accurate project cost accounting. BUDGETRRY City Engineer ffiZ' 1' I DEPAR'aENl' AERCENISTRATM Ac.RRL BLMGET ALRURL RBQt=T ' SERVICE A=TCUM FY 89 90 FY 90 91 FY 90 91 FY 9 92 FY 9 92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94195 isi3arary Iq=ovements Design Design Design OmmtYuc-t conplete TAB= OF ORGANIMIMr RANGE CMTICK 454 Contract Administ for 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 1/4 —� V4 V4 V4 V4 1/4 NW PERKRNENT ' RAIM CUMIFICI,TMM 591 f ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME 1 ------ --- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ Public-Works/ General Gov't. Central Library Libr Expansion Project DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR ' REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------------------------ -------- I ------------ I -------- -------- -------- ------------------------------- I ' 1. Library Expansion 8,468,000 I 8,468,000 I 1. Construction of Children's Phase I I I Wing, new entrance, circulation area, and provision for future • phase II. ' I I Funding: Total funded to date, I I $3,442,000, unfunded $5 million. Funding for balance of Phase I & I I II could be Certificates of ' I I Participation debt issue. Revenue generated through room I I rentals, gift store, media and I I technology programs, parking ' I I meter revenue, and increase in I I Community Enrichment Library Fee would fund C.O.P. annual payments. t i I II ' I I I I I I ' I � I � I � ' I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 8,468,000 I 46+ $UU0 0 0 ' FORM 5A I I ' 592 CITY OF HIIJQ113ri BE2MM r 11 Ir ILI erl'Im FUNCTION PROGF M NATIVE ACCOUNTING DIV. PROGRAM NAME ' Public Works/ Development PG-AS-154 Pier Pier Reconstruction Reconstruction ' Fund PROD M OBJECFIVE: To prwide a planned program for reconstruction of the City's Municipal Pier. t 8I(3JIFIC�lNI' Continue funding for reoonstn2ction of the Pier. ' �JDGL�PARY RffiP MIBILITY: Director, Public Works ESTIM�ITED f rgff43ffw IMMMMUM , ACTMT av'writ lri.iue�L !(C��1 -- - BEMS3; ACTIM FY 89 90 FY 90191 FY 90191 FY 9 92 FY 91Z92 FY 92 93 FY 93 94 FY 94195 1. Municipal Pier Fund & Fund & Recmtstruction Construct Qonstn=t Cmistnuct Construct Complete • TAME 1 CW SON MUM CLWMCATMK Staff Budgeted Within Public Works Department. NON' PEIRGDENT 593 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS DEPARTMENT FUNCTION FUNDED PROGRAM NO. PROGRAM NAME ---------- -------- -------------------- ----------- ------------ Public Works/ General Gov't. E-PG-AS-154 Pier Pier Reconstruction Reconstruction ' Fund DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATOR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION -----------PROJECTED---------- PROJECT LIST FY 91/92 FY 91/92 FY 92/93 FY 93/94 FY 94/95 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ------ ------------------------ -------- ------------ I -- -------- -------- ------------------------------- 1. Continuation of Pier 3,212,000 I 3,212,000 I 1. Multi-year reconstruction Reconstruction I I program of the City's Municipal I Pier and appurtanances. !II I • 1 I =I I I II III 'I II II I I I I I II j II II I I I I I TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS 3,212666 OO 0 0 ' FORM 5A I I 594 ERRATA Page 16 Change to read as: d. "Identify a specific site for fire station number 6 and develop a funding plan and construction plan for the fire station. " e. "Establish a program for the relocation of fire station number 8 (Heil Avenue) to a site near Graham Street and Edinger Avenue. " (2961d) Growth r=:% f==l manage ent Ele ent April 1992 II, Huntington Beach Planning Division Community Development Department Growth Management Element April 1992 Huntington Beach Planning Division Community Development Department : : ! • GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1. 0 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND INTENT 1 2. 0 INTRODUCTION 2 2 . 1 Background 2 2 .2 Overview 3 2 .3 Consistency with Other General Plan Elements 3 2 .4 Implementation Process 4 2 . 5 Relationships to State and Federal Highway System 4 2 . 6 Public Participation 5 3 . 0 DEFINITIONS 6 4 .0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 10 4 . 1 Objectives 10 5 . 0 POLICIES 12 5 . 1 Police 12 5 .2 Fire/Paramedic Services 13 5 .3 Traffic Circulation 13 5 .4 Parks 13 5 . 5 Water 13 5. 6 Sewers 14 5 . 7 Drainage 14 5 . 8 Land Use 14 6 .0 PROGRAMS 15 6 . 1 Development Mitigation Program 15 6 .2 Comprehensive Phasing Program 18 6 .3 Performance Monitoring Program 19 6 .4 Traffic Improvements/Public Facilities Development Agreements 19 7. 0 APPENDICES 7 . 1 Growth Management Area Map 20 7.2 Existing and Proposed Levels of Service 21 7. 3 Capital Improvement Program 27 7 .4 Performance Monitoring Program Example 36 section 1 statement of purpose and intent 1.0 STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE The purpose and intent of the Growth Management Element is to establish goals, policies and programs that will promote growth and development based upon the city' s ability to provide an adequate circulation system and public facilities and services . Adoption of the Element is a pre-requisite to establish and continue eligibility to receive monies generated by the new sales tax which was approved by Orange County voters in November 1990 as Measure M, (Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance) . Growth Management Element -1- (1379D) section 2 introduction 2 . 0 INTRODUCTION 2 . 1 Background Huntington Beach was a quiet, seaside community of 815 people and about 3 1/2 square miles when the City incorporated in 1909 . In 1960 approximately 11, 500 persons inhabited the area which then had grown to about 24 square miles. By 1980 the City encompassed 27.7 square miles with a population of approximately 171,000. The recent 1990 federal census revealed a growth in population to 181, 519 . As Huntington Beach experienced growth, so did other areas of Orange County. This rampant growth stimulated Orange County residents to promote growth control measures. On November 6, 1990, Orange County voters approved Measure M, Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance. The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance authorized the imposition of a 1/2 cent retail transaction and use tax within Orange County to provide funding for countywide transportation improvements. The sales tax increase is estimated to provide $3 . 1 billion county wide during the 20 year period beginning April 1, 1991. Huntington Beach' s share of this total is expected to be a minimum of $45 million. Growth Management Element -2- (1379D) Portions of the monies received from the new sales tax revenue will be returned to local jurisdictions for use on local and regional transportation improvements and maintenance projects . In order to qualify for the new revenues, however, Measure M requires each jurisdiction to comply with the Orange County Division, League of California Cities, Countywide Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Program which was included by reference in the Measure M Ordinance. One of the requirements of the program is the adoption of a Growth Management Element. The Growth Management Element for the City of Huntington Beach has been drafted based on the model Growth Management Ordinance approved by the Regional Advisory and Planning Council to comply with the requirement. The model element requires developed communities to include land use and transportation related policies and programs within their local element . Developing communities are required to also include policies and programs for other public services and facilities . Although Huntington Beach is primarily a developed community (96 percent buildout) , this Growth Management Element has been prepared to include policies and programs for public services and facilities to insure maintenance of a high quality of life standard while allowing development of vacant areas and recycled land uses . 2 .2 Overview The Growth Management Element contains policies for the planning and provision of traffic improvements and public services and facilities that are necessary for orderly growth and development . The Element also includes goals, objectives, policies and programs for the establishment of specific traffic level of service (LOS) and other public services and facilities standards, development mitigation, and development phasing. In addition, this Element includes an implementation program for annual monitoring. The Growth Management Element is divided into six sections. Section 1 provides a statement of purpose and intent for the Element . The second section provides an overview of the Element and includes discussion regarding General Plan consistency and Element implementation. Section 3 provides general definitions for terms utilized in the Element. Goals, objectives, and policies for the Growth Management Element are provided in Sections 4 and 5. Section 6 includes a series of implementation programs for achieving the established goals, objectives and policies. 2 .3 Consistency with Other General Plan Elements A major goal of the Growth Management Element is to insure that the planning, management and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of the City. While this goal is a high priority, it must be achieved while maintaining internal consistency among other elements of the General Plan as required by State law. Therefore, the Growth Management Element does not replace or supercede any of the other Growth Management Element -3- (1379D) General Plan elements; instead, the Growth Management Element addresses, amplifies and supports traffic LOS, public service and facility standards and policies which are included in the other elements of the General Plan. This element also serves to augment development mitigation, development phasing, and annual monitoring discussions in other General Plan elements. The Growth Management Element is the most current expression of the City' s growth management policies . This Element most closely interacts with the Land Use Element, Community Facilities Element, and Circulation Element of the General Plan. Interaction with other portions of the General Plan is more limited; however, internal consistency with other General Plan Elements will be maintained through the pursuit of common major goals. This will be accomplished by ensuring that land use approvals and/or circulation system improvements authorized or required by the Growth Management Element are reviewed for conformance with other goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. 2 .4 Implementation Process While the Growth Management Element provides a significant resource document for future growth management efforts, it is not the final action necessary to establish a comprehensive Growth Management Program for the City. Rather, the intent of this Element is to establish the basic policy for the framework of the General Plan for future implementing actions and programs . A significant implementation work effort is required in order to accomplish the established goals and objectives of the Growth Management Element . It is anticipated that a transitional period will exist between adoption of the Element and the development and subsequent approval of the implementing programs which would balance the issuance of building permits with transportation improvements and public services . Because of the mandate of Measure M, the city will proceed with diligence to ensure completion of the implementation procedures as quickly as possible. Privately initiated land use element amendments, zone changes, and other discretionary projects considered after adoption of the Element will be reviewed for consistency with the policies of this element. 2 . 5 Relationship to State and Federal Highway System. While the Growth Management Element addresses the need for the phasing of arterial highway improvements, it is recognized that the Federal and State highway system is a significant component of the City' s overall transportation system. The San Diego Freeway (Interstate 405) , Beach Boulevard (State Highway 39) , and Pacific Coast Highway (State Highway 1) , traverse the city. Thus, this element discusses the relationship of the State and Federal highway system to the City' s circulation system. Growth Management Element -4- (1379D) 2 .5 . 1 Existing Highway System Deficiencies The transportation problems in Huntington Beach as well as countywide stem from the inadequate capacities of the highway system to serve peak period travel demands . This lack of capacity has resulted in poor levels of service, characterized by severe congestion and low travel speeds during peak hours. The most severe congestion occurs at the junction of Highway 39 and Interstate 405. Pending highway widening improvements to Highway 1 further aggravate the poor travel conditions in Huntington Beach. 2. 5.2 Impact of State and Federal Highway System on the Arterial Highway System. The arterial system is designed to serve as part of a balanced transportation system (auto, trucks, buses, bicycles, pedestrians) . The arterial system provides for both through movement and a collector function. Major and primary arterial highways are intended to handle the bulk of intra-regional traffic and to complement both the freeway system and the local street network. Secondary arterials serve mainly as collectors which funnel traffic from local streets to the major and primary arterial system. As congestion continues to increase on the freeway system, more drivers are utilizing the arterial system, particularly those parallel to freeways, or those arterials serving the same trip destination as the freeways, i .e. Magnolia, Warner, and Goldenwest. Consequently, these arterials are becoming increasingly congested. This is also the case on the arterials which provide access to the freeway systems. 2 . 6 Public Participation An Ad Hoc Growth Management Committee was appointed by the City Council in June of 1988 . This committee met weekly for two years to evaluate the impact that growth and development will have on the City' s ability to provide adequate public facilities and service. Policy recommendations which addressed the City' s long range growth needs and insured maintenance of a high quality of life standard for the community were formulated by the committee. These recommendations are the basis for the goals, objectives, policies, and development programs of the Growth Management Element. Growth Management Element -5- (1379D) section 3 definitions 3 . 0 DEFINITIONS For the purposes of this Element, the following terms are defined below: 1. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) - A listing of capital projects needed to meet, maintain and improve a jurisdiction' s adopted Traffic Level of Service and standards . The CIP shall include approved and proposed projects as well as a financial plan for implementation. 2 . Comprehensive Phasing Program (CPP) - A road and public facilities improvement and financing plan which attains the level of service requirements in this Element. The CPP shall include level of service requirements and take into account measurable traffic impacts on the circulation system. 3 . Critical Movement - The conflicting through or turning movements at an intersection which determine the allocation of green signal time. 4 . Deficient Intersection Fund - A trust fund established to implement necessary improvements to existing intersections which do not meet the Traffic Level of Service Standard. Growth Management Element -6- (1379D) 5 . _Deficient Intersection List - A list of intersections that: (a) do not meet the established level of service standard for reasons that are beyond the control of the City of Huntington Beach (i .e. , ramp metering effects, traffic generated outside of the City' s jurisdiction) and (b) are not brought into compliance with the Level of Service standard in the most current Seven-Year Capital Improvement Program. Additional intersections may be added by the City to the Deficient intersection list only as a result of conditions which are beyond the control of the City. 6 . Development Phasing Program - A program which establishes the requirement that building permits shall be approved or issued in a manner that assures implementation of required transportation and public facilities improvements. 7. Goal - A general, overall, and ultimate purpose aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort. 8 . Growth Management Areas (GMA's) - Subregions of the County of Orange established by the Regional Advisory and Planning Council to promote inter-jurisdictional coordination in addressing infrastructure concerns and in implementing needed improvements . 9 . Growth Management Element - The Growth Management Element of the City' s General Plan as required by the Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance (Measure M) . 10 . Local Transportation Authority - The Orange County Transportation Authority designated by the Orange County Board of Supervisors as the body responsible for the implementation of Measure M. 11. Measurable Traffic - A traffic volume resulting in a 1% increase in any critical movement at an intersection. 12 . Measure M - The Revised Traffic Improvement and Growth Management Ordinance adopted by Orange County Voters on November 6, 1990. 13 . Objectives - Specific statements of a desired future condition toward which the City will expend effort in the context of striving to achieve a broader goal . They should be achievable and, where possible, should be measurable and time-specific. 14 . Policy - A specific statement of principle or guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that the City sets to follow, in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program. Growth Management Element -7- (1379D) 15. Program - An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. 16 . Public Facilities and Services - For purposes of this Element, public facilities and services are defined as, but not limited to, police, fire, parks, drainage, water, sewers, and schools . 17. Traffic Level of Service Standards - The following Level of Service Standards shall be applied to arterials and intersections as shown in the Circulation Element, Figure 3-6. Level of Service Standards for Intersections - • Level of Service A - describes operations with very low delay, i .e. , 5 .0 seconds or less per vehicle. This occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all . Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. • Level of Service B - describes operations with delay in the range of 5 . 1 to 15.0 seconds per vehicle. This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths . More vehicles stop than for Level of Service "A" causing higher levels of average delay. • Level of Service C - describes operations with delay in the range of 15. 1 to 25.0 seconds per vehicle. These higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear in this level . The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. • Level of Service D - describes operations with delay in the range of 25. 1 to 40.0 seconds per vehicle. At Level "D" the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths or high volume to capacity (v/c) ratios. Many vehicles stop and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines . Individual cycle failures are noticeable. • Level of Service E - describes operations with delay in the range of 40. 1 to 60 . 0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths and high v/c ratios . Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. Growth Management Element -8- (1379D) • Level of Service F - describes operations with delay in excess of 60. 0 seconds per vehicle. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with oversaturation, i .e. , when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high v/c ratios below 1. 00 with many individual cycle failures . Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels. Level of Service Standards for roadway links - • Level of Service A indicates no physical restriction on operating speeds . • Level of Service B indicates stable flow with few restrictions on operating speed. • Level of Service C indicates stable flow and more restrictions on speed and lane changing due to higher volumes of traffic. • Level of Service D indicates approaching unstable flow conditions with little freedom to maneuver and which may be tolerable for short periods . • Level of Service E is the absolute capacity of the road. It is characterized by unstable flow, lower operating speeds than LOS D, and some momentary stoppages . • Level of Service F indicates forced flow operation (more traffic demand than there is capacity on the road) where the highway acts as a storage area and many stoppages occur. Growth Management Element -9- (1379D) section 4 goals and objectives 4 . 0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The goals of this element are to: 1. Reduce traffic congestion; and 2 . Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. These goals shall be accomplished through implementation of the policies and programs set forth in this Element. Achievement of these goals shall be measured by the following objectives . 4 . 1 Objectives • Provide police and fire services to assure quality of life equal to or better than present standards . • Encourage regional coordination and compatibility in circulation planning. • Provide a transportation system that ensures safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Growth Management Element -10- (1379D) • Provide funding for constructing transportation improvements. • Provide adequate water service to all areas of the city. • Provide comprehensive, coordinated parks and recreation facilities that fulfill the needs of all areas of the city and all age groups . • Ensure adequate sewer and drainage facilities are available to all areas of the city in a coordinated and cost-efficient manner. • Coordinate land use and transportation planning policies and programs with state, regional and local growth management efforts . Growth Management Element -11- (1379D) 14 (c) Public Facilities (Schools) Discussion: No new schools will be required as a result of the Growth Management Element. The Element does not propose any policies which will impact school development." However, the control of growth directly affects the amount of additional school facilities required. The City cannot reasonable find that there is no correlation between growth and school impacts. Further, the GME addresses the provision of public facilities in accordance with levels of growth. If the GME fails to ensure the provision of adequate school facilities when considering other public facilities, additional growth in the City could have a significant adverse impact on the District. Hence, the Planning Commission cannot find that there is no significant adverse impact on the District without considering the impact of growth on school facilities. 'Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the provision as to when a Negative Declaration shall be prepared, as follows: "A proposed Negative Declaration shall be prepared for a project subject to CEQA when either: (a) The Initial Study shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or (b) The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects but: (1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by the applicant before the proposed Negative Declaration is released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and (2) There is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment." The decision under Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "....Under subsection (a) or(b), if there is any substantial evidence before the Lead Agency that the project as proposed or revised may have a significant effect, an EIR must be prepared." The District has provided herein, substantial evidence that the GME may have a significant effect on the environment. Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines states in part: "(a) 'Project' means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the environment, directly or ultimately, and that is any of the following: (1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government code Sections 65100- 65700. (2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. (3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies..." It is important to note Section 15153 of the CEQA Guidelines which states: "(a) The Lead Agency may employ a single EIR to describe more than one project, if such projects are essentially the same in terms of environmental impact. Further, the Lead Agency may use an earlier EIR prepared in connection with an earlier project to apply to a later project, if the circumstances of the projects are essentially the same. (b) When a Lead Agency proposes to use an EIR from an earlier project as the EIR for a separate, later project, the Lead Agency shall use the following procedures: (1) The Lead Agency shall review the proposed project with an Initial Study, using incorporation by reference if necessary, to determine whether the EIR would adequately describe: —9- s (A) The general environmental setting of the project, (B) The significant environmental impacts of the project, and (C) Alternatives and mitigation measures related to each significant effect. (2) If the Lead Agency believes that the EIR would meet the require- ments of subsection (1), it shall provide public review as provided in Section 15087 stating that it plans to use the previously prepared EIR as the draft EIR for this project. The notice shall include as a minimum: (A) An identification of the project with a brief description; (B) A statement that the agency plans to use a certain EIR prepared for previous project as the EIR for this project; (C) A listing of places where copies of the EIR maya be exam- ined; and (D) A statement that the key issues involving the EIR are whether the EIR should be used for this project and whether there are any additional, reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures that should be considered as ways of avoiding or reducing the significant effects of the project. (3) The Lead Agency shall prepare responses to comments received during the review period. (4) Before approving the project, the decision-maker in the Lead Agency shall: (A) Consider the information in the EIR including comments received during the review period and responses to those comments, (B) Decide either on its own or on a staff recommendation whether the EIR is adequate for the project at hand, and (C) Make or require certification to be made as described in Section 15090. (D) Make findings as provided in Sections 15091 and 15093 as necessary. --10- (5) After making a decision on the project, the Lead Agency shall file a Notice of Determination. (c) An EIR prepared for an earlier project may also be used as part of an Initial Study to document a finding that a later project will not have a significant effect. In this situation a Negative Declaration will be prepared. (d) An EIR for an earlier project shall not be used as the EIR for a later project if any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR." (emphasis added) The City has not suggested in the Environmental Checklist Form that an earlier EIR would apparently be applied to this project. The District further wants to refer the City to several provisions of Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines which further supports the District's position, as follows: "(a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft EIR. (2) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extend possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse. Before requiring the --I I- preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences. (1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. (2) Secondary consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution... (g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of th Lead Agency. (1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. Citx of Hayward, (1980) 106 CalApp. 3d 988). Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project max have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc.., v. City of Los Angeles), (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68). (2) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 CalApp. 3d 988). (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors: --12- (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. (2) If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare and EIR." (emphasis added) The City should have prepared an Environmental Impact Report to thoroughly analyze the impacts of the GME on the District as called for in Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines. It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard to the environmental effects of the GME, and the appropriateness of the Negative Declaration. There is further disagreement among the City Staff and the District's expert, and therefore, the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the effects shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has suggested and supported that the appropriate environmen- tal documentation for the GME is an EIR, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. The District has performed a land use carrying capacity analysis for the territory within the boundaries of the District. Two analyses were performed, one based on the buildout of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan; and the second, on the vacant land in the District as reported in the City of Huntington Beach Vacant Land Survey. Both analyses were concerned only with residential land uses and do not include commercial, industrial, public, open space, or other non-residential land uses. It should be noted that General Plan designations can be changed, so what is considered open space today may be converted to residential at sometime in the future. Of special importance is Bolsa Chica which is now a nature preserve, but parts of which may be annexed into the City and converted to residential uses. The District's General Plan buildout analysis identified 5,324 acres of residentially designated land within the District, of which 23.42 acres are considered planning reserve. At buildout this would result in 30,590 to 55,602 housing units, or 30,754 to 55,953 housing units if the 23.42 acres of planning reserve were computed as medium density residential. The wide range in estimates results from the fact that land use designations specify housing densities as ranges; for example, 7 to 15 housing units per acre for medium density residential. The best estimate of the actual buildout of an area is mid- way between the density range. However, as a community matures, it is likely that densities will increase, moving closer to the high density buildout. The following chart summarizes the buildout potential of the District. --13- Housing Units Low Mid High at Buildout Estimate Estimate Estimate w/o Planning Reserve 30,590 43,096 55,602 [WPR as MDR 30,754 43,354 55,953 According to the 1990 U.S. Census, the District has 31,946 housing units, or slightly more than its low estimated buildout. The following chart shows the number of housing units required to reach buildout. Housing Units to Low Mid High reach Buildout Estimate Estimate Estimate w/o Planning Reserve -1,356 11,150 23,656 Fw/ PR as MDR -1,192 11,408 24,007 The District's vacant land analysis identified 576.64 acres of vacant residentially designated land within the District, of which 5.00 acres are considered planning reserve. If this land were developed, it would result in 4,221 to 7,347 housing units, or 4,256 to 7,422 housing units if the 5 acres of planning reserve were computed as medium density residential. The following chart summarizes the vacant land development potential in the District. Developable Housing Low Mid High Units on Vacant Land Estimate Estimate Estimate w/o Planning Reserve 4,221 5,784 7,347 ,F w/ PR as MDR 4,256 5,839 7,422 The development of these additional housing units will have a significant environmental impact on the District. The additional housing units will result in additional students which the District will be required to house. Unfortunately, the State mandated school development fees will not fully mitigate the impact of these additional students. If the GME fails to consider and address school issues, the District will be severely and adversely impacted by the development of these additional housing units, and the purpose, goals, and objectives of the GME will not be attained. To demonstrate the significant adverse impacts upon the District, an impact analysis has been prepared. This analysis is based on the data contained in the District's recently approved Development Fee Justification Report. —14- I) Student Generation A recent survey of various new developments in the community reflects yield factors, as follows: Grade Level Student Generation Factor K-5 .1779 students/housing unit 6 .0305 students/housing unit 7-8 .0611 students/housing unit Total .2695 students/housing unit Based on the factors described above, the total number of students that will be generated by the mid estimate buildout (11,408 additional housing units) and the mid estimate vacant land development (5,839 additional housing units) is as follows: Grade Level Vacant Buildout K-6 1,216.85 2,377.43 7-8 356.76 697.03 Total 1,573.61 3,074.46 2) Projected Development Fees The current statutory development fees authorized to be collected by the Huntington Beach area school districts are $1.58 per square foot for residential development, and $0.26 per square foot for non-residential. On January 22, 1992 the State Allocation Board increased the maximum chargeable fees to $1.65 and $0.27. On February 18, 1992, the District approved its Updated Development Fee Justification Report. California Law allows school districts to increase fees 60-days following the approval of an Updated Development Fee Justification Report; therefore, the District will begin leaving increased fees on April 18, 1992. Through an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School District, the Huntington Beach City School District receives 61% of these fees. Based upon the increased fee structure and an average housing unit size of 1,600 square feet per housing unit, the total development fees to be collected by the District from the mid estimate buildout (11,408 additional housing units) is estimated to be$18,371,443 and the mid estimate vacant land development(5,839 additional housing units) estimated to be $9,403,126. --15- I 3) Improvement & Land Costs The Huntington Beach City School District's Updated Development Fee justifica- tion Report sets forth school construction cost estimates. Cost estimates from the Report are summarized in the following chart: K-6 per K-6 per 7-8 per 7-8 per Sq Ft Student Sq Ft Student Base Building Cost $95.41 $5,629 $98.29 $7,863 Other Improve- $68.73 $4.055 $71.48 $5,719 ments Total Improve- $164.14 $9,684 $169.77 $13,582 ments Land Cost $12,083 $20,226 Total Costs $21,767 $33,808 The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net building square footage of 35,400 square feet, based upon 59 square feet per student. A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60,000 square feet, based upon 80 square feet per student. The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-6 school site and a 7-8 school site. The requirement is 10 acres for K-6 and 21 acres net for 7-8. The estimates are based on a land cost of $720,000 per acre and $50,000 appraisal and closing costs per site. 4) Total Cost Revenue Surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land costs to the District and the estimated development fee revenues, the following revenue surplus or deficit has been determined: —16- Vacant Only Total Buildout K-6 Cost $26,487.122 $51.749.458 7-8 Cost $12.061,440 $23,565.151 Total Cost $38.548,562 $7S,314,608 Development Fees $9,403.126 $18,371.443 Surplus (Deficit) j ($29,145,436) ($56,943,164) As shown in the preceding chart, the state mandated development fees are insufficient to mitigate the impact of on the District. Development fees are only a partial mitigation that will result in a total unmitigated impact of$29,145,436 to $56,943,164. Therefore,growth management of the development within the City is critical and necessary in order to ensure that adequate public facilities and public services, such as schools, are provided for existing and future residents of the City. It is evident that the GME does not contain policies for the planning and provision of school services and facilities that are necessary for orderly growth and development. 5) Existing District Enrollment Capacity The District is and will continue to experience severe District facility capacity utilization. The following list sets forth the various open District schools, grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991. School Acreage 1990 1991 Ca aci Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 12.19(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle School (6-8) 14.38(±) 1,118 1,115 I,I 10 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 8.31(±) 694 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.62(+ 558 559 540 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach —17- Eader School (K-5) 13.39(, 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach Kettler School (K-5) 9.80(±) 612 698 690 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach Hawes School (K-5) 8.00(+a 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach Moffett School (K-5) 7.56(, 654 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue Huntington Beach Total 5,559 5.68 5,610 The difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms, laboratory, and other reconfigured areas. The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreage Ca aci LeBard School 10.84(+ 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.72(±) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and Child Care Agency) Peterson School 10.98(±) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Community College) Clapp School 4.52(+ 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 14.95(+ 960 21 141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach 6) Statewide School Financing Crisis The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State. There have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements, and that information relative to the District's and State's capability to finance costs in excess of the present$1.65 per square foot of residential and $0.27 per square foot of non-residential, is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts. The State Legislature's adoption of AB 2926, the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted at a time when the Leroy F. Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development. The State's inability to meet its obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact. Development fees only address, at a maximum (depending on land costs), 30%-50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees. The Huntington Beach City School District receives only 61% of development fees paid. II. Failure to Comply with Section 65300 et.seq. of the Government Code a) Inadequate General Plan Consistency Section 65300 et.seq. of the California Government Code sets forth the requirements for the adoption and anendment of a general plan. In addition, General Plan Guidelines have been promulgated by the State of California Office of Planning and Research to guide the preparation of general plans. The Guidelnes set forth a discussion relative to general plan consistency, as follows: 'The concept of internal consistency, as used in California Planning Law, means that no policy conflicts exist, either textual or diagrammatic, between the components of an otherwise complete and adequate general plan. --19- • • In 1975, the Legislature reaffirmed the unitary nature of the general plan by instituting the internal consistency concept as part of basic general plan law: "In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency: (Government Code Section 65300.5) This planning law amendment was supposed to have given legislative legitimacy to internal consistency, but it received varying degrees of attention in the general plan process. Some considered it only a powerless guideline that aimed at achieving an ideal desirable state for a general plan, while others considered it to be a statutory obligation. Not until 1981 did the internal consistency requirement reach its long due full acceptance n California, when the Court of Appeal ruled in Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County(1981) 126 Cal.App.3d 698. This case involved two county general plan elements, land use and open space, which designated conflicting land uses for the same property. Although the County corrected the map inconsistency before the trial court ruled on the case. it nevertheless retained a provision in its general plan text that the land use element would take precedence over the open space element in the event of any inconsistencies. The trial court upheld the precedence clause, but the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, striking down the clause because it violated Government Code Section 65300.5's internal consistency requirement. Through this case, the doctrine of internal consistency was granted judicial legitimacy to accompany the legislative legitimacy it obtained in 1975. The internal consistency requirement has five dimensions of paramount importance to the structure and content of the general plan. I) Equal Status Among General Plan Elements All elements of the general plan have equal legal status. For example, as noted above, the land use and open space elements cannot contain different land use intensity standards rationalized by statements such as "if in any instance there is a conflict between the land use element and the open space element, the land use element controls" (Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County, supra). Because no element is legally subordinate to another, the general plan must resolve potential conflicts between or among the elements through clear language and policy consistency. —20- 2) Consistency Among the Elements (I nter-element Consistency) All general plan elements, whether mandatory or optional, must be consistent with each other. As noted in the previous example, the land use and open space elements should not designate different future land uses for the same site (Sierra Club v. Board of Supervisors of Kern County, supra). As another example of inter-element consistency, a circulation element must address circulation problems resulting from land use element proposals. In Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors (1985) 166 CalApp.3d 90, a county land use element contained proposals that were expected to result in population gains. The County's circulation element failed to make adequate proposals for addressing the resulting traffic impacts. Rather, the element said that funds were unavailable for needed highway improvements. The element's only proposed remedy showed no reasonable prospect for success. The circulation element said that county officials would lobby higher levels of government for highway funding. The court found this unacceptable.. 'To sanction such a device would be to provide counties with an abracadabra.... Indeed, all conflicts between the various elements of a general plan -- no matter how obvious, severe or dramatic -- could be made magically to disappear by inclusion in the plan of the incantation, 'We will lobby for funds to solve the problems causing the conflicts." Consequently, the County's land use and circulation elements were inconsistent (and insufficiently correlated) with each other and thereby in violation of Government Code Section 65300.5. In keeping with Calaveras, a general plan's assumptions, projections, and standards should be uniform and consistent. For example, if the land use and housing elements are based on two separate population projections prepared at different times, their policies may easily conflict. Further, if the land use element's residential designations present a persons per acre standard of density, while the housing element presents an uncorrelated or unreconciled dwelling unit per acre density standard, obvious inconsis- tencies exist. Whenever a jurisdiction adopts a new element or amends part of a plan, it must change the rest of the plan to eliminate any inconsistencies that the new element or amendment creates. The jurisdiction should update the plan at the same time it adopts the new element or amendment, or immediately thereafter. I —21- Last, whenever a planning agency considers adopting a portion of the plan by reference, it should determine that no inherent inconsistencies are present before its adoption, rather than afterward. 3) Consistency within an Element (Intra-Element Consistency) Each element's data,analyses,goals, policies,and implementation programs must be consistent with and complement one another. Established goals, data, and analysis form the foundation for any ensuing policies. For example, if one portion of a circulation element indicates that county roads are sufficient to accommodate the projected level of traffic while another section of the same element describes a worsening traffic situation aggravated by continued subdivision activity, the element cannot be internally consistent(Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County v. Board of Supervisors of Calaveras County (1985) 166 CalApp.3d 90). In turn, policies must form a logical basis for a general plan's implementation programs. For example, a general plan implementation program to create a regional commercial zone district in the zoning ordinance cannot be justified as consistent unless the plan also provides underlying policies for the district. 4) Area Plan Consistency Internal consistency also means that all principles, goals, objectives, policies, and plan proposals set forth in an area or community plan must be consistent with the overall general plan. Planning agencies prepare area plans when necessary refinements in policy cause decision-makers to reduce the general plan's scope to focus on a smaller geographical area or special topics. Because general plans are by definition general in their geographic scope, their designations and delineations are by necessity less precise than those of area plans. The general plan must contain a discussion of the role of area plans and their relationship to the general plan. Similarly, each area plan should discuss its specific relationship to the general plan. In 1986, the Court of Appeal ruled on an area plan that was alleged to be inconsistent with the larger general plan. The court upheld both the area plan and general plan when it found that the general plan's "non-urban/rural" designation, by the plan's own description, was not intended to be interpreted literally or precisely, especially with regard to small areas within larger areas. The court noted that the area plan's "urban residential" designation was pertinent and that there was no inconsistency between the countywide general plan and the area plan (Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. -22- I v. County of Los Angeles (1986) 177 CalApp.3d 300). However, the court also noted that in this particular case, the geographic areas of alleged inconsistency was quite small. 5) Text and Diagram Consistency internal consistency means that the general plan text and diagrams must be consistent with one another since both are integral parts of the plan. A general plan with written policies and programs that conflict with its corresponding diagrams is internally inconsistent. For example, if a general plan's land use element diagram indicates extensive low density residential development in an area where the text describes the presence of prime agricultural land and contains written policies to preserve open space in this area, a conflict exists. The plan's text and diagrams must be reconciled. Recent case law upheld that an area plan's text as well as its diagrams must be examined when determining consistency *Las Virgenes Homeowners Federation. Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, supra). Without consistency in all these areas, the general plan cannot effectively serve as a clear guide to future development. Decision-makers will face conflicting directives; citizens will be confused about the policies and standards the community has selected; and land owners, business, and industry will be unable to rely on the general plan's stated priorities and standards for their own individual decision-making. Beyond this, inconsistencies in the general plan expose the jurisdiction to expensive and lengthy litigation to resolve what already should have been settled." Clearly, Section 65300.5 of the Government Code specifically requires that the general plan, and elements and parts thereof "comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." The District contends that the City's present General Plan is internally inconsistent and that the GME is not consistent and in compliance with the City's other General Plan Elements. The Huntington Beach General Plan states: "A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: � 1) Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general design for the City. 2) Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. --23- 3) Communication - permits the communication of the City's long-range policies to the business community and the public;encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. 4) Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5) Education - facilitates the education of governmental officials and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic, environmental, and social)" The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part: ....3.4.2.5 Housing To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach, by: 1) Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 2) Providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improve- ments, and maintenance in all areas of the City." (emphasis added) "3.4.2.6 Community Facilities To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide for the general public's health, safety, and welfare, by: I) Providing utility systems to meet projected demands. 2) Providing meeting centers for civic and other groups. 3) Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal. 4) Encouraging the proper location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc. 5) Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state, federal, and other governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center...." —24- 'Further, the community facilities element of the General Plan states, in part: "....3.5.6 Policies This section presents the City's policies regarding the provision of community facilities. Implementation of these policies will occur primarily through the implementation of the City's capital improvement program. Additional implementation actions will be required however,such as preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and increased coordination with other entities." (emphasis added) "3.5.6.1 Adequacy of Facilities This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the City's existing community facilities systems. Additional deficiencies may be expected to occur when the City is developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless corrective actions are taken. The following policies state the City's intent to correct existing deficiencies where funding permits and to ensure that new development is adequately served. I 1) Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington Beach. 2) Pursue funding for projects to correct existing deficiencies in community facility systems. 3) Prior to issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the plan, at the time of occupancy. 4) Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and operating costs and staffing requirements for maintenance...." (emphasis added) The common thread throughout the General Plan is the assurance, provision and adequacy of public facilities, including schools as a pre-requisite to development. The GME however does not address schools. I —25- Section 1.0 of the GME states, in part: 'The purpose and intent of the Growth Management Element is to establish goals, j policies,and programs that will promote growth and development based upon the City's ability to provide an adequate circulation system, and public facilities and services...." (emphasis added) Finally, Section 2.2 of the GME states, in part:. 'The Growth Management Element contains policies for the planning and provision of traffic improvements and public services and facilities that are necessary for orderly growth and development. The Element also includes god objectives, policies, and programs for the establishment of specific traffic Level of Service ("LOS') and other public services and facilities standards, development mitigation, and development phasing. In addition, this Element includes an implementation program for annual monitoring...." (emphasis added) In addition, Section 2.3 of the GME states, in part: I "A major goal of the Growth Management Element is to insure that the planning, management, and implementation of traffic improvements and public facilities are adequate to meet the current and projected needs of the City. While this goal is a high priority, it must be achieved while maintaining internal consistency among other elements of the General Plan, as required by State law. Therefore, the Growth Management Element does not replace or supersede any of the other General Plan Elements instead, the Growth Management Element addresses amplifies,and supports traffic LOS,public service and facility standards and policies which are included in the other elements of the General Plan. This element also serves to augment development mitigation, development phasing, and annual monitoring discussions in other general plan elements. The Growth Management Element is the most current expression of the City's growth management policies. This Element most closely interacts with the Land Use Element, Community Facilities Element, and Circulation Element of the General Plan. Interaction with other portions of the General Plan is more limited; however, internal consistency with other general plan elements will be maintained through the pursuit of common major goals. This will be accom- plished by ensuring that land use approvals and/or circulation system improve- ments authorized or required by the Growth Management Element are reviewed for conformance with other goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan." (emphasis added) I —26- i Section 2.4 of the GME states, in part: "While the Growth Management Element provides a significant resource document for future growth management efforts, it is not the final action necessary to establish a comprehensive Growth Management Program for the City. Rather, the intent of this Element is to establish the basic policy for the framework of the General Plan for future implementation actions and programs.... Privately initiated land use element amendments, zone changes, and other discretionary projects considered after the adoption of the Element, will be reviewed for consistency with the policies of this Element. (emphasis added) The following definitions are set forth in the GME: I) "Goal - A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort." 2) "Objectives - Specific statements of a desired future condition toward which the City will expend effort in the context of striving to achieve a broader goal. They should be achievable and where possible,should be measurable,and time-specific." 3) "Policy - A specific statement of principle or guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that the City sets to follow in order to meet its goals and objectives before undertaking an action program." 4) "Program - An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective." 5) "Public Facilities and Services - For purposes of this Element, public facilities and services are defined as, but not limited to, police, fire, parks, drainage, water, sewers, and schools." Finally, Section 4.0 of the GME state, in part: 'The goals of this Element are to: 1) Reduce traffic congestion; and 2) Ensure that adequate transportation and public facilities and public services are provided for existing and future residents of the City. -27- 'These goals shall be accomplished through implementation of the policies and programs set forth in this Element. Achievement of these goals shall be measured by the following objectives..." (emphasis added) Although schools are defined as a "public facility and service", there are not programs, policies, objectives or goals which specifically address "schools", and which ensure consistency with the other elements of the General Plan: The City should note the following case law: 1) If elements of general development plan are found to be insufficiently correlated and inconsistent on review, appropriate remedy is to issue writ of mandate, requiring county's board of supervisors to set-aside inconsistent elements so that they could be amended to achieve statutorily required correlation and consisten- cy. Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (App.4 Dist. 1991) 279 Cal.Rprtr. 421,228 Cal.App.3d 1212, review denied. 2) County's duty to coordinate mitigation measures with school districts in not same as county's duty to adopt only amendments consistent with general plan; duty to coordinate mitigation measures is imposed by terms of general plan itself. Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside(App.4 Dist. 1991) 279 Cal.Rprtr, 421, 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, review denied. 3) School District could bring action against county to allege that its land development plans were inconsistent with provisions of general plan even if district did not officially adopt statement of impaction. Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside (App. 4 Dist. 1991) 279 Cal.Rprtr, 421, 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, review denied. It is the District's contention that the Planning Commissions' recommendation to adopt the GME did not address the GME's inter-element and intra-element consistentency with the City's adopted General Plan. Further, that the GME is not inter-element and intra-element consistent. i 3) Inadequate Referral to Other Agencies I Section 65352 of the Government Code states: 28- I "Prior to action by a legislative body to adopt or substantially amend a general plan, the planning agency shall refer the proposed action to all of the following entities: a) Any city or county, within or abutting the area covered by the proposal, and any special district which may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. b) Any elementary, high school, or unified school district within the area covered by the proposed action. c) The local agency formation commission. d) Any areawide planning agency whose operations may be significant- ly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. e) Any federal agency if its operations or lands within its jurisdiction may be significantly affected by the proposed action, as determined by the planning agency. Each entity receiving a proposed general plan or amendment of a general plan pursuant to this section shall have 45-days from the date the referring agency mails it or delivers it in which to comment unless a longer period is specified by the planning agency. This section is directory, not mandatory, and the failure to refer a proposed section to the other entities specified in this section does not affect the validity of the action, if adopted. To the extent that the requirements of this section conflict with the requirements of Chapter 4.4 (commencing with Section 65919), the requirements of Chapter 4.4 shall prevail." 'The City did not refer the GME to the District prior to the Planning Commissions' consideration of the GME. Further, the District was not given 45-days within which to comment on the GME. We note that this is a directory provision, not a mandatory requirement; however, the past dialogue between the District and the City on school impacts and adequacy of school facilities should have suggested to the City that the referral procedure be followed. -29- i F HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 O HAND DELIVERED BOARD OF TRUSTEES r' G Brian Garland Aril 15 1992 President p ° n Shirley Carey Clerk Robert Mann, Ed- D. - Member Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk Gary Nelson, D.D S City of Huntington Beach Member 2000 Main Street t� Karen O•Bric Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Member Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of April 7, 1992 ADMINISTRATION Agenda Item No. B-5 "Approve Negative Declaration No. 92-3 and Planning Commission Dane A. Dishno, Ed. D Resolution No. 1468 recommending the City Council adopt the Growth Superintendent Management Element as a mandatory element of the General Plan." Alan Rasmussen, Ed- D. Dear Ms. Brockway: Assistant Superintendent Personnel/Educational Services The Huntington Beach City School District ("District") does hereby appeal the Jerry Buchanan April 7, 1992 decision of the Planning Commission relating to the Growth Assistant Superintendent Management Element ("GME") and Negative Declaration No. 92-3. Business Services In order to preserve any and all of the District's remedies, and so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative steps to protect its interests, this appeal to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed within 10 days of Planning Commission action in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Section 9880 states: 9880 Appeal by Applicant or Interested Parties. "Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision,determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made. Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested parry deem himself aggrieved." Pursuant to Section 9883,we have enclosed a check payable to the City Clerk to cover the appeal fee of$200. Pursuant to Section 9884, we request that this appeal be heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this letter and that notice be given to all property owners in the city,pursuant to Section 9883. Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach April 15, 1992 Page 2 It is the District's conclusion that this approval by the Planning Commission will result in financial,operation and administrative impacts on the District. Further, the GME fails to adequately consider school issues, and the City has failed to comply with the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines, as described in the letter placed on the Planning Commission meeting public record by the District(attached): and that the Planning Commission failed to adequately and appropriately consider and deliberate on the oral and written testimony of the District at their April 7, 1992 public hearing. In addition, any and all previous oral and written testimony or documentation submitted to the City on this application is incorporated herein by reference to support the District's contentions. Further explanation as to the grounds by and upon which the District is aggrieved is attached hereto. If you desire additional information or seek additional substantiation of the District's appeal,please feel free to contact the District. Sincerely, Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach City School District Enclosures cc: Mr. John C. Hutt Community Systems Associates, Inc. Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Mr. Mike Adams,Director of Community Development City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach D— coo P Community Systems Associates, Inc. j April 7, 1992 /' 0 Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Growth Management Element Negative Declaration No. 92-3 Agenda Item No. B-5 Dear Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission: On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School .District ("District), we hereby provide the following written testimony to be entered into the public hearing record on the Growth Management Element ("GME') and Negative Declaration No. 92-3. The District-does hereby oppose and object to any action of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach to accept as adequate Negative Declaration No. 92-3 and/or to approve the GME. -The GME fails to adequately consider school issues, and the City has failed to comply with the procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA') and the CEQA Guidelines, as follows: 1) The City did not properly notify the District as required under CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; 2) Negative Declaration No. 92-3 is inadequate to evaluate the environmental effects of the GME, and an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR') should be prepared; I 3) The GME may result in significant adverse environmental impacts on the District which should be evaluated in the environmental documentation. This letter summarizes the Districts objections to the approval of the GME, and sets forth its opposition. Comprehensive justification for the Districts positions are set forth in Attachment "B". It is the Districts conclusion that the GME as proposed, the findings of the Staff Report, and the contents of Negative Declaration No. 92-3, do not comply with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, or applicable provisions of the Government Code. 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 FAX(714)838-9998 �fil Community Systems As (es,(nc7n!;a� t- April 7, 1992 Page 2 The District recommends the Planning Commission's: 1) Denial of Negative Declaration No. 92-3 on the grounds that it is an inadequate environmental document according to CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that the City has failed to comply with the procedures and requirements of CEQA, that the GME may result in a significant environmental impact on the District which should be evaluated in an EIR, as required and set forth in CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines; and 2) Denial of the GME based upon the inadequacy of environmental documentation, and its failure to adequately consider school issues. or, if the City desires approval at this time, 3) Inclusion of the Districts recommended changes to the GME, as set forth in Attach- ment "A", which_ would protect the District's interests and ensure reasonable and adequate school facilities in the City. We ask that this letter and attachments be placed into the public record of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach relative to its consideration of the GME and -Negative Declaration No. 92-3. This letter is intended to maintain and protect the District's administrative and legal remedies, and is set forth to challenge the adequacy of the environmental documentation, and compliance of the applications with regard to the California Environmental Quality Act and applicable provisions of State law. All prior correspondences transmitted to the City of Huntington Beach and any oral or written testimony provided at study sessions and/or public hearings relating to he above-stated matters, are incorporated herein by reference. Thank you for your consideration and assistance. Sincerely, COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. r� C ohn C. Hutt Associate cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach City School District EsizCommumry spwfems As .In � Attachment "A" Recommended Changes to the Growth Management Element 4.0 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES Under "4.1 Objectives" add: "Provide adequate school facilities to ensure quality education for all residents of the City." 5.0 POLICIES Add: "5.9 Schools 5.9.1 Provide adequate school facilities for all areas of the City. 5.9.2 Ensure new development provides for its share of school facilities. 5.9.3 Encourage cooperation and coordination with the school and community college districts with jurisdiction in the City." 6.0 PROGRAMS add: "6.1.9 Schools a. Update the Community Facilities Element. b. Require all new development to pay its share of the school facilities costs associated with that development. c. Identify development mitigation requirements in the project review and approval process. d. Require all developers to enter into an Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement with the affected school districts or have said requirement waved by the school districts) e. Conduct at least one meeting each year with the school and community college districts with jurisdiction in the City to discuss issues of mutual concern. A- Community Systems Associates.Inc. ONF-- -"Wv, Attachment "B" Failure to Comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines Lack of Proper Notification The City should have consulted with the District upon deciding to prepare an Initial Study for the GME. Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: "....(g) Consultation. As soon as a Lead Agency has determined that an Initial Study will be required for the project, the Lead Agency shall consult informally with all Responsible Agencies and all Trustee Agencies responsible for resources affected by the project to obtain the recommendations of those agencies as to whether an E1R or a Negative Declaration should be prepared." The City did not consult with the District with regard to the resources affected by the application to which the District is responsible for, and did not obtain the recommendation of the District as to whether an EIR or Negative Declaration should be prepared. Upon determining to prepare a Negative Declaration, the City should have sent a copy of the proposed Negative Declaration to the District and allowed the District to provide comments to the Negative. Declaration. Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: 15072 (a) Notice that the Lead Agency proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration shall be provided to the public within a reasonable period of time prior to adoption by the Lead Agency of the Negative Declaration. Notice shall be given to all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice and shall also be given by a least one of the following procedures: (1) Publication at least one time by the Lead Agency in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. (2) Posting of the notice by the Lead Agency on and off site in the area where the project is to be located. (3) Direct mailing to owners of property contiguous to the project as such owners are shown on the latest equalized assessment roll." (emphasis added) In previous letters to the City dated May 17, 1991 and January 29, 1992, the District requested to be.notified of such projects. B-I Row �Commundly�Synlems =ram Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: 15073 (a) The Lead Agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. (b) A copy of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agent with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project." Though the City is required to notify the District under both Section 15072 and 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines, the District did not receive notice or a copy of the proposed Negative Declaration. Inadequacy of Negative Declaration No. 92-3 The Environmental Checklist to Negative Declaration No. 92-3 states that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on schools. "14(c) - Public Facilities (Schools) Discussion: No new schools will be required as a result of the Growth Management Element. The Element does not propose any policies which will impact school develop- ment." However, the control of growth directly affects the amount of additional school facilities required. The City cannot reasonably find that there is no correlation between growth and school impacts. Further, the GME addresses the provision of public facilities in accordance with levels of growth. If the GME fails to ensure the provision of adequate school facilities when considering other public facilities, additional growth in the City could have a significant adverse impact on the District. Hence, the Planning Commission cannot find that there is no significant -adverse impact on the District without considering the impact of growth on school facilities. The City should prepare a Environmental Impact Report to thoroughly analyze the impacts of the project on the District as called for in Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines: "Section 15064. (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. B-2 !U�2\ + 6ommimay Systems Assonates.\;7MA ' (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft El R. (2) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 . for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful Judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. I (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held'by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequenc- es. (1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. (2) Secondary consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution.... (g) The decision as to whether a project may-'have one or more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of the Lead Agency. (1) if the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988). Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a_project may B-3 LcommunayESYSIemsAssccnfes.MInczaai "M W have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Ca1.3d 68). (2) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street'v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal-App. 3d 988). (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors; (1) If there is serious public controversy_over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. (2) " If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR." (emphasis added) j It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard to the environmental effects of the GME, and the appropriateness of the Negative,Declaration. There is further disagreement among the City Staff and the Districts expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the effects shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has f suggested and supported that the appropriate environmental documentation for the GME is an I EIR, pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines. _ - I E i B-4 GROWTH MANAGEMENT ELEMENT AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 92-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Huntington Beach City Council will hold a public hearing in the Council Chamber at the Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California, on the date and at the time indicated below to receive and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard relative to the application described below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 20, 1992, 7: 00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Growth Management Element and Negative Declaration No. 92-3 APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: City-wide ZONE: City-wide REQUEST: To adopt a resolution which incorporates the Growth Management Element as a mandatory element into the General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: Negative Declaration No. 92-3 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development 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 City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after April 17, 1992 . ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any further questions please call Susan Pierce, Associate Planner at 536-5271 . Connie Brockway City Clerk (2862d) SLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST • MAILING LABELS (1211D) 5/19/91 President William D. Holman Planning Director H.B. Chamber of Commerce Huntington Beach Co. City of Westminster 2213 Main St. #32 2110 Main St. 8200 Westminster Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hunt. Bch., CA 92648-2499 Westminster, CA 92683 Board President Pres., H.B. Hist. Society Planning Director H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors C/O Newland House Museum City of Seal Beach 8101 Slater Ave. 19820 Beach Blvd. 211 Eight St. Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, CA 90740 President Chairperson CA Coastal Commission Amigos De Bolsa Chita Historical Resources Bd. Theresa Henry 15545 Computer Lane Comm. Services Dept. 245 W. Broadway, Ste 380 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 2000 Main St. Long Bch, CA 90802 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Charles Grant Robert Joseph Friends of the HB Wetlands Council on Aging Caltrans District 12 21902 Kiowa Lane 1706 Orange Ave. 2501 Pullman St. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Ruth Galanter Edna Littlebury Dire for / Coastal Conservancy Golden St. Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. Local SoollidWaste Enf. Agy. P.O. Box 66494 11021 Magnolia Blvd. O.C. Hearth/Care Agency Los Angeles, CA 90066 Garden Grove, CA 92642 P.O. Bob 355,, SantaiAna, CA 92702 President County of Orange/EMA Dominick Tomai Huntington Beach Tomorrow Michael M. Ruane, Dir. Seacliff-H - owners Assoc. 411 6th St. P.O. Box 4048 6812 Scen' Bay Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Julie Vandermost BIA-OC County of Orange/EMA Huntington Harbor HOA 2001 E. 4th St. #224 Thomas Mathews, Dir, Planning P. 0. Bo' .1791 Santa Ana, CA 92705 P. 0. Box 4048 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer SCAG County of Orange/EMA Bill Lilly:- 818 West 7th, 12th Floor Bob Fisher, Dir. HHHOA A5C Los Angeles, CA 90017 P.O. Box 4048 16835�Algonquin St. #119 Santa Ana, CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 E.T.I. Corral 100 Planning Dir. New Growth Coordinator Mary Bell City of Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Post Office 20292 Eastwood Cir. P. 0. Box 1200 6771 Warner Ave. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1200 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 F \ Chairman, Environmental Board Planning Dir. � Comm. Dev. Dept. City of Fountain Valley F/�zabe�h omrrm%S ;o�2000 Main St. 10200 Slater Ave. 5 �+� ta~ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 5aCyomP,.n7Vj `f Dr. Monte McMurray, Superintendent Oceanview School District 17200 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Mr. David J. Hagan, Superintendent Huntington Beach Union High School District I 10251 Yorktown Avenue , Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Dr. Dwayne Dishno, Superintendent —` Huntington Beach City School District P. O. Box 71 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dr. Gail Wickstrom, Superintendent Westminster School District 14121 Cedarwood Westminster, CA 92683 Dr. Ruben L. Ingram, Superintendent Fountain Valley School District 17210 Oak Street Fountain Valley, CA 92708 O E eru�-n C d 1� STATE OF CAUFORNIA County of Orange I am a Citizen of the United States and a _ resident of the County aforesaid; I ant over the PUBLIC NOTICE age of eighteen ears, and not a a to or NOTICE OF 9 9 Y party PUBLIC HEARING interested in the below entitled matter. I am a GROWTH GEMENT principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON BEACH ELEM ENT AND NEGATIVE INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of general DECLARATION circulation, printed and published in the City of NOTICE. 91S. HEREBY GIVEN hat Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of Beach tCitythCouncilngto will California, and that attached Notice is a true and hold a Chc hearing In the Councill Chamber at the complete copy as was printed and published in Huntington Beach Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, Califor- the Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley He time Indicatedn the t andlow aotre- issues of said newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: stave and consider the statements of all persons who wish to be heard rela- tive to the application de- scribed below. DATE/TIME: Monday, April 20,1992,7:00 PM APPLICATION NUMBER: Growth Management Ele- ment and Negative Decla- ration No.92-3 APPLICANT: City of Hun- tin on Beach LCATION:City-wide ZONE:C April 9, 1992 REQUEST Toe adopt a resolution which Incorpo- rates the Growth Manage- ment Element as a manda- tory element Into the Gen- eral Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL STA- TUS: Negative Declaration No.92.3 COASTAL STATUS: Not applicable ON FILE: A copy of the Proposed request is on file n the Community Develop- ment Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington 648, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the Beach,InspeCalifction by 92pub- for Inspection b the pub- lic. A copy of the staff re- foregoing is true and connea port will be available to in- terested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library Executed an April 9 t 99?� Vpril Talbert Avenue)after April1T bent ALL INTERESTED PER- nd at Costa Mesc,4 California said SONhearing aareandae press .Zl opinions or submit evi- dence for or against the application as outlined above. If there are any tur- ther questions please call Signature Susan Pierce, Associate Planner at 536-5271. Connl• Brockway, City Clark Published Huntington Beach Independent April 9, 1992 042-476 PROOF OF PUBLICATION n